Agenda - 03-06-1996 - X-B - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

20 lowering the 1-per-1 bonus ratio, make the developer save land that DBE be developed, and permit only affordable housing in the additional density awarded. OPEN g ACE>> Another major, problem is setting the minimum amount of Open Space at 33% of all land. First, Carrboro's standard is 4096, and that's in an urban-transition area. For the county to accept a 33% standard just invites me, as a developer, to go deeper into the county to build a subdivision. ' Second, the standard is based on a.0 land, not just the buildable land. Under the plan, the 33% could consist entirely of steep slopes, wetlands, and floodplain -- i.e. , unbuildable "primary conservation areas. " Contrary to Section II, page 2, this is = what experts consider preserving Open Space. All through this document, you have Randall Arendt pointing out that the 33% figure is way too low [for example, see his comments on pages 58, 65, 71, and 771 -- he recommends 50% of buildable land. Contrary to Section II, page 2, the Orange County commissioners recommended setting aside 30% of buildable land in the University Station work group, which means not counting the wetlands or floodplains as Open Space. The standard should be a minimum of 30-33% of buildable land or at least 50% of AU land. Carrboro's 40% standard of all land is a conservative compromise. To highlight the consequences of going with the present proposal, remember that we have a defacto "open space" policy now with the soil suitability (perc) standard. Based on history, it lowers density by nearly half, to about 1 unit per 2 acre -- meaning its keeps about 50% of the land in R1 zoning undeveloped. Requiring that only 33% of the total tract be set aside is not much progress. And then if you're liberal about adding density bonuses and permitting multi-lot common sewage systems, you could easily increase density well beyond our current standards. The current policy may protect rural character better than the new liberal proposals . $ VILLAGES>> Finally, the detailed village section is a new proposal for a complicated development package that has not received public discussion in public hearings or town meetings. Most discussion has focused on questions about Open Space quality and amount, and Incentives and Density Bonus. But now we have many pages of details about building little towns -- building design, road grids, site location, density, commercial activity, storefronts, and a Village Green. You have to imagine all the varieties that might be built in different parts of rural Orange, perhaps using package sewage plants or other devices to increase density. The multiplicity of comments by Arendt and Joyner illustrate the lack of consensus on this plan. It would be nice to have a standard for what a "rural village" is, but because of its significance, impact, and lack of public consensus, I urge you to specifically limit these to current Transition areas and/or require a full public hearing on any village development that a developer proposes. Thank you for your hard and conscientious work. Bes/w' hes, B b