10/14/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I BOOK FAv The type of spread -out, low-density development pattern, that would result from implementing Options 1 or 2, would likely increase the cost of providing county services, particularly for roads, schools, police and fire protection, emergency medical service, libraries, and recreational activities. Additionally, compatibility problems would increase if Options 1 or 2 were implemented. Those problems would be attributed to increased interactions between residential and agricultural uses. One factor contributing to the increase in those interactions would be the longer, less distinct boundary between those uses. Option 3: incremental expansion of the urban service area A final option is to require or encourage development in the agricultural area to cluster one acre lots with common open space, rather than one acre homesites on private five acre lots. This option is depicted on Map 3. Currently, land outside of and adjacent to the urban service area consists mostly of undeveloped tracts of 20 or more acres; such tracts are viable not only for agricultural uses but also for future inclusion in the urban service area (development), if necessary. That land could be added to the urban service area in relatively small increments of one or two hundred acres at a time. I4 prior to being added to the urban service area, that land is developed in a pattern consisting of clustered homes and open space, that land will contain undeveloped tracts of adequate and appropriate size to be added to the urban service area That land will also contain residential development at an urban density. Past experience shows that those residents are less likely to oppose expanding the urban service area to include themselves and nearby land. In contrast, five acre lot subdivisions, besides not integrating well with urban uses, develop a "built in" opposition to urban service area expansion. By preserving large open areas, Option 3 will allow the urban service area to be expanded as needed, in small, targeted increments. Even when applied to small Agricultural PDs (e.g., less than 20 acres or 4 lots), Option 3 increases urban service area expansion alternatives. Summary Based on the analysis, staff has determined that clustering residential development on agriculturally designated land has the following benefits: • Clustered development preserves agricultural uses. In contrast, unclustered development eliminates the possibility of agriculture as a primary use on a site; and • Clustered development accommodates urban service area expansion. In contrast, unclustered development ensures future suburban sprawl. Since the broad interpretation of clustering currently implemented by the county does not contribute to agricultural preservation, nor does that interpretation facilitate the eventual integration of agriculturally designated lands into the urban service area, the clustering requirement should be less broadly defined or eliminated. Land within the urban service area eventually will be built -out. The county has the opportunity to plan now for that occurrence. By requiring development outside the urban service area to cluster on one acre lots with common open space, the county can prepare for the gradual, incremental, and compatible expansion of the urban service area. Additionally, clustering promotes agricultural preservation. The county's broad interpretation of clustering, however, negates the attributes of clustering that promote agricultural preservation. The broad interpretation of clustering also limits the county's future growth options. For those reasons, the clustering requirement should be less broadly defined or eliminated OCTOBER 14, 1999 -20-