Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conservation Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners explore conservation-subdivision option, debate lot sizes and maintenance rules
Summary
Planning staff and commissioners discussed drafting a conservation‑subdivision option that would concentrate lots and preserve open space. Key debates covered where the option should apply, minimum lot sizes (10,000–15,000 sq ft discussed), whether density increases should be allowed, and who would maintain preserved land.
The commission spent a substantial portion of its July 27 meeting discussing an ordinance option to allow conservation‑style subdivisions that cluster dwelling units to preserve open space, farmland and natural resources.
Staff described the typical conservation‑design process—analysis of existing conditions, delineation of preservation areas, and layout of dwelling locations and streets—and asked commissioners where the option should apply. "The first item is identifying and analyzing those conditions of what's on the site and determining from there what the things are that we want to conserve," staff said, outlining an approach used in other jurisdictions.
Commissioners broadly supported at least making the option available in the rural living and rural preserve areas but debated whether to extend it to county suburban zones. A recurring technical thread centered on lot sizes: staff and commissioners repeatedly referenced a 10,000–12,000 square‑foot range as a likely compromise between preserving green space and providing usable yards. "The number I keep coming back to is 10,000 square foot," a staff speaker said during the discussion.
Participants also weighed incentives for developers, including whether to allow modest density bonuses when a very large percentage of a tract is preserved. Several commissioners favored allowing tradeoffs—more lots in a small developed footprint in exchange for conserving 75–85% of the parent tract—while emphasizing that any increases should be carefully defined in regulations. The commission asked staff to draft regulatory options, including draft language for ordinance and subdivision regulation changes, and to return with examples and cost implications for staff attendance at neighborhood meetings.
