1997 Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

:' ee ee . . RATIONALE FOR CHANGES Section 4.1 Purpose and Scope. The third paragraph proved to be unworkable on the Turnblad parcel. This provision usually resulted in the creation of a 9 to 10 acre block of open space in the middle of the parcel. The location of this open space tended to be driven by the sheer necessity to preserve the permitted number of units in the plan. The resulting schemes were uniformly forced and terrible designs. We finally told the students to ignore the 300 foot provision in their designs. Fundamentally, in physical design, the spatial separation needed to create clearly bounded neighborhoods has not traditionally been achieved by means of distance separation. Instead, some of the best historical neighborhood boundaries have been created by means of using combinations of street patterns, design features at entry points, marked topographic changes, dtainage ways, ponds, wetlands, streams, pedestrian greenways, lot orientations, and woodland belts. None of these requires anything like 300 feet of separation to accomplish. In addition, the 300 foot separation between neighborhoods in combination with the minimum lot sizes established under Section 4.7, created a hidden density reduction for developers of large parcels. In the students' schemes these provisions routinely cost 11 to 18 units per scheme. These provisions work together kill any incentive for these developers to use the Open Space Development Design Ordinance instead of conventional zoning. The focus on distance, I believe, comes from the traditional pattern of distance separation between rural villages and hamlets - a clearly desirable land pattern, but the wrong scale for neighborhood distinction. To replicate this pattern, the distances need to be in miles or thousands of feet. I think this effect is better achieved through the preservation of open space along state, county and township roads. I recommend that the 300 foot separation between neighborhoods on the same tract be dropped. Instead I recommend you insert the provision requiring abutting neighborhoods to be physically bounded by a combination of the traditional techniques I listed. By focusing on these traditional tools (instead of distance) for bounding neighborhoods, the ordinance would promote good design. It would provide incentives for preserving and making use of features that exist on the site to establish the visual character of new neighborhoods. I would like to suggest that a large open space buffer may be appropriate in some situations in the larger landscape. It could help preserve the pattern of rural openness if this buffer was required along the perimeter roads abutting the parcel to be subdivided in certain circumstances. This, however should only be applied strategically according to a comprehensive open space plan, perhaps as an overlay zone, that accounts for topography and existing vegetation masses. A constant 300 foot setback everywhere would be overkill and would give the countryside a monotonous look over time. Section 4.3 Permitted Uses See comments under Section 4.7. Section 4.4 Resource Inventory In my opinion requirement of topographic contours at 10 foot intervals is reasonable for concept plans but not for preliminary plats. This contour interval is what u.s.a.s. quadrangle maps provide. Topographic maps are only accurate to within plus or minus one-half the contour interval. The use of a 10 foot contour interval means that its depiction of topography is only accurate to within plus or minus five feet. This margin of error does not correspond to the 100 feet to one inch scale for the plan drawings, but is acceptable for concept plan purposes. For preliminary plat purposes, the rough ground elevations of homesites, roads and drainage ways are much too slope sensitive to be reasonably Rationale for OSD changes 1 Sykes