Mr. Kagler explained that the proposed ordinance amendment is a revision of the |
|
draft brought before the Planning Commission several months ago. It has been |
|
revised in several areas. The previous draft had waived the minimum tree preservation |
|
percentage; that has been restored in this latest revision. Some provisions have been |
|
added regarding limited access, paths, maintenance, dedications, restrictions, and |
|
other limitations. The proposed ordinance amendment is structured to be almost |
|
identical to the current Open Space Plan Option requirements in Article 20 of Zoning |
|
Ordinance 200. The only differences are reducing rear yards to not less than 25 feet |
|
when they border on land dedicated or include land otherwise restricted for tree |
|
preservation, and provided that lot widths shall be not less than 50 feet when the width |
|
includes the drip line of any tree intended to be preserved. Nearly all the other |
|
modifications to lot sizes, widths and area are as they exist in the Open Space Plan |
|
Option. The Open Space Plan Option provides that for each square foot of land |
|
gained through lot size reduction, an equal amount of land in open space must be |
|
provided. For the purposes of tree preservation a provision was included that the |
|
minimum tree preservation area would be two acres or 10 percent of the gross area of |
|
the development, whichever is larger. The area is smaller than that dedicated for open |
|
space because a tree preservation area is not intended for access. Two types of |
|
eligible areas have been identified, a woodland area with no disturbance to any |
|
vegetation from the ground up, and an area surrounding regulated trees. There is also |
|
a provision stating that the area must include the driplines of the trees. A number of |
|
minimum requirements have been set forth for developments, such as dedication or |
|
restriction by means of a conservation easement; encouragement, but not a |
|
requirement, for contiguity; minimum area; location and space; phasing; a separate tree |
|
plan; limitations on grading; access to tree preservation areas. A developer could use |
|
the subject option along with the Open Space Plan Option concurrently, but not with |
|
the lot averaging option. The subject option could also be used alone without the |
|
Open Space Plan Option. One other difference from the earlier draft is that tree |
|
preservation areas are to be left in their natural state and not graded at all. Another |
|
difference is providing possible access to tree preservation areas for residents of lots |
|
not bordering tree preservation areas. It would not be meant for these areas to be set |
|
aside for general access by residents. |
|