Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-30-1994 - C-2 15 Y ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date:June 30, 1994 Agenda Abstract Item#—L2—_ SUBJECT: RURAL CHARACTER PRESERVATION STRATEGIES DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING:—X—Yes No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Planning Director X2592 Issue Papers PHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Mebane 227-2031 Durham 688-7331 Chapel Hill 967-9251 PURPOSE: To receive citizen comment on rural character/open space preservation strategies and issues. BACKGROUND: At its May 17, 1994 meeting, the Board of Commissioners received a report on proposed Rural Character Strategies. Discussion was continued to the May 26, 1994 budget presentation meeting. At that meeting, the Commissioners decided to conduct a special hearing at the end of June to consider the following items: 1. Rezoning of the remaining 37% of the County's planning and zoning jurisdiction from one dwelling unit per acre to one dwelling unit per two acres to establish a "baseline" from which to implement rural character strategies; and 2. Receipt of citizen comment on the following open space preservation issues: a. Whether clustering was a desirable and marketable form of development; b. Whether a 50 percent open space requirement was appropriate,and how should open space be defined, and C. Whether density bonuses should be provided as incentives for preserving open space. Specific ordinance amendments are not being proposed.Comments received at the public hearing will be used by the Planning Board and Board of Commissioners in developing specific rural character/open space preservation proposals.Issue papers highlighting major considerations associated with these topics are provided as attachments. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that all comments received at the public hearing be referred to the Planning Board for use in developing/finalizing inalizing specific rural character/open space preservation prop. 16 ISSUE PAPER DESIRABILITY OF OPEN-SPACE DEVELOPMENT (CLUSTERING) Background In the pest 20 years,many counties across the nation have examined or implemented the concept of"rural cluster" or "open-space development" ("OSD"). The term, popularized by Randall Arendt of the Natural Lands Trust, denotes the difference between high-density urban"cluster" development and low- density rural"cluster" developments.In general, Open-Space Developments are residential or mixed-use developments that differ from conventional subdivisions in that development activity is focused on a portion of the site, leaving part of the tract in some type of open space. As an example,a 100-acre tract of land could be developed as a conventional subdivision with 47 two-acre lots, excluding street rights-of-way.An Open-Space Development might preserve 50 acres of the site in permanent open space, clustering 47 homes on one-acre lots adjacent to the open space. This development style has found favor primarily in high growth counties on the edge of urbanizing regions, such as Loudoun County,Virginia;Newcastle and Sussex Counties,Delaware; Gwmnett County, Georgia; Bucks County, Pennsylvania; and several counties in California, Oregon, New Jersey, and Washington.In some counties,Open-Space Development is mandatory.In others,developers are required to prepare and submit conventional as well as OSD concept plans, but the option of which plan to implement is the developer's choice. I Copies of an article by Mr.Arendt and a strategy adopted by Montgomery County,Pennsylvania are provided to highlight various issues surrounding the concept of cluster development. The principal advantages and disadvantages cited most often about cluster developments are summarized below. Advsataaes and Oonortunities A significant advantage to Open-Space Developments is the creation of permanent open space. Open space may be set aside to protect special natural areas, and wildlife habitats and corridors (such as sites in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats)from development impacts.Open space may also be used to protect a scenic vista or historic site, thus protecting the rural character and heritage of particular areas. Where agricultural operations exist, it can be used as an method for farmers to receive monetary return on their property,while still continuing to farm the unused portion of the development. Another advantage a indicated by studies conducted in Massachusetts and New Jersey. In comparative studies of lot sales in Open-Space Developments and conventional subdivisions, open-space lots have appreciated at a higher value than lots in conventional subdivisions without open space. Disadvantams and Limitations Acxompa�ring the advantages listed above are some possible disadvantages to Open Space Developments. FSrst, there have been few open space or cluster developments in the county or region. Because of this, it a difficult to gauge the marketability or desire for open-space lots. Another disadvantage is that financing from lending institutions for innovative development styles is often more difficult to obtain than for conventional development.Because they may require public water and sewer, or alternative sewage treatment systems, Open Space Developments could be more costly to develop than conventional subdivisions. Finally, open-space lots may carry a higher price tag per acre to go along with a possible higher value.If Open-Space Development is mandatory,conventional development styles would not be permitted, 1 ` limiting the type of lots on the market and possibly affecting the affordability of certain housing types. Imi icatione for Rural Land Use Pattern If Open-Space Developments are permitted in Orange County, the long-term land use pattern of the county may be changed considerably,dependent on whether OED's were optional or mandatory.The amount of subdivision development encompassing entire tracts of land would be replaced with developments where home sites were interspersed open space corridors. The application of mandatory OED's may accelerate the change in pattern over an optional program.The impact and use of an optional program of Open-Space Development would be largely dependent on perceived and real incentives(e=tmg and/or new) which accompanied the program. Another approach might be some combination of optional and mandatory programs. In that case, Open Space Developments would only be mandated where significant, defined resources were impacted by a proposed development. 18 D 1 '� Cluster men Develo • p t. A Profitable Way to Save O en Space p a M ost suburban and rural resi- achieve cost savings by adopting the By Randall Arendt,MRTPI denial developers probably cluster approach (see Cost-Effective Natural Lands Trust Mhave not fully considered Site Planning: Single-family Devel- the political and economic advantages opment. NAHB. 1986). Studies Building/comes in clusters can offered by cluster or "open space" recently completed at the Center for development. The cluster approach Rural Massachusetts have revealed reduce development costs while allows developers to build the usual another pertinent fact: initial sale preserving permanent open spaes for number of homes on a given site prices and subsequent resale prices while reducing roadbuilding and utili- can be higher in cluster or open space recreation,wildlife,or agriculture. ty costs. In addition. open space developments than in comparable development provides permanently conventional developments. Attrac- protected open space (for recreation, tive views of and access to protected wildlife. agriculture), which adds tan- areas appear to enhance the value of gible economic value to individual downsized lots (see LAND DEVEL- house lots. Best of all. the increased OPMENT.Winter 1991). value is created at no additional cost In Amherst, Massachusetts. for to the developer or to the local juris- example, a comparison of two late diction and involves no sacrifices by 1960s subdivisions—whose house the original land owner(who receives sizes are similar but whose lot sizes the usual selling price). In fact, the and patterns are markedly different— cluster approach rewards all partici- indicates a strong market