Agenda - 05-17-1994-X-B - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Many citizens, particularly at the East-central (New Hope) meeting, questioned the above uses as open space in terms of calculating the amount of open space to be set-aside. Others, however, argue that visual resource protection and the economic viability of "used" open space will serve to encourage OSD development and enhance the amount of open space protected. Regarding the amount of open space to be set-aside, the Committee considered a number of variables in attempting to find the right "sliding scale" between density/lot yield and open space. The Committee's recommended development options provide for a sliding scale of open-space developments, with 20 to 70% of the total tract to be set-aside as open space in return for density bonuses. An attachment to the Committee recommendations outlines ideas that call for further study into the issue of linking quality of open space to density bonuses (see attached). Related to this issue is that of calculation of open space. There are methods of calculating open space that take into consideration the quality or type of open space in terms of meeting set-aside requirements. For example, Randall Arendt of the Natural Lands Trust argues that the amount of open space should be calculated from the buildable area of the tract - disregarding areas ("primary conservation areas") that could not be built upon anyway. Arendt's work in communities in Massachusetts and Delaware calls for between 40 and 50% of the buildable area of a tract be protected within open space, and that certain "valuable" resources within the open space be protected at a specified level, such as protecting a percentage of mature hardwood areas. Former Rural Character Study consultant Lane Kendig also recommended using a similar approach with a formula of open space types that should be protected as open space. Finally, the current recommendations for the University Station project included consideration of the ideas of Arendt, and calls for either 30% of buildable area of the development or 30% of the gross tract area, to be open space. The Committee recommendations on the use of open space calculations reflect comments from a number of citizens at community meetings in 1990 and 1991. In those meetings, members heard that calculations and formulas were complicated and confusing - and that a more tangible, simple means of protecting open space would be better - thus the absence of formulas or calculations regarding the type of open space. However, the issue was one of the more-debated components of the Committee's work, and the attachment to the recommendations reflects the Committee's concern about the subject. 5