5/18/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOKuc consistent with the subject request except on a smaller scale. Staff's position is that for small Agricultural PDs, one acre building areas can be clustered along roads even when those one acre building areas are part of five acre lots. For most parcels over 40 acres, however, dividing land into 5 acre lots is not consistent with the agricultural and open space preservation intent of policy 5.8. In 1998, as part of the comprehensive plan evaluation and appraisal process, the county updated policy 5.8 to specifically include clustering criteria and to better reflect the intent of that policy. The Provision of Public Services An important factor related to Agricultural PDs involves the provision of centralized water and sewer services. The comprehensive plan prohibits the provision of centralized water and sewer services for most uses outside the urban service area. An exception is made for Agricultural PDs with clustered residential lots and certain other types of clustered development. For that reason, centralized water and sewer services, generally, could not be available outside the urban service area without Agricultural PDs. The Proposed Amendment The proposed amendment applies only to "larger equestrian related" (not specifically defined) Agricultural PDs. While not limiting lot size, the proposed amendment limits the buildable area of each lot to one acre located within the front one-third of the lot. ANAs .YSIS This section will present an analysis of the reasonableness of the proposed amendment, followed by a discussion of the consistency of the proposed amendment with the comprehensive plan. ANALYSIS OF REASONABLENESS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT This section includes a discussion of the following: • the county's preferred development pattern; • the proposed amendment's development pattern; • the development of policy 5.8; • the proposed amendment's impact on agricultural lands; • the proposed amendment's impact on public services; • the proposed amendment's impact on land use compatibility; and • the proposed amendment's impact on policy implementation. The County's Preferred Development Pattern When the county's comprehensive plan was adopted, and again during the evaluation and appraisal process, the county reviewed its overall land use pattern. As a result of those reviews, the county determined that it wanted an efficient, compact land use pattern that maintained the county's overall low-density character. The county further determined that growth should occur in a manner that efficiently uses both infrastructure and natural resources, and discourages suburban sprawl. For those reasons, the county's comprehensive plan directs urban uses to areas where urban services are available, thereby protecting agricultural uses, preserving open space, protecting natural areas, and making the provision of infrastructure more efficient. One way in which the comprehensive plan protects agricultural areas and discourages suburban sprawl is the designation of the contiguous compact area around the county's urban centers for urban development, and the traditionally agricultural areas further west for agriculture. The boundary between these two areas is well defined. This works to preserve agricultural uses because agricultural uses generally benefit from being separated from urban uses. The Proposed Amendment's Development Pattern Adoption of the proposed amendment would, in effect, allow an exception to policy 5.8's maximum lot size requirement. Therefore, although it may not be the applicant's intention, adopting the proposed amendment would allow the development of single-family, five -acre "ranchettes" in agricultural areas. That type of development, neither agricultural nor urban, not only increases the per unit cost of providing urban services such as schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical service, but also uses up land, road capacity, and other resources faster than a compact development pattern. Policy 5.8, in fact, was developed specifically to prohibit the type of suburban sprawl that would be allowed by the proposed amendment. MAY 18, 1999