preference pants in the development process and for cluster development. in the stan- penalizes no one. dard subdivision. where lots are twice In an era of substantial buyer resis- the size of the cluster development tance to condominiums and other lots, houses originally sold for attached units. it is important to note S26,300. or S600 (2.3 percent) less that cluster developments can be easi- than the homes in the cluster subdivi- ly designed to maintain the traditional sion. After 25 years, during which American standard of the single-fami- time the prices of the homes in both ly detached home on its own lot.Open developments increased many times space is created by downsizing and over,houses in the cluster subdivision clustering lots on a site and thereby now sell for S17.000 (12.7 percent) protecting the property's valuable nat- more than their counterparts in the ural features or scenic attributes. The conventional "cookie-cutter" develop- classic New England village settle- ment.The chief difference between the ment pattern is a superb example of two developments, which were Bevel- clustered single-family homes. with oped at similar gross densities, is that the central village green constituting one provides scenic and recreational the permanently preserved open space. open space (low-cost active and pas- Many studies conducted over the sive), while the other offers nothing years by the National Association of more than house lots and streets. Home Builders and others have clear- Cluster development can also offer ly demonstrated that developers can a political benefit. In Connecticut, 26 Land Development/Fall 1991 i t ti-. - ;,�•�.• • '1,17'!�.���{♦'�_`��.. 20 r, r iii +r - ♦. �4�•�.t`=`�yi��...`#i`T�r•� 1 The New England village pattern—small lots and small setbacks and village greens—is an early example of the cluster concept. where open space advocates are standards such as maximum densities office or industrial parks ha\e a prac- increasinsly lockinet horns with devel- and minirnurn setbacks. In practice, tical and effective alternate\a in the opers. the cluster approach is provid- however, these ordinances generally form of cluster de\elopment or"open ing an excellent way for home do nothing to protect open space or to space"zoning.To avoid redistributing builders and others to demonstrate conserve rural character. the equity held by existing land own- that their proposals can, in fact. help Conventional zoning assigns a ers. cluster zoning allows the game totvns maintain them cherished rural development designation— generally gross density or overall amount of character. Cluster development can be residential. commercial, or industri- development that is already permitted. an effective "mitigation technique" to alto even• acre of land in a commu- The difference is that clustering rebut legal challenges that develop- nity. The only lands not designated requires all new construction to be mint �� producing •an adverse impact for development are unbuildable areas limited to (typically) one-half of the on -uch \:clued natural assets as farm- such as \%etlands and flood plains. parcel. The remaining open 'pace is land. ri\erbanks. steep hillsides or Conventional zoning has been accu- permanently protected under a con.er- summit,;. and deeryards. To quote rately described as "planned spraulI vation easement and recorded in the land use consultant Robert Lemire, because every square foot of each deed for the land. the challenge is to "build what needs development parcel is converted to Local regulations can offer cluster to be built. and sa\e \\hat needs to be front yards. back yards. streets, side- development as an option to the saved." Walks,or driveways. Nothing remains developer or can make clustering Fey\ people realize that conven- to become open space through this compulsory. in Massachusetts. about tional zoning is essentially a blueprint land-consumptive process of regula- one-third of the to\%ns offer "permis- for de\elopment and development tion. sive cluster' as an option for develop- alone. Most rural residents consider Local officials, residents. and ers. Mandatory or "compulsory clus• their to\%ns fairly %%ell "protected" by developers who are interested in ter" has been used by a number of zoning regulations that \\ere original- ensuring that their towns will not ulti- rural towns in southern )Maine and ly intended to separate incompatible mately become a seamless web of upstate New York for mam dears but uses and to establish development subdivisions. shopping centers. and has only recently been introduced in Land Development Fall 1991 27 21 Massachusetts. where about a dozen parcel so that the remainder of the sions. Some towns address this issue . towns have adopted it within the last tract can be preserved as unbuilt open by requiring developers to demon- two to three years.In Connecticut.the space. The degree to which clustering strate that their cluster plan would not town of Cromwell made state history achieves a significant savings in land produce a greater number of new when it became the first municipality while providing an attractive and homes than would be allowed under a to mandate open space development comfortable living environment standard layout. For this reason, designs for subdivisions located in depends largely on the zoning regula- developers may be required to submit certain types of natural resource areas. tions and the expertise of the land two inexpensive sketch plans for Although the basic concept of clus- planner. comparison. tering is fairly simple and well estab- Open Space:What Size and Shape? Will It Harmonize with Its lished, those who do not associate it Surroundings? with traditional townscapes tend to Unless local regulations specify view it as a new form of development. minimum area and dimensions for the Communities are often concerned Interestingly, it is the conventional open space. the"open space"can end that cluster housing will not blend suburban model that is actually the up being nothing more than a long. with a town's rural character. It is true more alien pattern in otherwise tradi- narrow fringe that abuts rear lot lines that some cluster developments built tional landscapes such as New Eng- and the parcel's outer perimeter. To in the past have failed to harmonize land. Conventional subdivisions look avoid awkward, unusable spaces, the with their surroundings. Recognizing "at home"only in places where, after zoning ordinance should require lots this potential problem, a few towns several years, they have become the and roads to cover not more than,say. now require new cluster plans to con- predominant building pattern. 50 percent of the parcel and should sist only of detached, single-family Ultimately, of course, community specify that at least one-half of the homes. each set on its own smaller residents and decision makers must open space must be configured to be lot. By resembling a traditional vil- address the question of the cluster usable for recreation or agriculture. lage pattern, a single-family cluster approach's appropriateness in rural or Counting Only Truly Usable Land plan ensures that every family will suburbanizing municipalities.The fol- have its own separate yard in addition lowing points arc useful in addressing Many communities require hous- to the larger open space created by the principal concerns typically ing density to be based on"net build- clustering. expressed at local meetings when the able area." which typically eliminates Architectural Design Issues open space or cluster development from the density calculation all or a concept is proposed. certain percentage of unbuildable To permit some variation in hous- The Open Space(Cluster)Concept lands such as wetlands or extremely ing types, a few towns have adopted in Practice steep slopes. Without this require- special permit procedures that autho- ment, the cluster approach could be rize their planning boards to approve The basic principle underlying used to propose a greater number of attached units under certain circum- cluster development is to group new dwellings than would be buildable stances. e.g., when units are carefully • homes onto part of the development under conventional subdivision provi- designed