HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES-1999-039 Resolution to deny Zoning Atlas Amendment for Lawrence Park Planned Development qc
DES-
Upon motion of Commissioner Brown seconded by
Commissioner Halkiotis , the foregoing Resolution of the
Orange County Board of County Commissioners to Deny Zoning Atlas
Amendment for Lawrence Park Planned Development was adopted this
the 13T day of June, 1999 .
I, Beverly A. Blythe, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that
the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of
said Board at a meeting held on June 1, 1999 as relates in any
way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings
are recorded in Minute Book No. 28 of the minutes of said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this 4th day
of June 1999 .
Clerk to the Xoai -'o ssioners
�ountr of
r41
o
o�t A�O�
E
RESOLUTION
OF THE
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TO DENY
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
FOR
LAWRENCE PARK PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
Date June 1, 1999
Owner /Applicant Meadowmont Farms, LLC
The Board of County Commissioners hereby denies approval of an application
submitted by Meadowmont Farms, LLC, to amend the Orange County Zoning
Atlas by rezoning an 83.216 acre parcel, identified in the Orange County Land
Records Office by Parcel Identification Number 9883 -19 -4355, from a Rural
Residential (R -1) district to a Planned Development Housing, Low and Medium
Intensity, (PD -H -R3) district. The PD -H -R3 district does not facilitate protection
of the character of surrounding neighborhoods as required by Article 7,, section
7.1, of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. The PD -H -R3 district would result
in a use that would be incompatible with neighboring land uses because of the
higher density of the proposed planned development compared to most of the
surrounding area.
g:\plandev\pd398\denypd.res\5-26-99\kI
I
A
FINDINGS OF THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
PERTAINING TO
APPLICATION: PD -3 -98 LAWRENCE PARK SUBDIVISION
17
Planned developments must comply with general and specific standards as set forth in Article 8 for Special Uses as well
as those set forth in Article 7 for Planned Developments. Article 8.2.1 b) requires written findings certifying compliance
with the following:
(1) Specific regulations governing individual Special Uses as set forth in Article 8.8. These
regulations are divided into two (2) sections which include:
(a) Application components; and
(b) Specific standards for Planned Developments (Article 8.8.23 refers to Article 7
standards) and Special Uses (Article 8.2.4).
(2) Other requirements as set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, including the provisions of Article 6
(Application of Dimensional Requirements).
Listed below are the findings of the Orange County Planning Board regarding the application in question. These findings
address requirements for each Article of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to this application and are presented here to
assist the Board of County Commissioners in its deliberations.
ARTICLE 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ( "Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non - compliance)
PLANNING BOARD OF COUNTY
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
8.6- Application submitted on
_x—Yes No
Submittal includes application
Yes No
forms providing full and
forms, site plan, project
accurate description of
summary, and supporting
proposed use, including
documentation on the sewage
location, appearance and
disposal system.
operational characteristics.
8.8 a)- twenty -six (26) copies of
_x—Yes No
26 copies of the site plan were
Yes No
the site plan prepared by a
provided by the John R.
registered N.C. land surveyor
McAdams Co. Inc.
or engineer containing:
1. North point, scale and date
_x—Yes No
Shown on the site plan.
Yes No
2. Extent of area to be developed
_x—Yes No
Site plan indicates extent
Yes No
of area to be developed.
3. Location and width of all
No
The rights -of -way of
Yes No
easements and rights -of -way
_x—Yes
Lawrence Road, US 70A
within or adjacent to the site
and all proposed roads, as
well as required easements
are shown on the site plan.
4. Location of all existing or
No
Existing structures are shown.
Yes No
proposed structures on the
_x—Yes
Proposed locations are not
site
required for single - family
detached residential units.
5. Location of all areas on the
_x—Yes No
There are no flood hazard
Yes No
site subject to flood hazard
areas indicated on the flood
or inundation as shown on
maps. Stormwater detention
flood maps or soil maps
facilities are indicated on the
g: \plandev\pd398\pd- 3- 98.fof15- 26 -99Ud
18
site plan to control stormwater
runoff.
