Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
6 ' <br /> Arnie Katz: Minimum of 50% open space to get incentives, up to 70%. Open space should be <br /> calculated from buildable land only. <br /> Leo Allison: 33% more reasonable. Open space should be calculated from total tract size. <br /> Paul Hoecke: Prefer 33%, but need "weighting" provision to ensure quality open space. <br /> Open space should be calculated from the buildable land only. <br /> Cheryl Howie: Prefer 50%, but would meet resistance - no less than 33%. Need workshops. <br /> Work upward at a future date. Open space should come from total tract size. <br /> Cherie Rosemond: 50% should be the starting point. Open space should be calculated from the <br /> buildable land only. <br /> Bill Waddell: 33%minimum,but full set of incentives should not come into play until <br /> around 66%. After X number of plans, review program. Open space should be <br /> calculated from total tract size. <br /> ISSUE # 2: DISINCENTIVES VERSUS INCENTIVES <br /> Collins noted that there were a number of different components that the Planning Board could consider <br /> as either incentives or disincentives for the proposal. In his comments, Arendt proposed use of a <br /> disincentive for conventional development - allowing only 70% of the lot yield if a conventional <br /> development is to be created, but 100% (what the land would allow)for Flexible Developments. Collins <br /> noted that this type of disincentive will likely be perceived as "downzoning"by many. Collins then noted <br /> another type of disincentive which addresses economics - the allowance of private roads. Currently, if <br /> certain rural character and design criteria are met,private roads may be justified for developments. One <br /> disincentive to encourage Flexible Development might be to require paved roads for conventional <br /> development, but allow private roads for open-space developments. <br /> A second incentive for consideration was suggested by the Rural Character Study Committee - an <br /> expedited review process for Flexible Developments.In this approach,if Flexible Development criteria are <br /> met, approval is handled by Staff. Collins noted that this approach could be controversial, and that the <br /> Planning Board and Board of Commissioners may take issue with the idea. <br /> A third incentive for discussion involves waiving fees for Flexible Development proposals.Related to this <br /> is the issue of increasing payment-in-lieu for recreational open space, and whether the provision of open <br /> space should be linked with this program. <br /> Other incentive possibilities to be considered involve relaxing road design standards to allow greater <br /> design flexibility in road design (T-turnarounds instead of cul-de-sacs, for example) for Flexible <br /> Developments; and allowing water and sewer service in Transition Areas and other designated areas <br /> could also be a substantial incentive. <br /> Finally, the use of density bonuses as an incentive is an issue. Collins noted that the current proposal <br /> would allow density bonuses if open space greater than 33% were created, and a bonus for the creation <br /> of affordable housing would also be available. In concluding, Collins added that any or all of these <br /> incentives could be combined into an incentive package. <br /> 2 <br />