10/14/1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

800K Ili %b 0 ■ The Current Compatibility Approach Compatibility is a key factor in evaluating the PD process. As structured, the PD ordinance's compatibility requirements focus on the project perimeters. The basic principle of the existing process is that providing adequate compatibility measures on the perimeters insulates adjacent properties from the interior of the PD project where maximum flexibility is allowed. In theory, this principle is logical since the only project interface with the surrounding area is along the perimeters. In practice, special buffers, setbacks, and transition area seemed to have provided adequate compatibility. There have been few compatibility -related complaints from neighbors of existing PRDs/PDs, whether "high end" or "middle market" projects. Staffs conclusion is that the current approach works: if the perimeters are made compatible, then the entire PD project will be compatible with its neighbors. ■ Density Density is an issue that is often scrutinized during PD project reviews- As structured, the PD process does not allow densities to exceed the density limits of the comprehensive plan. The PD process, however, can help a developer achieve the maximum density allowed on a site. For example, the Hammock Lake Estates PD is located in an RS -3 area. Under conventional subdivision development, a density of up to 2.7 units/acre might be achievable. The approved Hammock Lake Estates PD design, however, yielded a density of 2.99 units/acre. Thus, the PD process can allow for density maximization. Is density maximization a worthwhile trade-off for the various benefits of PD projects? It is as long as the maximum densities allowed under the comprehensive plan are appropriate. The appropriateness of a particular maximum density in a given lion is the very underpinning of the land use plan. In fact, maximizing densities is part of the purpose of the PD ordinance which states that PDs are needed to "... encourage efficient use of public services...". This is true especially in relation to water and sewer utilities where there appear to be certain threshold densities for making water and sewer improvements economically feasible. In the context of the PD process, the county has all the controls it needs to ensure that a given development is appropriately designed for a given area at or below the maximum density allowed under the comprehensive plan. Since maximum densities are to be achievable under the comprehensive plan, the best way for the county to control densities that approach the maximum is through the PD process. :ecause Flexibility vs. Certainty the Board of County Commissioners has broad discretion in regard to project design and mitigation of potential incompatibilities and adverse impacts, the PD process affords flexibility to the Board as well as to the applicant. While the PD process need not be as predictable as the conventional development process where county discretion is limited, there needs to be some level of certainty for the development community with regard to the PD process. As stated by Board members at the Citrus Springs PD hearings, it is important that the PD ordinance reflect the Board's desires so that the PD process has an acceptable degree of certainty. CONCLUSION• The PD process gives the county more control than conventional development processes. It gives the county the ability to make trade-offs that obtain public benefits and meet public policies. It also gives developers necessary and desirable flexibility. Without such flexibility, many successful PD projects that are in existence today simply would not exist within the unincorporated area of the county. The balance of control and flexibility in the existing PD process has resulted in projects that seem to have "worked" and have been developed without adverse impacts on neighbors. For these reasons, the PD process should be retained and should actually be preferred over the conventional development process. OCTOBER 14, 1999 -8-