Work session: applicant and staff discuss traditional‑neighborhood zone, design code and town‑architect oversight for Farm Resell master plan

In a planning commission work session following the regular meeting, staff and the applicant discussed a proposed Traditional Neighborhood Zone (TNZ) and a draft development agreement and design code for a Farm Resell master plan application covering about 550 acres. The work session focused on the structure of the development agreement, how design standards would be enforced, and which uses should be permitted in a TN form‑based zone.

Planning staff explained the three‑part approach proposed for the project: (1) adopt a new TN form‑based zone in the county code, (2) rely on a project‑specific design code (based on the SmartCode) to define building and public‑realm standards, and (3) memorialize obligations in a negotiated development agreement that assigns oversight roles (including a town architect). Staff said the design code is intended to enable a building‑and‑place‑focused review that reduces repetitive county design review by allowing a licensed town architect to certify compliance with the design code on routine items.

Commissioners asked for clarifications in three main areas: the use list (the draft use table includes many permitted uses spanning urban to rural transects and needs to be parsed against the project’s transect map), the role and appointment/removal authority for the “town architect,” and how changes to the design code or street cross sections would be handled during buildout (which edits require full public hearings versus planning‑director approval). Several commissioners wanted clearer thresholds and definitions for “minor” and “major” changes so that the county retains meaningful oversight of major street or land‑use decisions.

Work‑session discussion also addressed open space and trail phasing: commissioners and staff discussed tying required improvements to build triggers so that publicly useful open‑space elements and trail connections are installed in proportion to occupied units rather than being indefinitely deferred. Staff suggested a hybrid approach—allowing the developer some flexibility to stage open‑space dedication while requiring specified improvements or access links at identified milestones.

The applicant and staff noted this draft is an early, red‑lined working document. Staff said it expects to return a cleaned‑up version incorporating negotiated edits and to bring the project back for a follow‑up work session and a public hearing in May, including a consolidated, user‑friendly matrix that ties each use and design requirement to the part of the code, the design code, or the development agreement where it will be enforced.

Commissioners asked the applicant to resubmit a clarified use table showing which uses are allowed in each transect of the TNZ, and requested that staff prepare a clean version of the development agreement and a clearer explanation of what provisions will be enforceable by the county versus administered by the town architect. Commissioners also asked for automatic triggers for priority public‑realm improvements (for example, required open‑space improvements by X dwelling equivalents or when specific road sections are built). Staff advised a revised contract would be provided to commissioners about one week before the next work session or public hearing.