to reflect traditional archi- •. - Suburban zoning and subdivision standards have given us a "planned sprawl 28 Land Development/Fall 1991 22 -��` � � _•' •Vii.. � i t ,6 Most older small-town roads in New England are 18 feet wide and have worked well. tectural w,les. Typicalh. such regula- est. at the time owners sell their cluster ordinances typically prohibit tions set an upper limit on the number house. Unpaid dues cloud the title and further subdivision of the parcel. of dwellings per building (four. for effectively pre%ent resales. some ordinances provide for an added example) and provide standards relat- if the open space is agricultural. safeguard by requiring a local. region- ing to features such as roof pitch.sid- other options apply. The open space al.or statewide land trust or conserva- ing material.roofline breaks.and win- can be sold "in fee"to the homeown- tion commission to be a cosigner and dow proportions.thus giving develop- ers' association. which. in turn. can enforcer of any conservation ease- ers an incentive to hire architects %%ho lease the land to local farmers. Alter- ment that permanently restricts devel- are sensiti%e to the building forms that natively. the original farmers can opment in the open space. blend a tth the town*s character. retain ownership of the land and sell Buffering Farm Operations Open Space Maintenance only their "development rights." The latter option affords farmers the To reduce potential conflicts Another issue of concern is main- opportunity. upon retirement. of sell- between new residents and existing tenance of the open space created by ing their field-, to younger farmers at agricultural practices.a few tow ns are clustering. if the open space is recre- an affordable price that reflects the beginning to require cluster lots to be ational (playing fields.joeging trails. land's agricultural value (rather than separated from the protected farmland tennis courts. etc.). a hotneoW ners its potential building value). thus by a buffer strip that is typically 75 to association—to which all residents strengthening the local farming econ- 100 feet wide. Where the de%elop- are contractually obligated to con- omy. This is essentially a private sec- ment can be so designed. existing tribute w hen they purchase their for version of a"purchase-of-develop- woodland should be used as the home—typically handles the upkeep. ment-rights'program. buffer. Otherwise. tow ns can require At Echo Hill in Amherst. !alas- ..Locking 1n"the Open Space new buffer areas to be thickly planted sachusetcs.home buffers sign a legally with a variety of rapidly grow ing binding agreement that authorizes the Another commonly expressed fear native trees and shrubs Ouch as white homeow ners' association to collect is the possibility of future develop- pine. birch, poplar. American yibur- any unpaid dues. with accrued inter- ment in the open space. Even though num.honeysuckle.wild rose). Land Development.Fall 1991 29 2"'1 Adjacent Property Values side the individual lot in an easement valve" for a limited amount of con- within the protected open space. The ventional (noncluster)development so Cluster's impact on surrounding flexibility of cluster siting allows that applicants have other options that property values is often cited as an either approach. do not require them to submit to a issue. Along any part of the parcel Why Require Open Space(Cluster) special permit process. perimeter where downsized lots Design? would adjoin standard-sized lots, Cluster Design and Rural Character towns can require buffer strips similar Perhaps the most controversial Last, but certainly not least, is the to the ones described above. Along issue surrounding the cluster concept issue of whether cluster development other edges,buffers may not be desir- is the suggestion that local ordinances is "appropriate" in a rural setting. able or logical as lots bordering per- could mandate an open space Without proper regulatory safeguards manently protected open space almost approach. The rationale behind a and design criteria, it is clear that always enjoy enhanced property val- mandatory approach is that certain clustering can produce results that are ues. In fact, buffers may not be need- irreplaceable natural resources must be incompatible with its surroundings. ed anywhere because the value of protected, including wildlife habitat. However. many rural residents are cluster lots appears to be initially wetlands, riverfront land. productive beginning to recognize the advantages higher and to appreciate faster than farm fields, large rock formations, that well-designed cluster develop- the value of conventional lots, as scenic views, and mature tree stands. ment can offer. It is the only develop- noted previously. Clustering permits flexibility in land ment approach that sets aside land,for Private Streets,Different Standards? design so that developers can avoid permanent open space. these and other important or valuable Conclusion When cluster developments are areas. It remains a local decision designed with privately maintained whether to require the cluster approach Had the Pilgrims not run out of ink road systems, developers often ask when development is proposed on any or parchment after finishing the local planning officials to relax stan- or all of these resource lands. Mav wer Compact and had they the dard street width requirements. If sub- time and"foresight"to draft a modern division street construction standards Degrees of Mandating Open Space zoning and subdivision rulebook, all are excessive,as they often are,panic- It is possible to limit the cluster of our attractive New England towns ularly for pavement width,they should requirement to certain zoning dis- would have a thoroughly suburban be revised for all types of new devel- tricts. It is also feasible to authorize character by today's standards. It is a opment. not just for cluster develop- local planning officials to require sobering thought, but New England ments. In this way, residential street clustering on a case-by-case basis would be virtually indistinguishable design will not compromise a commu- when a proposed conventional plan from many other parts of the nation. nity's rural character. It is useful to would destroy or remove more than a As towns shape their landscape note that most small-town roads in specified percentage of certain listed with standardized, suburban-style New England outside new subdivi- resources. However. proponents of municipal regulations, we must ask sions are designed for an 18-foot-wide "compulsory open space" zoning in whether continuous coverage by paved surface. which is much mono in any of its various forms argue that large-lot subdivisions will be more scale than the 22-foot to 30-foot paved anything less than a mandatory attractive than a mixture of village- travel surfaces commonly required by approach cannot guarantee resource sized cluster lots surrounded by per- "modem"subdivision regulation& protection because developers remain manently protected farm fields,wood- Sewerage and Septic Systems free to ignore cluster "recommenda- lands, or open space. This is a ques- tions from town officials. tion for developers, residents, and Because of the shorter road lengths L al Points officials in each town to address. As needed to serve villags-sized lots in a long as everyone understands and mc- cluster development. substantial sav- Towns considering "compulsory ognizes the ultimate consequences of ings are possible in the construction open space zoning" are strongly the various types of development. of roads, sewers, and water lines. encouraged to work closely with legal each participant in the debate can Where sewer service is unavailable, counsel to ensure that their ordinances make an informed decision. O however, people have expressed con- are not inconsistent with statutory or cems about siting septic systems on case law, in particular. two points Randall Arendt,MRTPI,is Vice the smaller cluster lots. Some towns, should be noted. First, compulsory President of the Natural Lands Trust as a result, require house lot " be open space.zoning should be used to- in Me�.Petrsj&anie.and is for- located on the section of th I— protect ldetuiflable and Important. merly irector of Planning god where soils are mosvoitable-for ref a lands and should not be a= Research amhe Center for Rniraf leaching fields. Another option, how- "bl et"over all rural properties. _Wassachuseus.University of Mas- ever, is to locate septic systems out- Second, it must leave an "escape=%achuserrs: 30 Land Development/Fall 1991 24 . . . . i . c S . -mou- fir 117 $ _�1�� Ellti-- IL ova:* . ''.1".