4/4/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • Is there any benefit, generally, to the clustering of residential development on agriculturally designated land? and • If there is a benefit generally, does that benefit apply to small tracts? To address those issues, the Board held an Agricultural PD Works P on October e Board instru99. At cted staff the Board did not take any specific action regarding Agricultural c�tmal PD to obtain input and recommendations from the Agricultural Advisory Committee regarding Agri regulations, and then schedule another Board workshop. At its February 2, 2000, Special Meeting, the Agricultural Advisory Committee considered the county's current regulations regarding Agricultural PDs and clustering. (The staff report Prepared for that meeting comprehensively addressed the Agricultural PD issue and is attached to this staff report.) After nearly two hours of discussion, the Committee members agreed that they could not reach a consensus at that meeting and decided to continue the discussion at their next meeting. At the next meeting (March 16, 2000), the Committee voted 5 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners eliminate the clustering requirement for residential development on agriculturally, designated land. The Committee's recommendation specified that the Agricultural PD process should remain an option. ALTERNATIVES With respect to Agricultural PDs, the Board of County Commissioners has the follow alternatives: Alternative 1: Continue the current system of broadly defined clustering. This alternative requires residential development on agriculturally designated land to go through the Agricultural PD process, but broadly defines clustering to allow one acre homesites on five acre lots. There is widespread consensus that this alternative does not work. Those interested in residential development feel that the Agricultural PD process is too long, complicated, and expensive—particularly when only two or three lots desired. Similarly, those interested in agricultural preservation and discouraging suburban sprawl feel that allowing one acre homesites on five acre lots is inconsistent with the intent of clustering. For those reasons, the current system should be revised. Alternative 2: Retain Agricultural PDs, but narrowly define clustering. This alternative requires true clustering: small (1 acre or less) adjacent lots with the remaining land (at least 80% of the site) being open space under a single ownership. Alternative 3: Eliminate the requirement that residential development on agriculturally designated land be approved as an Agricultural PD. This alternative eliminates the clustering requirement and treats residential development outside the urban service area the same as inside the urban service area. This alternative requires a comprehensive plan text amendment revising Future Land Use Element Policies 1.10 and 5.8 and other portions of the comprehensive plan. The Agricultural Advisory Committee supports this request. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners give direction to staff regarding Agricultural PD regulations. Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed the background of these regulations and explained that the Agricultural Advisory Committee's recommendation to the Board is to discontinue the requirement for clustering but to retain the option, if desired. APRIL 4, 2000 -99- EOC4 %