ARTICLES 8.6 AND 8.8 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS (Continued)
PLANNING BOARD OF COUNTY
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
6. Location of all water courses
No
Two intermittent streams
Yes
No
on the site, including the
_x—Yes
are indicated.
direction of flow
7. Existing topography at a
_x—Yes
No
Topography is provided at
Yes
No
contour interval of five 15) feet
five -foot contour intervals.
based on mean sea level datum
8. Proposed or existing fencing,
_x—Yes
No
Proposed parking at the
Yes
No
screening, gates, parking,
recreation areas is indicated
service and storage areas
on the plan.
9. Access to site including sight
_x—Yes
No
Sight distances at Lawrence
Yes
No
distances on all roads used
Road are shown on the plan.
for access
10. Elevations of all structures
_N /A_Yes
No
Not required for single - family
Yes
No
proposed to be used in the
detached structures.
development
11. Names and addresses of
_x—Yes
No
Provided with application.
Yes
No
owners and applicants
12. A fee; as set by the Board
_x—Yes
No
$ 1,125.00 application fee paid
Yes
No
of County Commissioners
on 7/28/98.
g: Xplandev\pd398\pd- 3- 98.fof&26 -99Ud
W
ARTICLE 8.2.4 SPECIFIC STANDARDS /ALL SPECIAL USES ( "Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non - compliance)
Ordinance Requirements
Article 8.2.4 requires the applicant
to address the following:
a) Method and adequacy of
provision for sewage disposal
facilities, solid waste and
water service.
b) Method and adequacy of police,
fire and rescue squad protection.
c) Method and adequacy of vehicle
access to the site and traffic
conditions around the site.
g: Wandev\pd398\pd- 3- 98.fofZ- 26 -99Ud
PLANNING BOARD OF COUNTY
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
_x—Yes No Water lines exist in Lawrence Yes
Road and US 70A. Both lines
will be used to form a loop
system through the development.
Sanitary sewer will be extended
from the Meadowlands develop-
ment which is located approximately
one -half mile west of the
intersection of Lawrence Road
and US 70A. A lift station is
proposed in Lawrence Park
Subdivision which will connect
to the sewer line in US 70A.
This line will serve Highroads
Mobile Home Park and Lawrence
Park Subdivision. Solid waste
will be collected by private
contract service.
x Yes No Letters from the Orange County _
Sheriff, Emergency Services, and
Orange Rural Fire Department
were provided with the application.
All agencies will be able to provide
services, however, the Sheriff's
Office indicates an additional
deputy, vehicle and equipment
will be needed.
No
Yes No
Yes x No The development has access to Yes
Lawrence Road and US 70A.
Turn lanes will be constructed
at both intersections. Sight
distances at both intersections
are excellent. Stubouts will be
provided to the south and east of
the property. A third access point
will connect the site to the existing
right -of -way for Lori Drive to the
south. The Planning Staff is
recommending the developers
construct Lori Drive to NCDOT
standards down to Lannie Drive.
NCDOT has indicated they will
accept Lori Drive for maintenance
if it is constructed to their standards.
No
W
ARTICLE 8.8.23 SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS
Article 8.8.23 indicates that the application shall comply with the applicable sections of Article 7 - Planned Developments
ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ( "Yes" indicates compliance; "No"
indicates non - compliance)
Ordinance Reauirements
Article 7.4 indicates the application
must first comply with all requirements
specified in Article 20 - Amendments.
Those requirements include:
20.3.2 a) Map showing affected
property at scale of not less than
1 " =100' nor more than 1 " = 20'
20.3.2 b) Legal description of
property
20.3.2 c) Explanation of alleged
error, if any, to be corrected by
proposed amendment
20.3.2 d) Changed conditions, if
any, which make amendment
reasonably necessary to promote
public health, safety and general
welfare
20.3.2 e) Manner in which
proposed amendment will carry
out purpose and intent of
adopted Comprehensive Plan
g:\ plandev\pd398\pd- 3- 98.fofZ- 26 -99Ud
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
_x—Yes No Site plan provided at a scale
of 1"=100'.
