Agenda Package - 04-16-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

® Based on Sanford's experience, staff suggests that the current cluster approach does provide enough control or produce the desired outcomes. Staff further recommends that it be removed from the UDO and, as an alternative, allow such projects to be addressed through the conditional zoning process. By using the legislative conditional zoning process, the boards have complete authority to engage in the specifics of the design (including appearance issues), and perhaps more importantly, have more leeway to reject a proposal. The advantage of the conditional zoning approach is that it is a negotiated process that involves the applicant, staff, the community and the boards. By comparison, the current process as a technical review does not allow for the same flexibility in negotiating design standards. Staff also suggests that if the boards desire to shift away from the cluster option towards conditional zoning, an additional step should be considered. To aid the development community in understanding what is desired, staff will also develop a policy guide for residential design standards. This document would promote different residential design concepts and would be used as a guide for residential developers wishing to do projects beyond a traditional subdivision. In practice, when a developer submitted a conditional zoning residential project, the residential design manual would be the key point of reference and would supplement the technical/regulatory standards of the UDO. The Joint Planning Commission considered this issue and unanimously recommended that the boards consider an amendment to delete Section 6.4 Cluster Subdivisions in its entirety. A draft of the proposed UDO language is attached. Unlike the first amendment, this amendment 40 is more likely to affect only the two municipalities. L"A