Agenda - 06-06-1994 - VIII-N - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3C ISSUE PAPER ALLOWING DENSITY BONUSES FOR OPEN-SPACE DEVELOPMENTS Background The Rural Character Study Committee has recommended the use of Open-Space Developments as a means to protect the County's natural, agricultural, and visual resources. The Committee has also recommended incentives for property owners/developers who choose to protect open space within their development projects. The primary incentive recommended is a density bonus. However, some citizens have argued that density bonuses are not necessary for Open-Space Developments. They argue that the natural tract"yield"should be the density of development allowed,and that-there are incentives inherent with the Open-Space Development style(design and service efficiency,lower infrastructure costs,etc.)that make density bonuses unnecessary. The Case for Density Bonuses Because Open-Space Developments represent something new and different for many developers of conventional subdivisions, proponents of density bonuses argue that incentives are needed to open the door and make developers and financial institutions willing to change from the old style. The Rural Character Study Committee density bonus is part of a sliding scale, where the greater the open space preserved, the greater the density bonus. The bonus is coupled with a proposed "disincentive"for conventional subdivision development-an increase in the minimum required lot size for conventional development from one acre to two acres.Property owners/developers who opt for Open-Space Developments can "regain" or even emceed the maximum one-acre density, depending on the amount of open space protected. Beginning at a starting point of 20% open space and 0.8 lots per acre, developers would realize a density bonus of 0.1 lots per gross acre for every additional 10% of open space protected. At 40% open space, the development density would equal the one-acre lot maximum density. The scale stops at 70% open space, which allows 1.3 lots per gross acre in the development. Studies to date have indicated that density bonuses must be of a substantial lot yield in order to generate response from the development community.Bonuses in the range of 10-15%in some jurisdictions have not generated use of this development style. The Case Against Density Bonuses Opponents of density bonuses base their case on three factors: (1) that the natural carrying capacity of the tract should not be altered; (2) that there are ample incentives for Open-Space Development use without density bonuses; and (3) that the needed bonus is so great that it turns rural projects into projects with urban scale. The first factor relates to the "yield plan". This concept ties project density to the site's natural capacity. A conventional subdivision design is done to generate the number of lots that could be created and served with adequate sewage disposal sites. That number then becomes the density for the Open- Space Development design.This means that tracts with severe environmental constraints will have a lower density than tracts with few constraints. Open Space Development design,by its very nature, produces compact form. Roads are shorter, utility line expansion less necessary, and previously unusable corners of the tract are buildable. Service provision is also thus more efficient, covering more houses in less time or distance. Opponents of density bonuses assert that these incentives,once realized by the development community,will produce the desired increase in Open-Space Development style.