--t-17-- Or' j ..."'' ' e - .i eT LAND 1 PRESERVATION Old Challenge . . • —7-7-77. New Ideas ■ hewed by W Mompmary Comm Plummy Communal -_ 'mad a du Merpmmry Cam Primus mm Montgomery County, Pennsylvania 9M mN3 ,••..' 1 I Dilemma . . . ,..., ..,-) How to allow • .' Fr• . ,$r :.,, . residential ; y -to me nt T A: ----r- ` - • al areas - " thout • . destroying '� � a rural character. .' MONTGOMERY COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA a BOARD OF COUNTY C MMISSIONERS Mario Mele,Chairman Ion D.Fox I In recent years resi- ". Joseph M.Hoeffel,III S dents have shown a ' concern with the ` *. COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ` y deterioration of ! -3 • Feodor U.Pitcairn,Chairman % r Clarence W Holing,Vice Chairman quality of lif -, . - « Richard S.Buckman Stewart R.Cedes standard - - j `�=-- "—'' developmen - .... : Gloria M.Calise bring. ,I,,., 4014:'t I Icnry DePaoli Richard S.Frain "' ` M M �- Richard N.Sundheim Y7 Charles I.Torncua r Important issues t' —1'„ ` f include the degrada- Arthur F Loeben,Director tion of environmen- destructio , tally sensitive areas, farmland,loss a y. To address these concerns,the Montgomery County Plan n (MCPC)has created the LAND PRESERVATION DISTRICT a1i'i t!,'",f;l alternative to standard residential lotting. t' 1 The Land Preservation District . • • ,_ The purpose of the LPD character that would be designed to reduce the is to permit a reasonable lost under conventional perceived intensity of amount of residential development. This is the development,to development while done by locating the provide privacy and . preserving open space, homes in small,com- neighborhood identity, sensitive natural areas, pact neighborhoods in and to preserve natural and rural community an open space setting, features or farmland. 4 re-a 'air 4fy , J ,) ^ -416-' çTT- JNeighborhoods ) _ - Key features y . _ - . _ of the LPD - '- _ car __ /' _ include: . •• =-' _ _ -=..- - ,. CV Requirement for 75 _ - - - _ ___r.; '' _ percent open space _ -- .,-.:- — - _ - -- ' Design criteria for ,., ,�..-, -- - - _ - - - - __-- ' � r- neighborhoods a - <<.A., f4 ,n-; -r 3�1. Cy.'. �` w 75 percent - F - r lam' .,;, ow Emphasis on 4 open space - .�- '� �t"` . community open `�''4 - - - �.-',.�o�� ,,-,,,- --41. ,: space goals _ ,, 4. �w '' '., qt K Smaller lot size 2 3 r) • What happens to our rural 1 Permanent open space can be uo created through the concept open space . . . g •, p .: : The typical one-to or woods of neighbor- properties are also of lot size reduction . • _,_ ,_._ . 4 _ two-acre lot in a ing properties. How- developed for home conventional zoning ever,this is"bor- sites,the surroundings In the LPD the concept lot,in the LPD this tract,20 units would district will seem rowed"open space, will be suburban in of lot size reduction is dwelling would be be allowed on 20 "rural"only as long as temporary in nature. character,and the used to create perma- restricted to a quarter- quarter-acre lots it borders farm fields When those abutting feeling of"living in the nent open space. For acre lot and the re- (occupying a total of country"will be lost. example,if under the maining one-and five acres),and the The view of houses, regulations of a stan- three-quarter acres remaining 35 acres driveways,and large dard residential dis- would become perma- would become perma- Two-Acre Zoning private yards with trict,one dwelling is nent open space. nent open space to be their fences,sheds,and allowed on a two-acre Thus,on a 40-acre enjoyed by all residents. shrubs all change the --- _ pe pe 1e°tly' LPD Development II - i - , • �. 13/4 acres .. 2-acre ' open space le lot 4 •"` •�<' • : ,t Views are to temporary, ;•• 1 , -' .T.�. • "borrowed"open space IV ..• 1/4-acre II1 r 0t : ..,:ii 1 rofyY. • t �' 4A...... Y �I.1` 1 Stf. '1.1'4,!,i1%%i dye ".�. -'1 0 •;14 .?' +,'N ,,fi ,��� •r . 7.� I� � Y I l �1 v,.,, l I____._,_1. __-• I .:4. . ,. . ,Views to borrowed V�, • • -. [' w open space are lost to I �, • , _.l•i development I•!, •' ' ' ten,,, LI— a On a 40-acre tract, • • •1. • . 20 1/4-acre lots benefit Views are to permanent open space•4 L•' • •J J. I• from 35 acres of / 5 permanent open space • • Hasn't this concept been Quality of life.through used before? design criteria . . • Many municipalities These developments Furthermore,while use the concept of lot have reduced lot sizes, these"cluster"dis- Neighborhood open space size reduction in so- but not enough open tricts may succeed in Preserved woodland called"cluster"dis- space to have a notice- protecting some ... tricts in their zoning able impact(usually 25 sensitive natural areas, ordinances. Yet, percent or less). The they contain inad- , development in many view from the road is of equate design scan of these districts looks houses and driveways, dards governing how and feels much like and most of the open the development and -' • 44. �`, - `' conventional suburban space is often hidden on the open space should a ,' y � ` development. "leftover,"unusable land. be laid out. ,-'!.:'' ._ The LPD provides: k.,..•Common -. . - ' open land :; ;--. • ' 75 percent open space located for maximum visibility '-`' . = _ ' . ` ,,__ _ . ,.. . • . •v;.. "fat,c.'r pri +}' r • t ,. TAIIINW ? '' A minimum of 75 percent open space is required. ' Typical lot size is 10,000 square feet,but this can be �� - �. reduced to 6,000 square feet. Neighborhoods must contain at least five, but no more than 25 dwellings. Ci Open space within the neighborhood is required Design criteria for neighborhoods for groups of ten or more dwellings. cv Setbacks are required between neighborhoods and ��� ���# " ; , from certain site elements such as roads,croplands, t In ,,t• r,,� ,-j �1 r .. �' and floodplains. 7 tJ "G Community g oals for Neighborhood quality . . .a _,An LPD neighborhood should open space can be met . . • g d be designed as a unified whole in which all the elements work well The best method for open space plan. A A site analysis on a together. Because the neighborhoods are corn- establishing commu- community can set its particular tract will pact,their scale is smaller and more intimate nity goals is through own goals as to which determine its natural than the typical suburb,yet they still accommo i the community's features should be features and,corn- date the automobile and give residents privacy. comprehensive plan or I protected. bined with compre- The municipal zoning ordinance deals with the hensive planning placement of homes,dimensions of yards,and 1 goals,will lead to relationships to open space. The municipal , appropriate locations subdivision and land development ordinance Site Analysis for dwelling units and should contain standards for streetscape elements open space. --street widths,sidewalks,curbs,street trees, - driveways,and parking spaces--that are suited - Floodplain The LPD provides the to the special characteristics of the LPD. 4 design flexibility needed to locate uses ' • ,I# on a site where they r .O3 sa. a ,x • I, x . can best meet the chosen community ?- .;,� .,:�. I Steep slopes goals. ., 3.,11 //���� Pasture - iiii ;;Ipie . ..:_-,:...-.7:. , . .: i e ..._.P Woods 1 .. �� -� Y. 1, Concept Plan.,. ,.... •,.. . ,_ :.,... . . , . ..... i ' L .. 1.7...of• ie,--,,. \ `- 1 Neighborhoods */// limit' .- ,....,.Sr ' . , , - / ---::•••• .1IP : • ' r- 8 9 . . On a particular site an one of several communi goals any community can be reached . . . --.--: . ., Goal B i ` _ . ,,� Farmland I II - :fi Preservation I 1Fasmiattel-- G - s Fields suitable for farming ■ . . . for example `\I _- r \ are not built upon: homes 1 v \ \ \ _ 4 are located in the woodland. —' . : ,■ 1 ;•Z :� i \ 4 z. 1 i I Om • Goal A a - Woodland • . T'`. ,r .: (lttais. I r .Preservation - .1f_wS;,., �. Goal C - �� x> Homes are located Nitta. ' •.