9/17/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. $ ' � �oo� 7 c� x'35 SEP increasing the minimum lot size requirements requiring owner occupancy of either the principal or accessory unit restricting zoning districts in which the use is allowed requiring special exception approval (receive public input on each application) limiting the number of persons allowed to occupy the accessory dwelling unit In the opinion of staff and the AHAC, the county should be careful not to make the criteria too restrictive. Restricting the opportunity to create such units could essentially make the initiative unusable. Staff has concerns about the proposal; however, the criteria proposed should address these concerns. The county could "try out" the single-family accessory dwelling unit approach and evaluate its effectiveness and impact and adjust regulations or totally revisit the issue at a later date. In staff's opinion, this proposal is a worthwhile experiment. The Planning and Zoning Commission was deadlocked (2-2) on a motion to recommend denial of this ordinance section. Those voting against the provision concluded that the concerns and potential abuses of the proposal outweigh the potential benefits. SECTION 33: is another initiative of the AHAC which would allow a special, streamlined process for developing new small lot, single- family subdivisions. The proposal would restrict such special subdivisions to the RS -6, RT -6, RM -6, RM -8, and RM -10 zoning districts, and is intended to allow development of a subdivision that approaches the actual maximum allowable density. Although not specifically tied to affordable housing, the proposal would allow developers an easier procedure to maximize project density and ,lower development costs per lot. Although the county's current P.D. (Planned Development) process already allows approval of such projects, PD's require special exception use approval. The AHAC believes that the special exception process takes too long (note: the last PD project was approved by the Board of County Commissioners 90 days after application submittal) and is too risky due to the public hearing and surrounding property owner notice requirements, and the "discretionary nature" of special exception decisions. The proposal would allow small lot subdivision projects as an administrative permit use. Thus, the approval process would be shorter than the P.D. process and would not involve public hearings or surrounding property owner notice. Staff has drafted specific land use criteria which focus on compatibility between the small lot subdivision and adjacent residential areas. The criteria have the following features: the development must be serviced by water and sewer utilities (this prevents problems with extreme lot to lot grade differences caused by septic tank fill requirements) perimeter lots (abutting the boundaries of the project) must either meet the normal single family lot size or have a buffer and increased minimum rear yard setback a minimum lot size (5,000 sq. ft.) and minimum lot width (50 feet) are established perimeter setbacks vary with the proposed lot width; the narrower the lot, the greater the rear yard setback. The proposed ordinance should result in the opportunity to realize increased, allowable densities. However, due to stormwater requirements, especially the Indian River Farms discharge rate requirement, lot area may be lost to centralized stormwater tracts. Even so, in staff's opinion the proposal would allow for developable densities closer to the maximum allowed densities, while providing some buffering for adjacent properties. 12 - M