Spotsy govt.-the odds & ends

Tags: VRE

(6 comments ) VIEW ALL COMMENTS | Post a comment Most recent reader comments: VRE: Behind Closed Doors by MAVRICKinc correction by lgross Re:The Tea Leaves seem to be... by lgross

Planning Commission continues its UDA work session

June 3, 2009 2:46 pm

Here is some information I pulled from a staff report for tonight's Planning Commission work session on Urban Development Areas. Some of the answers you may find helpful:

At the UDA work session May 20, 2009, the Planning Commission tabled making a final recommendation to allow full participation of the Commission on June 3rd. A Board of Supervisor's work session is scheduled June 9th, so we will be preparing a memorandum for the Board packets based on the guidance the Commission provides on June 3rd.

At the May 20th meeting, the Planning Commission was interested in designating the minimum area required as Urban Development Areas, with the understanding that the density and intensity of development would be greater than the 4 units per acre. In particular, the Planning Commission present indicated a consensus on proposed areas "E" and "F", which are at the Court House (1,437 acres) and the area around the hospital (541 acres). These areas total 1,978 acres, however, using the calculation of 4
units/acre and the 10 year minimum established by the statute, an area or areas totaling 3007 acres would need to be designated.

Staff held a Focus Group meeting on May 21st, in which the following
questions/concerns related to the designation of UDAs was raised:

• If the County adopts a phased UDA approach as presented by staff, will a development proposed during the first 10 years located in the 10-20 year phase area be permitted? The phasing proposed relates to infrastructure. If a development can address infrastructure needs, the fact it is proposed in the 10- 20 year phase area will not be a hindrance.

• How will the state review/approve UDAs? It appears to be largely self policing, but the appropriate designation of UDAs may be a factor in transportation funding allocation, since the UDAs are part of a transportation-based statute.

• Redevelopment areas should be in the 2nd phase to acknowledge that they are more difficult and will take time to develop. Phasing need not be part of 5/26/09; June 3, 2009 work session on UDAs the final product adopted.

• Area "C" is within the airport flight path, which will limit height of buildings. The county has an airport overlay zoning district, which takes precedence. This may be another reason, beyond affordable housing, that the Planning Commission recommends against "C".

• If a low density development is proposed in the UDA, will it be recommended for denial? Not necessarily. The details of the proposal are important, the character of the UDA, the development that has occurred, etc. We expect the majority of UDAs to develop piecemeal, so this is not a simple yes/no question to answer.

• There is a discomfort over designating the UDAs first, without knowing / understanding all the policies. Staff's approach was to designate the areas and these use the characteristics of the areas to help us develop the complementary ordinances (Traditional Neighborhood Development and Transfer of Development Rights) and financial incentives. We could move forward without formal designation of the UDAs and bring them back as a package with other elements, but we would need preliminary guidance on the potential UDAs.

• There is a concern that by designating UDAs, those areas would be the preferred place for development and a proposal next door would be in a non-preferred area. Concern that the UDAs would have higher land values and property owners outside the UDAs would be negatively impacted. The UDAs have to be designated according to criteria outlined in the statute. Some areas will be within and others outside. A comprehensive plan amendment could be applied for and approved to adjust the UDA boundaries. Also, the UDAs need to be examined every 5 years. Staff envisions monitoring the UDAs and reporting to the Planning Commission and Board on a bi-annual basis to recommend adjustments. While the UDAs need to be designated and meet certain requirements, they can still be dynamic and adjust as the community develops.
  

• Why not designate one large area, such as the Primary Settlement District or Primary Development District? The statute requires the areas to encompass "gross area" so including areas this large would result in proscribed UDAs that are far in excess of our 20 year growth. Also, areas within the UDA already developed at low-density would require an offset of a much higher development density to achieve an overall 4 unit per gross acre density.
  

• Concern about growth limited elsewhere. The statute specifically disallows a locality to limit by-right growth or disallow a rezoning proposed in a non-UDA area because it is not in a UDA.

• Why aren't the UDAs 30% larger to accommodate the non-residential requirements in concert with the Comprehensive Plan goal of 70:30 residential to non-residential mix? Staff's thought process was that a true TND is greater than 4 units per acre, so a higher residential density would allow the commercial component to develop within the designed areas.