< Preservation of 1-"e , I- 7` ' in the open fields, r Scenic Views + saving the woodland. ` '$ 0 "c Homes are located on the - ' y '*� � View. •�. .. �,, ' 1' slopes below the ridge lines, a. preserving long-distance • �' - J P g -distance g views over the rooftops. ;t o . •• • 'sz�{ , \• in 10 11 C,,) Abutting LPD develo _ pm, lants will provide greater community benefits • • • •,, , 4.. -. .,:•• •. The municipal fit le.-i.. .-11.• _ •• „4,•..........z... . Farmland •.-' •111 •,1 ..7..., ,-..Ai, ..,. , , •:'•-• open space network ...,- , ii,ock4,1„.?-4"4410r can be •, . .....1 16" ' 1 '•'''.••-14: . . can be enlarged preserved 50..refo -- ...,.,•1„,,,f,_....;,,,..4 , •,,... ■ - ....'7.-- -''C'''eL441 ."i'6;.: ti ''. '. . ,i.00011111111.111. .*Abb, -.• ., . •,. . '..., • . ''i 1,40, A • •:: -, .....it. ,-.- ' *. 4,1: :• . : .,4 --:: .. '!•1'.;1'1,1... ' ' ■•••••.. ' . ,,k-. !, k 1 r r, -<P' 4.s.1".. 4',-- :r ',-...;00 •- t' . • r , ..,.. .. ., :. . . .. • • , V ..4 . .. .---, T''-,-%--1.'" , - ---' - , - . , ..t. -.7, - - ,,,,r_ . ., ., .... ,. if r . • . Or ' C•-, , 4 ' ..•*' • '. •• 410-' s•••••• c,,, -' • ' -1... ,• • • •. .'4: ""l, 4111( , • . . I -..x.„.°- .1., - • • .. . • • , . • , ' 4 .4 44 , -4 4:*-- . :".-. • • : . ' . ** - ; .,.. . . .. . ... . .: 5 .. ii, J . . elliet,i.•-... ..7rzt;,,,• . .,. f' sr" Dwellings can be ..< ,,., .v. , •- ,1 , . \ k• • . .:, t ../-4,-.., ..4. „I 4::)q- • 4,. lit A, ,.,. . :.- . hidden from • " .., - f 1%., L., .• ., ■Iiiiii-;,-.6,- ( ._,-- • ..- . . . .existing roads • •- .•—_ .••_, ..),..'- a•.....,...,-,4-,.. - - . . ,**4■■,%-,...., — 'A•:.,•.."..,t -.'•.. .ffi.W. v -•1. .. . ' , 1 O ... 11•1 6. • 1.6.• • • ,• , --...111VIII .vrzw__, w • • * • 1 . . . ",‘'t • . - • . . ...•• •••., • . • IP •• .T: . . . • . . . ... .: ,...t _ • Rural vistas 12 can be preserved 13, , How will the eb open s ac p p e managed? - g Many alternatives exist for the ownership and management of the open space: it can be left in its natural state,farmed,or used in whole or in part for park and recreation purposes. No matter which management option is used,the open space is restricted by permanent easement from any further development. 1 Estate Lots A unique feature of the LPD is a provision that allows ",.... open space to be held on"estate lots"-- large,private lots with a minimum size of 5 to 15 acres,depending on Homeowners the size of the original tract. As with open space owned Association �'+' •'s":; by the municipality,a conservation group,or an HOA,• A homeowners association ;` - the open space is restricted by permanent easement from (HOA)can be formed to own - 1 any further development. and manage the open space. . The association can use the land •''� .' in many ways,as determined by �� •:,.. the residents,and may lease all =`• `�' �; • - orpart of it for agriculture. The '� >' 5-acre (y, Dwellings on estate open space need not be acces- e,. :6 •, estate r �' .• , � - lot s- '" `' + �' lots are counted sible to the general public. ` r .� }}- toward the maximum ��. s; ' density permitted on 1 acr p , i i -�' ‘‘ buildable / ( the tract. Municipal Ownership , --,-•r _:; 3 area r i, �� % ". nv No more than one Another option is for the mu- (.. i I a I acre of the estate lot nicipality to take title to all or �� I.-----1 may be used for a part of the open space;this area _ ''"=: P P P \ Total ' •• � "�-.,: home site and acces- could be developed as part of a 75 r '•'-•:"'' ''. sory buildings. The larger municipal open space and -;�\ percent ;i� -` �` remainder of the lot park plan. In this case,the land open �'( may be used for•would be accessible to the space \. •' � agriculture or left in general public. Private Conservation Group ;;:; ' its natural state. •. A private,nonprofit conservation group j Q � Public access to estate (such as a watershed association,land i'• s lots may be permitted trust,or conservancy)may also hold title j - 'I ?; through trail easements ts to the open space and manage it to . • t• or other agreements, achieve conservation goals. Public but is not required. access may or may not be permitted. Neighborhood lots W 14 15 ....) What about sewage treaent? c..., Most LPD developments will be located in rural areas,away from Individual Systems public sewage treatment facilities. There are numerous other alterna- tives for handling the collection,treatment,and disposal of sewage. __ The system most commonly used in con- ventional,large-lot development is the Many of these alternatives involve the use of a portion of the open individual septic tank or aerobic tank • space,as depicted below. The parts of the system that would be locat- a with a subsurface drain field or sand ed on individual lots would be maintained by the individual home- ,' ; ; • I ,; • mound located on each lot. In the LPD,• owner,while components that are shared would be the responsibility ��� individual septic or aerobic tanks could t • also be located on the lot. The drain field LLJ of the homeowners association or the municipality. 3 or sand mound,however,would be lo- cated in the common open space. Subsurface Disposal... '' , Ina community system,either indi- }�. I I vidual or community tanks could be ' How does the LPD fit: into a typical used Disposal is accomplished w�'� _i',. °:t-? ' ' '.. zo awl 4" ' ' non through the use of community drain ,'�. Wi "°"` "" " °" fields or sand mounds,which can be R,. ^ •., !' The LPD would not areas are already zoned district that meets incorporated in a landscaped berm N. `' replace all other resi- for one-or two-acre certain criteria. For °` ri.�''� , .• • • 1k"" dential zoning dis- lots. The LPD simply example,the LPD might located in the common open space. B P Y P tnigh tricts;rather,it would uses this density in a apply to all parcels of at work in conjunction different manner. least ten acres. The Spray System... with them. The LPD ■a `• can either be applied If the LPD is applied as a Whether the LPD is Another alternative is a centralized as a mapped district or mapped district,it applied as a mapped �: lagoon system consisting primarily of as an overlay district to would replace one or or an overlay district, r� '_ ,,Al several ponds equipped with aerators to ( those areas of the more selected existing we recommend that its �" + •..-, facilitate biological treatment and municipality where zoning districts on the provisions be manda- ��at '•_ prevent odors. The ponds can easily be open space,rural zoning map. If the LPD tory,to ensure that the �� % ' integrated into the landscaping scheme character,and envi- is applied as an overlay municipality's open spar''%V ronmentai resources district,its requirements Fields'_� :, of the project. The treated effluent I eQ � tmentS space and environ- would be sprayed in fields or woodlands ' are considered impor- would apply to any tract mental goals are met. iiir. -. in the common open space. tant. Generally,such within the underlying , I 16 17 W the LPP? s.i (‘%, Community Goals ew Flexibility cw Design cw Open Space Comprehensive planning The LPD creates the Design requirements At 75 percent of the tract, goals for open space location flexibility to site the guide development enough open space is and design can be met. homes in a way that best toward desired results. created to have a definite preserves woods, farms, positive impact. and rural views. *a viivilll....%1°.. 6'11 '........„::______--------- . 7: -7:%.---` ,.-.Lt,u. '' - , 6416:tiLtimipika-_. I ..:, . .... .. 7.'',- ''..- 4"'1111141k4ttc 10,4114, bh_' .- ,,''''''''.7-11.-1"-'.----.'_ Ale . �4 • ► '" so---"-• `:, ..,e ' 4"."-- . w j e '. _, :_a , ,t,1 —ic.,, .. ..-...i :..:....-. .. ' /X-411Ni■-\\L-_,::::::::;;,--. •,..„,.,..2„,..... �. �, �, ��, •.