_x—Yes No The legal description was
provided with the application.
N /A_Yes No N/A - No error alleged.
_N /A_Yes No N/A - No change is suggested
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
_x—Yes No The site is located in an area Yes No
designated as 20 year transition
area in the Land Use Element of
the adopted Comprehensive Plan
which allows for higher density
residential with the extension of
water and sewer.
t
ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (continued)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
Article 4.2 identifies the criteria
which will normally be used to
determine the application of a
zoning district designation. The
applicant has applied for a
Planned Development - Housing -R3
designation. The criteria for the
Residential -3 district are set forth
in Article 4.2.4 and are as follows:
a) Designated by the adopted _x—Yes No
Comprehensive Plan as a
Transition Area, which can
reasonably be expected to be
annexed by a municipality in
the ensuing 10 -20 years.
b) Water and sewer lines should _x—Yes No
exist at the site or be assured
of installation as part of the
development process.
c) Vehicular access must consist of _x—Yes No
direct access to a street classified
as either arterial or collector as
designated by the adopted
Comprehensive Plan.
g: \plandev \pd398\pd- 3- 98.fof15- 26 -99Ud
21
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS
The property is designated as
20 year transition on the
Orange County Comprehensive
Plan.
Water lines exist at the site.
Sewer lines are proposed to be
extended to the site from the
Meadowlands development.
US 70A and Lawrence Road
are designated as collectors
in the Comprehensive
Plan.
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
22
ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued)
7.4.2 So located with respect to _x—Yes No The proposed development will Yes No
water, sewer and storm drainage have access to public water.
facilities that enlargement or Sewer must be extended to the
extension will not result in site and storm drainage facilities
higher net public cost or earlier installed by the developer;
incursion of public cost therefore, no higher net public
cost will result.
and
So located with respect to police, Yes _x—No Letters regarding adequate Yes No
fire and rescue services, and service provision have been
schools and parks so as to have received from the Sheriff's
access in the same manner as Department, fire, rescue and
permitted under the existing the schools. The Sheriff's
zoning Office indicates an additional
deputy, vehicle and equipment
will be needed. The schools are
at or over capacity.
7.4.3 Site suitable for
PLANNING
BOARD OF COUNTY
intermittent streams on the
BOARD
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED COMMISSIONERS
soil subsidence or slipping
FINDINGS
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
detention ponds proposed to
Article 7.4 then indicates the
control stormwater runoff.
application must comply with
on the Special Use Permit that the
certain specific requirements
applicant shall develop a stormwater
common to all Planned
N.C. Division of Water Quality before
Developments. These include:
construction begins.
7.4.1 So located with respect to
_x—Yes No
The proposed lots will have Yes No
major streets and mass transit
access to US 70A and
facilities and designed so as not
Lawrence Road, which are
to create traffic on minor streets
designated as collectors in
in residential districts
the Comprehensive Plan. The
connection to Lori Drive will
create minimal traffic on Lannie
Drive.
7.4.2 So located with respect to _x—Yes No The proposed development will Yes No
water, sewer and storm drainage have access to public water.
facilities that enlargement or Sewer must be extended to the
extension will not result in site and storm drainage facilities
higher net public cost or earlier installed by the developer;
incursion of public cost therefore, no higher net public
cost will result.
and
So located with respect to police, Yes _x—No Letters regarding adequate Yes No
fire and rescue services, and service provision have been
schools and parks so as to have received from the Sheriff's
access in the same manner as Department, fire, rescue and
permitted under the existing the schools. The Sheriff's
zoning Office indicates an additional
deputy, vehicle and equipment
will be needed. The schools are
at or over capacity.
7.4.3 Site suitable for
_x—Yes No There are two designated Yes No
development without hazard
intermittent streams on the
from flooding, erosion, and
property. Both will flow through
soil subsidence or slipping
an area designated as protected
open space. There are also two
detention ponds proposed to
control stormwater runoff.
