Rural Framework Committee

Transcription

1 Rural Framework Committee Community Planning and Sustainable Development Dept. Summary for Sept. 29, 2009 Open House Douglas County Philip S. Miller Building Public Hearing Room Committee Members Present: Christine Hashimoto, Cozy Swickard, Dave Archer, John Spillane, Paul Fotinos Public: four members of the public Staff: Jeanette Bare, Brett Thomas, Dan Dertz, Matt Williams, Kim Smith Jeanette Bare gave a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the history of the RSP regulations repeal, background on the Rural Framework Planning Effort, how the Rural Framework Committee was selected, what they have looked a so far, and what they are currently working on (beginning the recommendations discussion/phase). Comments made during the Open House: Dave Archer Has there been any attempt to individually contact the large property owners regarding this committee? I think it s extremely important to get a notice to people who will be affected by this, like all the property s having 100 acres or greater. I have a problem with someone in Indian Creek telling someone in Cherry Valley what they can do with their land. If we don t get more time for this committee, then there won t be time for this, but if there is an extension, I think we need to reach out to those people. Chris Hashimoto I think it s good to inform the property owners, but perhaps a survey would provide us with more information. Guest 1) Put all of this information that is in the PowerPoint in the newspaper; 2) Have a telephone line where people can call in and get questions answered; 3) How can you be rural when adding cement to roads? That s just inviting development. It doesn t work if three people know about a cell tower going in and no one else does; and 4) It looks like you re going after Franktown and Cherry Valley; and 5) I like the 35-acre, take everything else away. Dave Archer Have the Planning Commission involved early in this process. Chris Hashimoto Send notices to abutting properties and put signs at the site for all projects. Frank What s left? The greatest impact will be to areas 5 and 6 on the map the large landowners. John Spillane One of the problems that the commissioners had with the Rural Site Plan (RSP) was the cost of infrastructure. What solution was the Board looking for? Jeanette Bare s reply Some of the Board s concerns with the RSP was that it didn t work for the public, the process took a lont time, and the infrastructure costs for the limited amount of lots received appeared too high. The Board wanted a more reasonable process in terms of time with possibly less engineering required. Dave Archer The developer cost per unit was horrendous. I liked the engineering process because it made drainage improvements and set road standards to last 20 years. It made it safe for the public and those living there. 100 Third Street, Castle Rock, Colorado Fax

2 Follow-up Items: Handout or mention the RSP resolution again at a future meeting to remind members what the goal is. Next Meeting: The next regular meeting is set for Tuesday, Oct. 6 from 6 to 9 p.m. Attachments: PowerPoint - Rural Framework Planning Process Status/Summary Presentation 2

3 Rural Framework Open House September 29 th, 2009 Purpose: To update public on the progress of the Rural Framework Committee s efforts and take feedback Schedule: 5:00 Greeting and Gathering 5:30 Formal Presentation by Staff 6:00 Remarks from RFC Members 6:15 Public Comment (Open Mike) 6:45 Next Steps

4 Rural Framework Study Area

5 Why this process? Board repeal of Rural Site Plan (RSP) regulations in April, 2009 Unacceptable elements needing refinement: Public input process inadequate BCC vs. staff roles confusing Excessive infrastructure costs Lengthy timeframes unacceptable for all Rural character and scale must be preserved Board desire to have rural residents and stakeholders directly participate in developing the framework for new/amended rural regulations

6 What were Rural Site Plans? Alternative to 35-acre land divisions in the A-1 zone district Allowed for clustered lots (smaller lot sizes) and bonus dwelling units (double) when open space was preserved in perpetuity 67% open space required to gain a 100% density bonus; 50% open space in lots to gain 40% bonus Maximum 1 du/17.5 acre gross density Administratively approved (planning staff) with BCC concurrence

7

8 Rural Framework Committee (RFC) 30-member ad-hoc citizen s committee appointed in May by the BCC Directed to submit recommendations on a framework of rural land use policies and regulations by October 15 th. Staff to support work of RFC and draft corresponding regulations. First RFC meeting held on June 23 rd (8 times over a 3 month period)

9 BCC Resolution Directives

10 Committee Tasks Review Existing Rural Regs and Development Patterns Define Rural Values and Visual Preferences Study Specific (Top) Rural Issues Evaluate Alternative Regulatory Approaches 2 Public Open Houses August 5 th & Sept. 29 th Develop Recommended Regulatory Concepts and other Framework Recommendations Present Formal Framework Recommendation to the Board (and staff-drafted regulations) Begin formal process of review and adoption of Regs (public work sessions, referral period, public hearings before PC and BCC).