� By Comparison . . .. \ ", r ... No open space o `'` • i s.ti *eir J' Rigid lotting �� - • `' .. . No design guidelines •'1.!a luf', . .. ' . .. . Community goals are not•• • • • • identified or achieved •• 's.,. • Rural character is lost 18 19 W W Growth Managem1tiotg( . rnery Ct : i If there are any two There has also been a In 1990 the Montgom- and rural character, Montgomery County. concentrated on village singular words that can rapid growth of busi- ery County Planning and provide for the 1 planning and the best describe what has ness and industry, Commission embark- recreational needs of In the upcoming years concept of using been happening in which is just as im- ed on a program to residents to a degree this commission will transfer of develop- Montgomery County portant in terms of develop growth man- that is virtually im- continue to develop ment rights to pro- and much of south- its impact on the agement tools to possible under con- new model ordinances mote growth where it eastern Pennsylvania physical and econo- address this rapid and ventional suburban and development is wanted,while pre- during the past few mic landscape of the often uncontrolled zoning. It is limited guidelines that will serving open land decades,they would county. In 1950 the development. The to single-family, address some of the where needed.ow have to be"growth" number of jobs locat- Land Preservation detached housing-- many problems of and"change." Since ed in Montgomery District(LPD)is the the predominant I unmanaged growth. 1950 our county has County represented 9 first such tool. housing type in Current efforts are seen a rate and amount percent of all the jobs of growth and change in the Philadelphia re- The LPD is a zoning that is unprecedented gion. By 1987 the district that addresses in its history. number of jobs in the residential growth county grew to a total only. It restricts nei- For additional information on the Land Preservation District, the Our population has of over 493,000,which ther the amount(i.e., almost doubled during was 20 percent of all density)nor the timing following reports are available from: the past four decades, the jobs in the region. of growth. It does Montgomery County Planning Commission from about 353,000 in regulate the physical Courthouse, Norristown,Pennsylvania 19404 1950 to about 678,000 The impact of this location of growth by phone(215)278-3722 today. The number of continuing growth is guiding the location of housing units has phenomenal. We esti- houses on a tract,thus Land Preservation District: Model Zoning Provisions increased 175 percent mate that over 17,000 strongly influencing during that same time acres(approximately the visual perception . '' Land Preservation District: Land Development Standards period to almost 27 square miles or 6 of density. It will 266,000 today. Accord- percent of the county's enable communities N., Guidelines for Successful Homeowners Associations ing to the 1990 census, land area)were devel- to protect valuable we added over 33,000 oped during the last natural resources, N., Guidelines for Open Space Management in the LPD units during the 1980s. ten years alone! preserve open land N.. Sewage Treatment Alternatives for the LPD 20 • 21 ISSUE PAPER DEFINITION&AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE Background Two concerns are of particular importance to the issue of Open-Space Developments (OSD) in Orange County. • What defines open space within an open-space (rural cluster) development?Stated another way, what types of uses should be permitted in areas designated permanent open space? • Is 50% of the total tract an appropriate percentage of land to require as permanent open space in an Open-Space Development?A related question is - 50% of what?Total site area? Buildable area? Rural Character Study Committee Recommendations The Rural Character Study Committee considered the issue of open space during 1990-92. The question of allowed uses within designated open space was one with which the Committee spent many hours in deliberation. Issues of active recreation use,utility easements,and wastewater treatment fields were debated over several meetings.The Committee eventually came to a compromise definition on these issues.This definition can be found in the Committee report,Conceptual Guideline for Rural Orange(see attachment). In general, the Committee defined open space as natural, scenic or agricultural areas- Under certain conditions or situations, however, other uses would be permitted in open space areas, including entrance roads, historic and archaeological sites, wastewater nitrification fields, and open, vegetated playfields and recreation sites-both public and private. The Committee also spent a great deal of time on the issue of percentage of open space that should be required for Open Space Developments.A number of draft development strategies were devised,and arguments were presented in favor of higher open space percentages for resource protection-and lower percentages for financial considerations. In the end, the Committee folded both arguments into a compromise package. The Committee recommended that open space requirements be tied to density bonuses for Open-Space Developments in a aiiding sole.The more open space protected,the greater the density bonus.The Committee also recommended a range of open space requirements at 10%increments. On the low end of the sole, an Open-Space Development with 20% open space could attain 0.8 lots per gross acre. On the top end,an Open-Space Development with 70%open space would be allowed 1.3 lots per acre.In this wady,the Committee attempted to provide for a wide range of options as an incentive to pursue Open-Space Developments. University Station Work Groun Efforts In the spring of 1994, a work group of County and Town of Hillsborough officials was formed to prepare a small area plan to resolve development issues on the proposed 852-acre University Station development site Using a design studio approach, members of the work group attempted to design the optimum project under each jurisdictions'goals. Using the ideas of open space planner Randall Arendt,the work groups considered defining areas to be protected or preserved by identifying "primary" and "secondary conservation areas-" There was agreement on the types of areas within each to be protected in "primary conservation areae"; e.g., unbuildable area such as water bodies,steep slopes,alluvial soils,fioodplains,and wetlands. In terms of "secondary conservation areas", there was less agreement.The Hillsborough team included historic sites, a significant hardwood forest area, a golf course, and landscape buffers as part of its "secondary" area, 38 while the County team included a wildlife corridor,the same hardwood forest area,the same historic sites, old farm fields and a viewshed (scenic vista). A third plan was prepared, for purposes of comparison, based on the methodology advocated by Randall Arendt.The"primary conservation areas"were the same as identified by both the Hillsborough and County teams.In terms of"secondary"areas,the"Arendt Plan"preserved ant area of upland pine and hardwood forest in lieu of viewshed areas,and included all golf course and grassy common areas The percentage of open space required was the basis for the starting point of the work group,since both jurisdictions had adopted different standards.The Hillsborough team worked on the premise that at least 30%of the total site should be protected in open space,with a density of two units per acre on the remainder of the site.The County team worked under the standard of at least 30%of the buildable area of the site as open space, with a density of two units per buildable acre.The"Arendt Plan"was based on the premise that after eliminating"primary conservation areas",at least 50%of the remaining"buildable" area had to consist of"secondary conservation areas".Attachments are provided which summarize/illustrate the Work Group's efforts Estimates of the amount of open space resulting from each option are as follows: Hillsborough Team 33.5% Orange County Team 42.2% Arendt Method 65.9% Deftnitions and Amounts of Open Spam Used in Other Areas The two issues of open space uses and percentage are not exclusive to Orange County. These questions have arisen in other counties around the nation. In his design guidebook for Sussex County, Del aware, Randall Arendt argues for a standard of 50% of the buildable area of a site as open space, although he has also recommended 40%of the buildable area in other locales Arendt also ells for a more protective stance on secondary conservation areas(mature hardwoods,bluffs,natural sites,vistas).Chicago Newcastle County, Delaware uses a formula to designate a percentage of designated "protection areas", which can range from 50-100%depending on the assumed value of the area.Loudoun County,Virginia