If approved, a condition may be placed
on the Special Use Permit that the
applicant shall develop a stormwater
management plan to be approved by
N.C. Division of Water Quality before
construction begins.
g:W andev\pd398\pd- 3- 98.fofZ- 26 -99Ud
23
ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued)
a) 4. 100 -foot open space provided No
PLANNING
BOARD OF COUNTY
along perimeter. Parking and
BOARD
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED COMMISSIONERS
off - street parking set back at
FINDINGS
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
a) 5. Yards, fences, walks or No
Parking around the recreation Yes No
Article 7.14.3 sets forth "site
areas will be screened by
off undesirable views,
planning" standards with which
lighting, noise, etc. Parking/
vegetation.
an applicant must comply.
collection /storage areas screened.
Standards regarding "external
a) 6. Maximum building height _x—Yes No
N/A - Maximum building height Yes No
relationships" are as follows:
in R3 district is 25 feet.
forth in Article 6.12.3 and
a) 1. Access points provided to
_x—Yes No
Access will be provided via Yes No
encourage smooth traffic
and zoning permits.
new public roads to Lawrence
flow with controlled turning
accordance with Article 9.
Road and US 70A. Turn lanes
movements and minimum
be required to meet NCDOT and
will be constructed on these
hazard to vehicular or
roads. No minor streets will
pedestrian traffic. Use of
be subjected to substantial
minor streets by substantial
traffic.
traffic is discouraged.
a) 2. Safe and convenient routes
No
Five foot sidewalks are proposed Yes No
provided for pedestrians
_x—Yes
on both sides of all streets,
and motorcyclists. Crossings
allowing for safe pedestrian
safely marked, located and
circulation along proposed rights -
controlled.
of -way. Crossings are marked
and located on the site plan.
a) 3. Visibility provided at intersections
No
Sight distances are excellent Yes No
(pedestrian and vehicular) in
_x—Yes
at Lawrence Road and US 70A.
accordance with Article 6.8.
Interior sight triangles to be
dedicated will meet NCDOT
standards.
a) 4. 100 -foot open space provided No
100 foot open space is provided Yes No
_x—Yes
along perimeter of PD -H
along perimeter. Parking and
district. Recreational use and
active recreational uses are set
off - street parking set back at
back at least 75 feet from
least 75 feet of district boundary.
boundaries.
a) 5. Yards, fences, walks or No
Parking around the recreation Yes No
_x—Yes
vegetation provided to screen
areas will be screened by
off undesirable views,
existing and proposed
lighting, noise, etc. Parking/
vegetation.
loading areas and refuse
collection /storage areas screened.
a) 6. Maximum building height _x—Yes No
N/A - Maximum building height Yes No
complies with standards set
in R3 district is 25 feet.
forth in Article 6.12.3 and
Compliance will be determined
Article 5.1.1.
prior to issuance of building
and zoning permits.
a) 7. Signs to be erected in _x—Yes No
An entrance sign at Lawrence —Yes No
accordance with Article 9.
Road is indicated. All signs will
be required to meet NCDOT and
Zoning Ordinance requirements.
9: \plandev1pd398\pd- 3- 98.fof&26 -991k1
24
ARTICLE 7 - SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION /PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS (Continued)
PLANNING
BOARD EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
FINDINGS TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
Standards regarding "internal relationships" are as follows:
b) 1. Streets, drives and parking
areas provide safe and
convenient access for
dwellings and emergency
vehicles, and do not create
small block sizes.
b► 2. Vehicular access controlled
as follows:
a) Streets serving 50 or
less dwellings provide
direct access to
parking /service areas.
b) Streets serving greater
than 50 dwellings provide
access to parking areas
so located, designed and
controlled as to channel
traffic without interruption.
b) 3. Walkways form safe, convenient
system of access to dwellings,
facilities and off -site designations.
Maximum walking distance
between dwellings and parking;
delivery and refuse collection
areas does not exceed 100 feet.
