10/14/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BOOK M PAGE 0 Summary of PD Projects Approved/Denied Since the PRD ordinance was first adopted in 1985, the Board of County Commissioners has considered 56 PRD/PD projects. Of those 56 project applications, 52 were approved with conditions, while 4 were denied. Of the 52 projects approved, only 5 of the projects were never built. Thus, 90% of the approved PD projects have been built in part or in whole or are active in terms of construction and/or permitting. As indicated by the attached PD location maps, PD projects have been approved throughout the Urban Service Area of the county on sites ranging in size from 10 acres to over 600 acres. PD projects have been approved in a variety of land use designations at various densities, with a wide range of approved waivers and required compatibility measures. Characteristics of approved PD projects are summarized by land use designation in the table contained in attachment #4. ANALYSIS: ■ PD Projects Approved/Denied to Date An analysis of PD projects approved/denied to date indicates that the greatest degree of variation (waivers) from conventional standards occurred on sites with higher land use designation densities (e.g. L-2 (6 unit/acre) and M-1(8 unitlacre) areas] such as Sixty Oaks and Grand Harbor and on low density golf course projects such as Windsor and Indian River Club. Therefore, PD projects with a greater degree of variation (waivers) from conventional standards have been required to provide a greater degree of buffering and/or separation from project perimeters than other PD projects. Thus, the county's policy has been to have compatibility measures correspond to the degree of requested waivers. Given the number, variety, and location of PRD/PD projects over the last 14 years, it is obvious that the PD process is popular and useful throughout the county. Overall, there have been few complaints from neighbors of PRD/PD projects. And, over time, most projects seem to be responsive to market demands. Therefore, the PD process seems to be successful overall. ■ Basic Trade-offs Analysis In reevaluating the county's PD process, the Board needs to decide whether or not it wants to continue to have the ability to make some basic trade-offs. Is res urce protection worth the granting ofw� aiwxz? This type of trade-off involves preserving a natural area by transferring all development out of that area onto other portions of a project site. For example, on a 100 acre site that contains a 30 acre hammock, the PD process could ensure total preservation of the hammock in return for allowing on the remaining 70 acres the number of units allowed on the total 100 acre site. Such clustering of units on the remaining 70 acres could be accomplished only by allowing smaller than conventional lots on the 70 acres. Thus, waivers would be necessary. Under the conventional development process, the entire site would be "cut-up" into standard sized lots, rights-of-way, and stormwater tracts. While up to 100/a - 15% of the hammock might be preserved to meet the county's upland set-aside requirement, the developer most likely would opt for the county's fee -in -lieu of set-aside preservation option and develop lots over the hammock area Eventually, as lots developed, the hammock area would be depleted. 0 OCTOBER 14, 1999 -6-