Laserfiche WebLink
JAN 16 1985. <br />_I <br />BOOK 59 r.,1,r 584 <br />TO: The Honorable Members DATE: January 7, 1985 FILE: <br />of the Board of <br />County Commissioners <br />PROPOSED PLANNED <br />RESIDENTIAL <br />SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT (PRD) <br />ORDINANCE <br />FROM:Robert M. Heating, AI PNEFERENCES: <br />Planning & Development Director <br />It is requested that the data herein presented be given <br />formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at <br />their regular meeting of January 16, 1985. <br />DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS <br />The.first section of the new zoning code to be completed is <br />the PRD ordinance. Structured as a PUD (Planned Unit <br />Development) ordinance, the PRD provides flexibility to land <br />developers in the design of residential projects. Specif- <br />ically, the draft ordinance allows the various size and <br />dimension requirements of a zoning district to be modified <br />within a PRD. The PRD will also allow innovative develop- <br />ment types, transfers of density from environmentally <br />sensitive areas to upland areas, and the inclusion of <br />accessory commercial uses within PRD's. <br />As proposed, the PRD will be a special exception use in all <br />of the residential districts of the new zoning code. In the <br />new code, special exception uses will require action by both <br />the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board of County <br />Commissioners. As such, the approval process for a special <br />exception use in the new code will be similar to the Coun- <br />ty's current rezoning procedure. With a PRD, however, a <br />concept plan for the proposed development must be submitted <br />with and approved concurrently with the special exception <br />use. <br />ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS <br />Through a series of thre <br />by interested citizens <br />community, the draft PP <br />alyzed. At these meetii <br />tified, and a number of <br />result is an ordinance <br />design flexibility in <br />requiring adherence to <br />trade-off. <br />e public workshop meetings attended <br />and members of the development <br />D ordinance was discussed and an- <br />�gs various alternatives were iden- <br />:hanges to the draft were made. The <br />which provides a certain amount of <br />residential developments while <br />certain additional standards as a <br />It is the staff's position that the proposed PRD ordinance <br />will be beneficial to the County. While providing design <br />flexibility and the opportunity to include accessory commer- <br />cial within planned residential projects, the PRD ordinance <br />46 <br />