Walkways used as play areas
or school routes by children
located and designated to
minimize contact with
vehicular traffic. Crossings
appropriately marked and
safeguarded.
b) 4. Protection of visibility -
See a)3. and W. above.
b) 5. Open space and spacing
between buildings -
See Article 6 standards.
g: Wandev\pd398\pd- 3- 98.fofW- 26 -99Ud
_x—Yes No
_x—Yes
_x—Yes
No
The proposed road system is
sufficient to provide access
for residents, visitors, and
emergency vehicles.
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS
Public roads will provide access
to the parking /recreation areas.
No Public roads will provide access
that channels traffic without
interruption to the parking/
recreation area.
_x—Yes No Five foot sidewalks are proposed
on both sides of the streets.
Refuse collection will be by
private contractor.
x_Yes No Sidewalks on both sides of the
street allow for safe pedestrian
circulation. Crossings will be
marked as indicated on the
site plan.
_x—Yes No Sight triangles are to be
dedicated at all road inter-
sections to meet NCDOT
requirements.
_x—Yes No Open space requirements
are met with a total of 26.01
acres to be preserved
including 7.07 acres of
improved recreation area.
Payment will be made in lieu
of public dedication ($100,014).
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
} 25
ARTICLE 6 - APPLICATION OF DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS ("Yes" indicates compliance; "No" indicates non
compliance)
Required minimum recreation
space - 281,061 sq. ft.
Note: See Appendix A for "Definitions ".
g: \plandev \pd398\pd- 3- 98.fofZ- 26 -99Ud
PLANNING
BOARD OF COUNTY
BOARD
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
FINDINGS
Ordinance Requirements
-
Article 6 lists specific standards
which apply to various types
of development applications.
Article 6.12 contains those
development intensity standards
which apply to group developments
controlled by the Land Use Intensity
(LUI) system.
a) Minimum gross land area -
_x—Yes No
Applicant's site contains 83.795
Yes No
30,000 sq. ft.
acres in Orange County. The
gross land area is 3,650,144
sq. ft.
b) Maximum gross land area -
_x—Yes No
Article 5.1.2 of the Zoning
Yes No
None specified sq. ft.
Ordinance.
c) Maximum floor ratio - .100.
_x—Yes No
Maximum permitted by ordinance
Yes No
Maximum floor area permitted -
is 365,014 sq. ft. Applicant's
365,014 sq. ft.
plan indicates (in table) the
proposed floor area is 365,014
sq. ft. based on 1540 sq. ft.
homes.
d) Required minimum open space
_x—Yes No
Applicant's plan indicates
Yes No
ratio - .80. Required minimum
3,380,915 sq. ft. of open space.
open space - 2,920,091 sq. ft.
e) Required minimum livability
_x—Yes No
Applicant's submission indicates
Yes No
space ratio - .65. Required
2,764,067 sq. ft.
minimum livability space -
2,372,593 sq. ft.
f) Required minimum recreation
_x—Yes No
Applicant's submission indicates
Yes No
space ratio - .077.
308,229 sq. ft.
Required minimum recreation
space - 281,061 sq. ft.
Note: See Appendix A for "Definitions ".
g: \plandev \pd398\pd- 3- 98.fofZ- 26 -99Ud
ARTICLE 8.2.1 & 8.2.2 - APPLICATION COMPONENTS ( "Will" indicates compliance; "Will Not" indicates non -
compliance)
Ordinance Requirements
In accordance with Article 8.2.1
and 8.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance,
the Board of Adjustment shall also
consider the following general
conditions before the application
for Special Use shall be approved:
Article 8.2.1 & 8.2.2
1. The use will maintain or
promote the public health,
safety and general welfare,
if located where proposed
and developed and operated
according to the plan as
submitted.
Article 8.2.1
2. The use will maintain or
enhance the value of
contiguous property (unless
the use is a public necessity,
in which case the use need
not maintain or enhance the
value of contiguous property).