has no percentage standard but requires certain types of area on site to be protected- similar to Arendt's apps Y- Excerpt from Conceptual Guidelines for Rural Orange Definition of "Open Space" OPEN SPACE: Generally, open space is defined as natural areas, scenic vistas or lands used for agricultural purposes, in accordance with the goals of the Rural Character Study. However, the quality of open space is very important. Further definition of qualifying natural areas will be accomplished by a participative implementation process (see Attachment 3) . This process will involve citizen participation and review of the package by a number of organizations and civic groups, before the draft ordinances are presented to the Ordinance Review Committee plus representatives from each group. In this manner, assistance in defining quality natural areas/wildlife habitat open space may be solicited from the Triangle Land Conservancy and other similar organizations. Assistance in defining qualifying scenic vistas may be solicited- from the Transportation Advisory Subcommittee - currently working on the Scenic ,Roads Study. Finally, assistance in defining quality agricultural open space will be solicited from the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board. Additionally, the following uses are permitted in voluntary open space: 1. New entrance roads bounded on one or both sides by open space as defined herein, provided they do not extend through portions of the site occupied by those features identified in #2, #3, and V. Existing roads in site may be utilized where no adverse impacts to features identified above are created. 2. Sites identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats, including wildlife corridors, and the Inventory of Sites of Cultural, Historic, Recreational, Biological, and Geologic Interest. 3. Structures and sites identified in the countywide inventory of historic and archaeological sites. 4. Sites other than the above which are identified as significant as part of a required Environmental Assessment (EA) and/or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) . 5. Up to 50 percent of the area of nitrification fields for community and/or individual ground absorption sewage disposal systems, provided approval of such systems is obtained from the Orange County Division of Environmental Health or the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, whichever is applicable. 40 However, there are two means by which 100% of the field may be counted as open space: A) Where nitrification fields are designed in accordance with environmentally-sensitive development recommendations in the Rural Orange Design Guidebook, provided the open space uses would not be active recreational facilities, or other uses deemed inappropriate as per state and local health regulations. B) Additionally, open space left entirely in its natural state (where the natural state is not active recreation) . Nitrification fields may not occupy portions of the site identified in #2, #3, and V. 6. Agricultural and forestry activities which involve the cultivation of soil for the production of crops, including but not limited to fruits, vegetables, flowers, and ornamental plants, the planting and production of trees and timber; and the raising of livestock, for individual and public use, consumption, and marketing. Open water bodies may also be counted as open space 7. Active and passive public recreation sites identified in the County's Master Recreation & Parks Plan, including district and community parks owned by the County. 8. Private or other public recreational facilities such as open vegetated fields for recreational activities such as golf courses, driving ranges, baseball and soccer fields may count partially in fulfilling open space requirements. However, since many of these facilities may not fully achieve the goals of this study, this type of open space should count only as 50% of the required open space set-aside. Furthermore, these types of open space should comply with applicable design standards and monitoring and maintenance requirements to be developed. Further study is recommended on the subject of specific criteria evaluating the quality of such open space. Provision must be made for permanent protection of the open space through: a) Conservation as private property through platted ownership or conservation easements. b) Ownership by a Homeowner's Association as shown on the recorded plat, including specific upkeep requirements as part of its bylaws and restrictive covenants; or c) Public dedication to Orange County or another unit of local government, a: nonprofit conservation organization, or the State of North Carolina. 41 PRIMARY CONSERVATION AREAS Open Spade Acreage Feature Hillsborough Orange County Plan Plan Arendt Plan Floodplain 91.4 Acres 91.4 Acres 91.4 Acres Alluvial Soils Included in 71oodplain" Farm Ponds 5.7 Acres 5.7 Acres 5.7 Acres Water Bodies Beaver Ponds Included in 71oodplain" Steep Slopes [>25%] 54.8 Acres 54.8 Acres 54.8 Acres Wetlands Included in"Floodplains" Total Area 151.9 Acres 151.9 Acres 151.9 Acres NOTE: Acreage in"Steep Slopes"reduced fibm 58.2 to 54.8 acres to exclude 1.4 acres incorrectly picked up beyond project boundaries in original GIS plot. 42 4 � Univers ity Station Pnmary Conservation Areas ���� borough & County Plans) • N4 f 1� 1� %ft ft"w aw .W am m 16 air POWW &V cmpw s i s "W Eli 1 LEGEND UP Wader Bodes 5.7 Acres ounce courrr,r steep slopes 54.8 Acres PL.Ar NDIO DIM (((� F6*la n 91.4 Acres 44 SECONDARY CONSERVATION AREAS Open Space Acreage Feature Hillsborough Orange County Plan Plan Arendt Plan �.':.'K x�x'�;:{v{:•ir{:: :fi:::::•::$'i i':ir }j`T:$IX$fiT}.ii"•{i ��p ::w,.,;,\ky'xY'.:;`,':{.{••}••?::•.•:;�.}. {:{:$?:�{;$$;`$ "i;Ey`: °•T}a:x::•x:}QT�,t,}s$..r..:;k.;:v� 'i�7c••f:} i iiiiiCr .Y$v4': .'v:•v.Yi:vLq }..}.. ;}{..•.:.:{::v:. .J�','+i"�,�yv�,,y $•: v::i•::$.: +•\ v,$:::•`.`•x...{:.{T..;}:•:•}}fir.',+.i: • <:k•}•: .}?,.:::T•.ti,LT•.�:J.xry•: Y.v. :.:.,(.,J, .%:'.vi:�' Ti.i•}$: :i,�{N x$�'?:. r.::$v..J::f{}i^+• ..^.v y '{:ii'':. �;, •• -0"•!';'•k '•:ti}�ri,:•titi i:+>C:$Ykx} Y?•r•.;.;:. f'• ":+T : Farmland State&Local ;'k{:? .. .,, )s{Y$... 2}}4..}.:xsx; .;..}r:$$:%G s*t i'.:},.:k x y •? x$ t�i�uv '}.$:�{::$} ::•:.•::. ti.{i;:$.ni}tiv.;il•:i::.. } ♦.r~•'.�,+�'�`7'.:.i•'i'.•:x:'' •\•{�••.,•:•... :''•'4�: }•�:${ ...,:.,.::...::::::.:..,.:::::....:::.Y:.>}:.......::.. :.�.�:::::.:.,{{{:.;:{":}:.::.::.,.,i:i.::.i}..T:.;.{•.�•: <. ::v: .}•:.{:::.: : ,'•:},y,.;+ :?.::�;:{$• :'•'ix:•<^::•{x$» ,:$$$:•::•:•}•:r,}:::x: WIN y'{}:;'.i..:•'J:<2k}•.::•::7 ,;.;T:t:-$Tx: �''a3::'•"?,x/C4'Y�e.v'•.:.�;: yv :;^•.:}..} C.: : ':a.. .•}••'.; �'{S�' `x ( ��. ...:v`v',u};:'.{::••;•{::::}:: :'•k�•r r.;:J:::.:.:'% {:.?.:.... .n•:$:.xT:,`XJ�•.,.1 '; {,i+.'.;r.ti,T:4'�•`.:::$},$s'i:'' �'w"'� ..r:..{...:.::••::.:•.,'.at.r:...::.••:.: 'T.u:.;}.xto?•T:.:+{,>it;{'.'•+f..{•T.:+.: 'ky,f):"'•"•`.:••.,{+.;•:??;•'•+.rr •.$M. .'�,:.v. i? :::}" .,•'{`i:;`.'.� is y..v.?$$<}'.t:: ' ::$"s :.i.. {..:::as „zs wc<.,<i.''``;>: x}>;$t${., .i+ r :: r:.•z Y•T:::::•::...•. Beaver POIIdB ?::;$$:>:>:..�i�•>${ •:$'{.{3$?:;$:{:`x,:{:x}:; . ,:•.• •;.. {i5,x :a J Natural Areas Bottomland Hardwood 63.3 Acres 20.0 Acres/1 20.0 Acres/1 Beech Bluffs 32.8 Acres 19.5 Acres/1 19.5 Acres/1 Wildlife Corridor >„ {:vY{ J,'.f:$:i+ 130.5 Acres 130.5 Acres Y..r..Y•Y;}� .. !.{.�::'+,4,:,v,T:":4:vv'vv:•'•i;, .,nw[: Upland Hardwood <;ry. . .}:}::}....:;.:#< .: 136.1 Acres/8 Upland Pine i;:<x>xx{:;.: :::{.$aa:}v/i:k ;.:4;ca.;;•;..:.}•::•.v'{} w:.;;::..}}::•:::;:'T'.aJ,t: � :{i�•}; Yf`'sY:'.2' �C{}$.• .}:.TT•:.:: Y, .L::'r'i•.•:•:.v ;.xtiry. .;:})':'iti:: ...'{{.' v}N`.{.�6;•. t"J...,�/: {• ..L JI.::i:.:. ii::.}v •:4.• ivN,.,f;:}':ry}...'::::.:' ".::{ri.. .;:;+i$C;y. v .{>.:::. ` V y/.•} Early Pine :::.; '.sue.;:.. ::{.T.xi[{.:...•i::x?;$::. Vegetation ...i••::�:<::..:::........................ :::.}::::::.:.::.::::::.: .:. Old Field • .;;; "..' }:.:«:;.$ :1 X.; �,., '"�"''�:::.:•:.::...: 89.8 Acres ':•{::/:+{. "t :.:' ti: Tx}:.ti:: :y '4$:?yC:{:.xi::,•' T:Wv..:.;i• :•xYry:.'}}• •}.iri :'{':i}.v:$::..'........ .n'v v:.`.i:::: {..::{•}:•::{.}n.:..:.n •: qv$}$::}•};•TT}::;i Old Past \${..1... •?