12/06/94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

OCTOBER 1994 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION Planning for Open Space Developments By Dan Biver and Sarah Bohlen Where has all the open space gone? Local government officials seldom wish to sacrifice all open space to development. But what is the alternative? Many:~planners now suggest open space developments, also known as cluster developments. They are intended to produce exactly the opposite of what "cluster" implies---clumping or high-dinsity development. Instead, these developments allow the usualnumber of homes on a parcel of land while downsizing lot sizes and altering the typical lot plan to allow for greenways and other open spaces. Planners have debated the ~merits of open space developments for decades, tn 'recent years, however, "suburban sprawl" has faced increased criticism. At the same time, proponents of open space developments have been demonstrating that clustering lots adds economic value by reducing road-building and utility costs while increasing "quality of life" attributes. This issue of ZoningNews examines the open space or cluster development as an alternative to .the traditional subdivision. A California court has defined open space development as Ua device for grouping dwellings to increase dwelling densities on some portions of the development area in order to have other portions free of buildings .... The plan =is to devise a better use of undevel- oped property than that which proceeds on a lot-to-lot basis." Design with Hature Conventional zoning has been the norm in most communities for the last several decades. It involves categorizing land into separate use districts, specifying the activities allowed in each district, and prescribing standards with which they must comply. Many communities are finding that this type of zoning creates problems. Land is usually designated according to the compatibility of the surrounding land uses. For example, intense industrial districts are usually placed away from low-density l-esidential districts. However, communities do not always take the nature of the land into consideration when making these designations, which results in zoning districts incompatible with the land they comprise. Some problems arise when land parcels are forced into awkward sizes or shapes, causing development to be difficult or costly and possibly eliminating existing natural resources. Also, communities often underestimate the open space needed for greenways, trails, parks, and neighborhood playing fields and limit it to leftover land that cannot be developed. They end up scrambling to find land they can designate as open space. There are several methods of acquiring open spaces, including fee-simple acquisition (purchasing land) and the purchase of development rights, but these programs can-be expensive, and communities have little control over the willingness of property owners to sell their land or rights. As a result, communities are writing open space provisions into their zoning o?dinances. By using more flexible zoning techniques, development is encouraged in areas that are most able to sustain that development, allowing more sensitive land to be preserved. These two site plans illustrate the alternative posed by cluster design.