Article 8.2.1
3. The location and character
of the use, if developed
according to the plan
submitted, will be in harmony
with the area in which it is to
be located and the use is in
compliance with the general
plan for the physical develop-
ment of the County as embodied
in these regulations or in the
Comprehensive Plan, or portion
thereof, adopted by the Board
of County Commissioners.
g: Wandev\pd398\43d- 3- 98.fofZ- 26 -99Ud
PLANNING
BOARD
FINDINGS
x- - -Will _Will Not
Will x Will Not
Is x Is Not
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
TO SUPPORT FINDINGS
The use is proposed in a
20 year transition area
with public water and
sewer. Roads will meet
NCDOT requirements with
additional improvements to
Lawrence road and US 70A.
The submitted application for
Environmental Assessment
has been received from the
State Clearinghouse.
26
BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
FINDINGS
Applicant submitted only
A letter by a real estate
appraiser indicating that,
in his opinion the use will
maintain or enhance the value
contiguous property. Applicant
submitted no actual data nor
comparative analysis of values
of surrounding properties and
homes to support the claim that
the development would maintain
the value of contiguous property.
Will Will Not
_Will _Will Not
The development will not be in Is Is Not
harmony with the surrounding +
area because the proposed density
is too high to be compatible with
existing development. While the
proposed density is consistent
with that allowed within a 20 -year
transition area and this area is
designated as a 20 -year transition
area in the Comprehensive Plan,
the timing is not right for this type
of development at this location.
27
Staff Analysis:
Lawrence Park
Proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment and
Special Use Permit for a Planned Development
After citizen input at the November 23, 1998, and February 22, 1999, public
hearings, planning staff prepared a revised recommendation which was
presented to the Planning Board on April 7, 1999. The staff recommended that
the board deny the PD -H -R3 zoning and approve the application with a PD -H -R2
zoning (approve the Zoning Atlas amendment for 83.216 acres from R -1 to PD-
H-R2; approve the Special Use Permit for 181 residential lots (PD lot yield
allowed in a PD -H -R2 district.) Planning staff based that recommendation on the
following observations:
• The proposed lot widths of 65 feet and lot sizes of 7,500 square feet are
significantly smaller than surrounding development. If this property were
rezoned to an R -3 zoning district (not in a planned development), each lot
would require 15,000 square feet outside of road rights -of -way. The density
that could be obtained would be less than that proposed by the planned
development. If the proposed road network and the proposed recreation
and open space areas were included in the development, an R -3 zoning
district would yield approximately 177 lots. An R -2 zoning district, other
factors being held constant, would yield approximately 133 lots. The PD -H-
R2 zoning would allow 181 lots to be developed compared with the 237 lots
that are proposed. This is more in keeping with the R -3 density.
ZONING TOTAL ACREAGE ACREAGE MINUS ROW
AND RECREATION
AREA
# OF LOTS
R -1
83.215
61.039
66
R -2
83.215
61.039
133
PD -H -R2
83.215
181
R-3
83.215
61.039
177
PD -H -R3
83.315
241
• This area is designated as a 20 -year transition area in the Land Use Plan
that was adopted in September, 1981 (eighteen years ago). The Land Use
Plan category description of a 20 -year transition area is "Land located in
areas that are in the process of changing from rural to urban, that are
g:\plandev\pd398\analysis.rec\5-26-99\kI
suitable for urban -type densities and should be provided with public utilities
and services within the second 10 -year phase of the Plan."
Planning staff further noted that this type of development would be suitable as a
receiving area for development under a Transfer of Development Rights program
if such a program were in place. If such a program were in place, the developer
could purchase development rights for the increase in density requested in the
submitted proposal for a PD -H -R3 zoning.
At the April 7, 1999, Planning Board meeting, several board members expressed
interest in the staff recommendation; however, the applicant stated that the
developers are not interested in pursuing any less density for the development
than the PD -H -R3 as proposed in the application.
g:\plandev\pd398\analysis.rec\5-26-99\kI