Commission reviews R‑3 rewrite and proposed R‑4 district; "future public use" language struck after debate

Alan Nichols and planning staff presented a comprehensive redline of the county's R‑3 zoning provisions and a new R‑4 district at the Feb. 18 workshop, saying the amendments aim to define open space, clarify density, and separate higher‑intensity multifamily development into a distinct district where proffers can be heard.

Staff explained the package would establish a 40% open‑space requirement for gross project area and set clearer rules for ingress/egress, site layout and ownership/maintenance of common open space. "We set up the open space provisions to say 40% of the total project area, and we set up what qualifying open space should be," staff said. Commissioners questioned a draft provision that would allow a future public use of some permanently protected open space; several members argued the language could undermine property owners' rights and create a backdoor for government use without judicial process. After an extended exchange, staff agreed to strike the "future public use" clause from the redline.

Other discussion items included clarifying definitions for 'gross project area', 'site area' and 'dwelling types' (attached, semi‑detached, townhouses) and whether short‑term rentals should be addressed in R‑3 or kept under the existing §20‑160a provision. Staff said he will circulate a definitions draft and tighten any phrasing that could be substantive prior to advertising; the commission agreed to aim for an April public hearing. The creation of R‑4 is framed as a tool to allow voluntary proffers or rezoning terms to offset infrastructure costs for denser projects, a policy the commission said is increasingly necessary given state‑level legislative changes.