OPTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES IN RURAL LANDS VOLUNTARY CLUSTER ORDINANCE: Revise A-1 Zone to allow a Cluster Development Option Must be By-Right unless Density is increased (State Code) Require 2/3 of Area in protected Open Space Require Design Standards as per Comp. Plan Require Conserv. Design Process Min. Lot Size of 0.8 ac. OPTIONAL INCENTIVES FOR CLUSTER OPTION: Allow higher number (e.g. up to 20) of lots on Private Wells if Clustered Allow Private Roads / Access Easements Allow longer Cul-deSac lengths Density Bonus - up to 1 unit per 2.5 acres? - (requires lots to be 0.8 ac. If 2/3 of site is preserved) OPTIONS for STRENGTHENING CONVENTIONAL A-1: Require inter-parcel access Shorten maximum Cul-de- Sac lengths Require Environmental Impact Report for Major Subdivisions Reduce number of lots in a Minor Subdivision (e.g. 3 or less) A.B.C. OPTIONAL INCENTIVES FOR LOWER DENSITY: Allow higher number (e.g. up to 20) of lots on Private Wells for densities below 1 in 10 Allow Private Access Easements / Flag Lots for densities below 1 in 10 Allow longer Cul-deSac lengths Expedite review process D.
Summary Revise A-1 to allow Cluster option Must be By-Right Require 2/3 of area in protected open space Require Design Standards per Comp Plan Require Conservation Design Process Strong support for combining this option with “B” so long as there are strong enough incentives (carrots) to insure that it is used the majority of the time land is developed. It does not preclude existing landowner expectations in A-1, but gives both the county and landowners options. 60% instead of 2/3 of area in open space suggested. Design standards for both cluster and rural hamlet suggested. A. Voluntary Cluster Ordinance
Summary Allow higher number (e.g. up to 20) of lots on Private Wells if Clustered Allow Private Roads / Access Easements Allow longer Cul-de Sac lengths Density Bonus - up to 1 unit per 2.5 acres? General support for this option in combination with “A”. Range of specific suggestions run from not allowing private wells to not allowing private road standards. Allow density bonus if other desirable features are met (common green, water features, central well, etc). B. Optional Incentives for Cluster Options
Summary Allow higher number of lots on private wells if clustered Allow private access easements/Flag Lots for densities below 1 in 10 Allow longer cul-de-sac lengths Expedite Review Process Only qualified support for certain incentives under this option. In favor of expedited review process, in combination with tax reduction (though it may not be realistic). Consensus against allowing too many private wells. Suggestion for revising zoning ordinance to promote lower density (sliding-scale). Support for minimizing driveways. C. Optional Incentives for Lower Density
Summary Require inter-parcel access Shorten maximum cul-de-sac lengths Require Environmental Impact Report for Major Subdivisions Reduced number of lots in a Minor Subdivision (e.g. 3 or less) No support for this option. Strong feelings against lowering minor subdivision limit or requiring Environmental Impact Report. D. Options for Strengthening Conventional A-1
Summary Keep strong PDR program because everyone “wins” with it Different Levels of Clustering for different areas, which could mean different levels of density Create new staff position to serve as liason between landowners and PC Tax break for chosing clustering or lower density options for residential development Careful expansion of the PSA to include certain large landowners with carrot/stick approach of tax assessment decrease/lower density (1:5) if developed before PSA expansion Create a staff position for Smart Growth Coordinator Conduct follow-up Non-Residential Uses of Rural Lands Study Create Implementation team in coordination with BOS to ensure Rural Lands recommendations do not languish Other Thoughts:
Summary Encourage development within PSA through incentives, tax and zoning changes Maintenance of viewsheds in Rural Lands critical Consider additional Community Character Corridor designations (Jolly Pond, Riverview) Rural “hamlet” should be included with any clustering ordinance Use of ponds as a carrot Possibly expand water lines but not sewer lines to appropriate areas in Rural Lands Customize cluster ordinance to geographic portion of Rural Lands or topography of individual parcel Communicate that “permanent” open space means permanent in perpetuity Other Thoughts (continued):
Review Draft Recommendations Matrix Process and Exceptions Recommendations Steering Committee Discussion on Final Recommendations
JAMES CITY COUNTY - RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN RURAL LANDS DRAFT MATRIX OF STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 1.0 NO CHANGE 1.1: Make no changes to A-1 and R-8 zoning districts. Description: Avoid making any changes to the current zoning requirements to influence the current trend of development in the Rural Lands. Steering Committee Recommendation: Strongly AgreeAgreeDisagree Strongly Disagree Public Input from Workshops: Generally strong support from the public to make no changes to the current zoning in the Rural Lands Concern that any proposed changes to the zoning would restrict property rights and lower property values Committee Discussion Highlights: General sentiment among most committee members that some change was necessary to these districts Concern that no change would mean that rural areas would develop fairly rapidly in a large-lot sprawl pattern and that it would affect groundwater, environment and rural views and character Recognition that the charge was to recommend ways to implement the Comp. Plan and propose positive changes to zoning and other areas to achieve Comp. Plan goals Additional / Technical Considerations: Staff and consultants’ analysis suggested that approximately 6,000 new homes could be added to the Rural Lands under existing zoning Based on consultants’ assessment and the experience of other localities within the Commonwealth, there was a general concern that the continuation of the 3-acre large-lot development pattern over the entire rural area of the county would result in a predominantly suburban design quality and a loss of rural character and traditional rural land uses and quality of life.
Project Schedule February 17 th – Receive Draft Recommendations Matrix February 22 th – Return Completed Recommendations Matrix March 1st – Steering Committee #8 Formal affirmation of recommendations to PC and BOS March 15th – Steering Committee (if needed) May 23 rd - Joint Planning Commission/BOS Work Session