11 Rural Framework Meetings

12 Rural Development Trends Urban vs. Non-urban: Acreages, total units, growth trends By Subarea: Decade of greatest growth General development characteristics RSP buildout trends

13

14 Framework Overview Comprehensive Plan General community plan that guides land use decisions and implemented by: 1) Zoning Use, intensity and other land use restrictions defined by District 2) Subdivision Division of land into lots, tracts and streets for sale or transfer 3) Construction permitting Specific codes applied to public facilities and private buildings

15 Master Plan Definitions Nonurban Density Categories: Semi-Rural (Gross) density of 1 dwelling unit per acres (Generally corresponds to RR, ER, and LRR Districts) Rural (Gross) maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 17.5 acres (Generally corresponds to A-1, including Cluster-35 and former RSP Plans) Gross Density total units/total acreage of a subdivision/project (not minimum lot size)

16

17 Types of Zone Districts and Review: Straight-Zones (ER, RR, LRR, A-1) Planned Development Districts (PUDs) Overlay Districts IGA s with Parker and Castle Rock Wildfire Hazard Floodplain Water Supply Centennial Airport Administrative Process (SIPs, limited USRs, Cluster 35 Plans, former RSPs) Public Hearing Process (Rezonings, Amendments, USRs, Variances, Appeals)

18

19 Defining Rural Priorities What s most important to the rural community? Visual Preference Survey Small group prioritization exercise

20 Of Significant Value Agricultural uses and preserved Environmental Resources: Open space Active ranching and farming Equestrian uses Historic structures Wide-open vistas Wildlife Stream corridors

21 Support Services and Land Uses Agricultural-related uses strongly supported Most rural services (utility, institutional, emergency) supported Commercial uses split, favoring ag-related Recreational split, favoring passive Industrial uses not supported

22 Compatible With Rural Environment and Character Least conclusive Most split votes Any agricultural component shown - supported Single homes or lower density res. - supported Ridgeline placement, excessive cuts and fills, and unbuffered transitions not supported

23 Which One? Cluster/non-cluster split preference Support for clear choices: Natural entry features Good land management (less de-vegetation) Small/more architecturally compatible buildings Tuck in elevations Water use for agriculture Natural vegetative landscaping Transparent/visually compatible fencing (wildlife) Narrow roads, natural shoulders Limited lighting/contextual fixtures

24 Rural Values

25 Preserve Wildlife Habitat, maintain natural grade and terrain, maintain air quality Ensure the provision of sustainable water supply Establish minimum lot sizes for cluster subdivisions Support agricultural use as a priority Maintain Dark Skies Maintain a quiet environment Maintain low traffic levels Ensure proper range/land management Maintain rural sense of place

26 Topical Work Sessions

27 Open Space and Natural Resources COSAC (County Open Space Advisory Committee) County Parks, Trails, and Open Spaces Conservation Easements Geologic Hazards and Subsurface Geology Douglas County Conservation District soils, drainage, land management, weed control, erosion control subdivision review Wildlife Habitat Preservation Strategies (2030 Comp Plan)

28 Rural Services Rural road and drainage standards Grading and erosion control Building codes Driveway review Natural Landforms Protection Wildfire Hazard Regulations

29 Water and Sewer Tri-County Health Department Septic System (ISDS individual sewage disposal systems) design and management Well and septic separations Douglas County Rural Water Authority Background and purpose of Authority Water supply challenges for rural areas Sustainable water supply - possible definitional changes and changes to County regs (18A)

30 Other Topics Approved RSP Analysis Large rancher challenges to maintain agricultural use in Douglas County Dedicated sales tax issues Rural road paving programs/options The future of agriculture: micro-ag and agriburbia trends Ag property tax assessments/other preservation strategies

31 Alternative Regulatory Approaches Other states Other Colorado Counties PUDs, Bonus Cluster Subdivisions, and TDRs (Transfer of Development Rights)

32 Possible Recommendations/ Discussion Points Develop fundamental principals/guiding statements as umbrella for next step: e. g., protect non-renewable water supplies and preserve important open space (environmental, visual, and public access) resource lands Incentive based process to encourage preservation of open lands is necessary. Incentives/trade-offs between property owners/developers and County must be meaningful to both. A variety of mechanisms should be used to accomplish rural area goals (regulatory changes, tax incentives, education, state legislative changes, further study regarding water supply, visual assets, etc ) Nearby rural community members should be involved early on in the land use review process to help prioritize preservation areas PC and BCC should hold public hearings for rural land use proposals and make final decision Criteria for lighting and other quality of life standards need to be specific

33 Possible Recommendations/ Discussion Points, cont All land use proposals should meet water supply criteria Rural roads and other improvements should look rural Encourage voluntary conservation easements Study TDR s further Ensuring proper land management/maintenance of open space is critical Public access to open space areas should be provided as much as possible Amend water supply regs to ensure greater sustainability Evaluate water supply demands for rural uses Review existing rural zone districts (uses and intensities) Require truly effective buffers next to existing rural/semi-rural Undertake a study to identify major visual assets in County Take all necessary steps to control noxious weeds Promote continued ag use, activities, education

34 Next Steps Committee has asked the BCC for a time extension to conclude its work effectively Develop/establish core Guiding Principals Identify and evaluate possible incentives (density bonus or other) for cluster/land preservation regs Create a priority matrix (or point system) which would allow a ranking or rating of different types of preservation elements in a particular development proposal Evaluate possible subarea regulatory distinctions based upon water availability, topographic conditions, or other unique elements