1997 Correspondence - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ee ee . . understood at this contour interval. It is important to use a contour interval that corresponds to the accuracy needs for siting of the various facilities to be located on the site. In subdivision design a two foot contour interval is standard practice as it allows for enough detail to enable road profiles and site grading to be fit to the land with reasonable ability to predict the extent of grading disturbance and earthwork requirements. Section 4.5 Concept Plans This change would make it clear that the lot widths listed do not apply to clustered schemes. A minor point, but as municipalities may adjust this ordinance to be more restrictive, the explicit statement of applicability would help avoid misinterpretation. Section 4.7 Dimensional Standards. In an otherwise groundbreaking and excellent ordinance, this section stands out as it seems to negate much of the good that is done by everything that comes before and after it. It raises several internal conflicts within the entire ordinance. Let me try to identify them in order. Subsection (l)(A) This paragraph gives a performance standard for lot size based on septic requirements. It does a good job of articulating them. Table 1 imposes a prescriptive standard making this paragraph meaningless. I suggest dropping the minimum lot size prescriptions in Table 1 in favor of the controls placed in this paragraph. A provision might be added to require developers to submit a typical lot plan for each lot type used, indicating locations for primary and back-up drainfields, well site and a typical home site footprint. This should assure buildable lots as well as provide a flexible standard for determining buildability at plan review. Also, for those schemes where individual drainfields may be located off-site in common open space, I suggest that the locations for primary and back-up drainfields be protected by required easements granted to the lots they are intended to serve. This would provide legal assurance that the land area will be available for drainfield use and provide a right of access for construction and repair. This provision should not be needed for common drainfield schemes. Table 1: Density and Dimensional Standards, Open Space Design Development. This table turned out to be extremely frustrating for our design work. Its requirements seemed constantly to work against the achievement of the intentions embodied in the rest of this ordinance. It gets in the way of good design by injecting into a rather elegantly written open space development ordinance the trappings normally found in a conventional zoning ordinance. In many cases the prescriptions here negate or make irrelevant much of what is aimed for in the rest of the ordinance. In fact, these standards would make it impossible to do what some of the best designed open space developments in America have done. To bring this table into alignment with the spirit and intent of the rest of the ordinance I strongly suggest several modifications: Minimum Lot Size. I recommend that the requirement of a minimum lot size be dropped altogether. If I could pick only one change in the entire ordinance, this would be it. Section 4.7(1)(A) does what is needed to assure good lots. Developers know their customers. Today's marketplace will take care of making lots the right size, and will adjust to changes in the market more quickly than a zoning ordinance. This change will also give flexibility to enable large site developers to mix lot sizes to address differep.t markets, including the first time home buyer and the empty nester. As the ordinance is now written, these groups could only get town houses. Why exclude the children of current residents and their grandparents from having single family detached housing in a community? The required minimum lot sizes shown guarantee a "suburban Rationale for OSD changes 2 Sykes