|
100
<br />
<br /> Verification of vL~ible infrastructure.
<br />These public facilities include fire hydrants,
<br />lighting, elements of street character (type,
<br />lanes, and existence of curbs, gutters, and
<br />sidewalks), traffic signals, and other visible
<br />ini~rastructure. Much of this information is
<br />available from municipal public works and
<br />utility departments. Nonetheless, the site
<br />notes should describe the nature of public
<br />facilities in the area, particularly in the imme-
<br />diate vicinity of the site. For example, if the
<br />development permit application is for a sub-
<br />division it is important to know whether side-
<br />walks abut the site and whether to continue
<br />them through the new plat.
<br />
<br />facing the site in order to determine and
<br />evaluate locations for new driveways.
<br /> Other factors. These could include iden-
<br />tification of the location, generator, schedule,
<br />and intensity of significant odors, smoke, or
<br />other airborne pollution, or the presence of
<br />noise, from traffic or fixed sources.
<br /> Planners should transcribe site visit
<br />notes quickly to include them in the staff
<br />report but still allow enough time to return
<br />to the site before completin§ the report
<br />should other issues surface. Site notes can
<br />also be an overlay in a GIS. Site visits at dif-
<br />
<br /> Circulation issues and parking. Circula-
<br />tion refers to patterns of vehicular or pedes-
<br />trian traffic [n the neighborhood. The site
<br />notes shou[d identify nearby land uses that
<br />serve as significant destinations or origins
<br />vehicular traffic. If a 'pedestrian movement
<br />pattern is considered valuable and the local
<br />government's planning policies call for its
<br />preservation and enhancement, tb, e site
<br />notes should indicate ways to improve Or
<br />optimize [he existin§ pa[tern. In addition,
<br />the site notes should identify the location of
<br />public transit routes or stops at or near the
<br />site. In some cases, particularly in dense
<br />urban neighborhoods, the no[es should dis-
<br />cuss the nature and degree Of onsite park-
<br />in§. Finally, the planner should identify
<br />locations of driveways on properties near or
<br />
<br />ferent times of the day are recommended to
<br />assess time.sensitive conditions such as
<br />traffic or pedestrian flow. Fqanners may
<br />need to take traffic counts in order to con-
<br />duct traffic impact analyses that rely on a
<br />description of existin§ traffic movements
<br />and volumes at peak periods.
<br /> A site visit is a form of "§round truth"
<br />that adds credibility to a planner's advice. A
<br />thorough site visit can add to a planner's
<br />effectiveness, and enhance the decision
<br />makJn§ of the plannin§ and 3overnin§ bod-
<br />ies that a planner advises, The techniques
<br />for site visits 'are not complex, but still
<br />require careful preparation and documenta-
<br />tion so the staff recommendation on a devel-
<br />opment proposal is a solid and well-
<br />informed one:
<br />
<br /> NEWS BRIEFS
<br /> PAPER SUBDIVISIONS~ GRO~AFfH MANAGEI~ENT
<br /> FOR PROFIT
<br />
<br /> 8y £drah K. Wiebenson
<br />
<br /> Commissioners in Charlotte County, Flodda,
<br /> recently adopted chan§es to a 2oat transfer of.
<br /> development ri§hts CfDR) ordinance that makes it
<br /> more responsive [o local developers' concerns and
<br /> more profitable for prope~ owners located out-
<br /> side the counW's designated urban service areas.
<br /> The 2ool ordinance sought to "sever" the
<br />development rights and associated residential
<br />densities from tend with environmental, histori-
<br />cal, or archaeological significance, while trans-
<br />letting these rights to receivin§ zones within the
<br />urban service areas. Development rights could
<br />also be obtained in exchange for payment into
<br />the county's land acquisition ~rust fund.
<br /> 0evelopers in Charlotte County complained
<br />that the 'fOR ordinance was burdensome and that
<br />it was enacted with little public input, in
<br />response, coun~ commissfoners drafted new lan:
<br />§uage to allow additional landowners to transfer
<br />development dghts at a rate of one unit per ten
<br />acres of agricultural property or one unit per one-
<br />quarter-acre pre.platted residential lot. As
<br />reported in [he Sarasota Herald-Tribune, this sig-
<br />nals a boon to properb/owners in the couni~,, §iv-
<br />in§ rise to the phenomenon of"p.~per subdivi-
<br />slang." Says one member of the county's
<br />agriculture and natural resources advisow com-
<br />mittee, ~lt's like harvesting the density d§hts off
<br />his. property. He sees it as a crop,"
<br /> Florida has historically been home to spec':
<br />uladve "ghost subdivisions," which, if devel-
<br />oped, could pose significant growth mana§e-
<br />men[ challenges in the areas most affected by '
<br />this practice. Charlotte County is a state leader,
<br />with ¥74,ooo one-quarter-acre platted residen-
<br />tial lots, most of which remain undeveloped.
<br /> The new Charlotte CounW TDR langua~'e
<br />addresses this abundance of growth potential
<br />whi~e co-modifyin§ the prohibition against
<br />development, thus'satisfying the concerns of
<br />developers and mol[i~in§ additional landown-
<br />ers outside [he urban service areas. A member
<br />of the Charlotte County comprehensive plan-
<br />ning division admits that their original goal to
<br />use the TDR provisions to cap and reduce
<br />future growth has been reduced to merely cap-
<br />ping deve(opment potential. However, the
<br />2oat provisions were adopted in the eleventh
<br />hour and may have contained more restric-
<br />tions than necessary.
<br />
<br />ZONING PRACTICE Z.O5
<br />AMERICAN gbANNING ASSOCIATION J page 6
<br />
<br />
<br />
|