•r , ..1.. •Tk{:i:4} ..nf} '. nYvl{' 'J: '"$:�:F:•:•:'t{:\•}:ti:;:;•., Dairy Farm 2.0 Acres 5.0 Acres 5.0 Acres Strayhorn Cemetery 2.0 Acres 5.0 Acres 5.0 Acres Historic & Boyd House 2.0 Acres 5.0 Acres 5.0 Acres Archaeological Craig Manor Ruins 2.0 Acres 5.0 Acres 5.0 Acres Sites Mac House 2.0 Acres 3.4 Acres 3.4 Acres Steep Slopes [15% ::<' } ••• vri}..•. Nvn.}I.,.%...:.. .•.L,•:::;v is y:. r �: �,4w$} YJJ:v.,:. :.$},0:. .}:'•?'4:;%4}T.i}:>:..}::}i' p -v: v. {nv 93.5 Acres/6 / Golf Course/Recreation ..,��5`y'{f�,�"t�i �..>�n :��: ��:�;»>r 1�.0 Acres 4 Viewshed :A n• i.. �Ti:}$it•'}Yk;.vpxK Fh;.S y <i{$:44]]vw::''• {.- •Fr Acres/2 25.9 tAl :�'"•::• �:.` >a t.$<:> <x.:.::: 28.5 ri:,$y'.f$ri, :':j:.:. ...:.k.:...} i+C•.{.{}j';;'.}•:.T'•f:T:•}::T^_ Q� •J} C ;: ,, v;. ..}.x•T v$;{ vLan Buffers 1$1:fvi W.,..'•:f xi i:•T:I•T6 wy T: {\::•:49.2 s,, /3 $. >{:s: .;.,�,,: $4.: •�c�/ ;•.3fi • • ta hi^xrx:ti�;ov::: :: '•:`9:;:Total Area 248.8 Acres 308.7 Acres 523.4 NOTES: 1/Includes area outside other Secondary Conservation features. 2/Includes area along east side of New Hope Church Road and south side of Old N.C. 10. 3/Includes area outside other Secondary Conservation features. 41 Includes all 155 acres of golf course and 13 acres in grassy commons. 5/Includes only 50% of golf course. 6/ Shown on plot as"Forest Land" and is comprised predominantly of upland hardwood forest. Uifiversity Stafton 1 1 t . Commation(COMAY m ww le Dds POW 130.5 Aaa '/ � , ii'!♦♦ =-♦♦iii♦iii`. �i �� ��'i�/�i� - =�i♦i♦iii♦�' -- „- I 20.0 Acm ORANGE •' PLANNING s a =be 2W ., Univers* Station 46 ity Secondary Conservaidon Areas (HMsborough Plan) POWW RM OWN P� nm ■ r.: •• 1 Y I / / Y NO FM To ft" ''' 10.0 A== ORANM r• PLANNM DW 1 =be 2M Ii LmdscW &ffm 492 Y w University Station Secondwy Commation Arm Option) ww ftbad own po� ww �: .•....=���I 111 ��- �•o��� II li�I �• —_ dI I �'�tllll��'In LEGEND ,,lii Caddar .,1'• , �, , , I Ac .' Beech BhdF 19.5 Acm —�� 20.0 Acm mdoric 23.4 Aan VWwsw 25.9 Actes mbp no To sob Golf Cmw ORANGE I COUNTY 169.0 Acm PLANNING DEFT Fang LwW Ac " 48 SUDBURY OF OPEN SPACE AND DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS ` FOR UNIVERSITY STATION SITE Plan Categmy Hillsborough Plan Orange County Plan Arendt Plan OPEN SPACE CHARACTERISTICS Primary Conservation Area 151.9 Acres 151.9 Acres 151.9 Acres Secondary Conservation Area 133.3 Acres 209.0 Acres 408.1 Acres Total Open Space Area 285.2 Acres 360.9 Acres 560.0 Acres Open Space as % of Total Project Area 33.5% 42.4% DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS Total Project Area (acres) 850.0 850.0 850.0 Lees: Rights-of-Way (Acres) 24.0 24.0 24.0 Net Project Area (Acres) 826.0 826.0 826.0 Primary Conservation 151.9 151.9 151.9 Area Space (Acres) secondary► Conservation 133.3 209.0 408.1 Area Total Area 285.2 360.9 560.0 Buildable Area (Acres) [for density calculation] 540.8 465.1 674.1 Development Area(Acres) [for building purposes) 540.8 465.1 266.0 Density Standard (Units/Acra) 2.00 2.00 1.83 Allowable Units 1,082 930 464 Total Project Density Area 1.27 1.09 0.54 (Units/Acre) Development Area 2.00 2.00 1.74 Average Lot Size (SgFt) 21,739 21,785 24,972 University Station 49 • • POWW OV Ca mc is dm am Ckow ftw LWEND � ice = . .:: _ _ --- 1► ---- .• . , e . . . Me PLANNDIG DE" aft 2M4 133.3 Acres (mcludes 50% of golf course) 50 University Statio i ww ON me le own POMM Imw ftw LEGEND Pzbmy v�• - A ,,� .� r ■r - - a A �.�._ I I I Cowavadon Area ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEIST . . aft 20% 209.0 Acm University Station Option) WE P*WW ww Pddbmd Ode PWWW Cmpd HE ftw LEGEND 151.9 Acres ORANGE .. :............... ■'` - COUNTY f PLANNING DEPT Secondary Camsavadw Areas abc 2M 408.1 Acme 52 1.•' ISSUE PAPER ALLOWING DENSITY BONUSES FOR OPEN-SPACE DEVELOPMENTS Background The Rural Character Study Committee has recommended the use of Open-Space Developments as a means to protect the County'e natural, agricultural, and visual resources. The Committee has also recommended incentives for property ownere/developers who choose to protect open space within their development projects. The primary incentive recommended is a density bonus. However, some citizens have argued that density bonuses are not necessary for Open-Space Developments. They argue that the natural tract"yield"should be the density of development allowed,and that there are incentives inherent with the Open-Space Development style(design and service efficiency,lower infrastructure costa,etc.)that make density bonuses unnecessary. The Caen for Density Bonuses Because Open-Space Developments represent something new and different for many developers of conventional subdivisions, proponents of density bonuses argue that incentives are needed to open the door and make developers and financial institutions willing to change from the old style. The Rural Character Study Committee density bonus is part of a sliding scale,where the greater the open space preserved, the greater the density bonus. The bonus is coupled with a proposed "disincentive"for conventional subdivision development-an increase in the minimum required lot size for conventional development from one acre to two acres.Property owners/developers who opt for Open-Space Developments can"regain" or even exceed the maximum one-acre density, depending on the amount of open space protected. Beginning at a starting point of 20%open space and 0.8 lots per acre, developers would realize a density bonus of 0.1 lots per gross acre for every additional 10%of open space protected. At 40`b open space, the development density would equal the one-acre lot maximum density. The scale stops at 70% open space, which allows 1.3 lots per gross acre in the development. Studies to date have indicated that density bonuses must be of a substantial lot yield in order to generate response from the development community.Bonuses in the range of 10-15%in some jurisdictions have not generated use of this development style. The Case Against Density Bonuses Opponents of density bonuses base their case on three factors: (1) that the natural carrying capacity of the tract should not be altered; (2) that there are ample incentives for Open-Space Development use without duty bonuses;and(3) that the needed bonus is so great that it turns rural projects into p mpets with urban scale. The Srst factor relates to the "yield plea". This concept ties project density to the site's natural capacity. A conventional subdivision design is done to generate the number of lots that could be created and served with adequate sewage disposal sites. That number then becomes the density for the Open. Space Development design.This means that tracts with severe environmental constraints will have a lower density than tracts with few constraints. Open Space Development design, by its very nature, produces compact form. Roads are shorter, utility line expansion less necessary, and previously unusable corners of the tract are buildable. Service provision is also thus more efficient,covering more houses in less time or distance. Opponents of density bonuses assert that these incentives,once realized by the development community,will produce the desired increase in Open-Space Development style. 54 e Finally,an argument sometimes advanced relates to the amount of density bonus needed to make a switch to Open-Space Development financially feasible.Although there is no density bonus threshold that is wideiraccepted,bonuses on the order of 30-100%may be needed to accomplish the goal of encouraging more developments of this style.Development projects with more than one unit per acre overall represent an increase in the number of lots that could be currently created. Ezveriences in Other Counties Counties like Loudoun County,Virginia and Clallam County,Washington have seen significant use of Open-Space Development styles in their counties since adoption of standards.However,in both counties the starting base density was considerably lower than Orange County.In Loudoun County,the basic rural zoning requires three acres per lot. In Clallam County, base rural zoning is one unit per lb acres. Thus, a significant amount of density bonus was available to offer without approaching urban densities.In other locales like Concord, Massachusetts, open-space design has been little used, perhaps because of a low density bonus.