[Canyon] Density survey results
Tom Fiddaman
Thanks to everyone who responded to the density survey.
I haven't had a chance to study the results in detail, but I've posted them
here:
http://zoning.posterous.com/density-survey-summary
Comments are open on this post, which is probably the easiest place to
discuss the results without putting too much traffic on this email list.
The spreadsheet of complete answers is here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Arh9sK-JAE8NdE1BQ0tYYkRpYUVlNHJ
vSmtQT3dabnc
The short answer appears to be that 85% of you think the current density is
1 residence per 40 acres, and over 80% think it should stay that way or
become less dense. The 19 respondents who reported owning more than 40 acres
(up to a few hundred) were even more certain about this (approaching 95%)
than the 51 owners with 40 or fewer acres. About 40% think density should be
1-in-40, period, while another 40% would permit density transfers. A smaller
minority would provide a modest density bonus in exchange for good design,
while only one person out of 85 expressed interest in a double-density
bonus.
Several people commented to the effect of, "why does BCPOA want to fix what
isn't broken?" There are three answers to that.
First, a number of things are broken. There are many ambiguities in the
drafting of the current regulation. An example: the PUD regulation requires
an applicant to _have_ terrain and vegetation suitable for minimizing the
visual impacts of homes, but the standards don't require you to _use_ that
terrain and vegetation. Confronted with such ambiguity, the commission
doesn't make a sensible interpretation with the General Plan in mind; it
instead grants a large density bonus with no discernible community benefit,
which is why we have a few PUDs with homes on exposed slopes and ridgelines.
Ambiguity leads to a lot of needless controversy in the permitting process.
Second, the zoning can't remain completely static, even if we want it to,
because the county has set updates in motion. For example, the commission
independently proposed a draft update to the administrative section of our
zoning, which gutted our enforcement provisions (as if enforcement weren't
already problematic). Deflecting such initiatives, while responding to the
county's need for administrative consistency, is important.
Third, while 80% of you think that the density is and should be 1-in-40,
that's not current practice. The county has granted density in excess of
1-in-20 through PUDs, via a combination of density bonuses and even
transfers off theoretical bits of land that aren't legal parcels. Further,
the commission has granted caretaker residences without restrictions, which
in effect make every parcel a two-residence unit. Combining the two, the
real potential density is up to four times 1-in-40.
This is not how things originally worked. In 1971, the zoning regulation
provided underlying density of 1-in-40 acres, and a PUD density up to
1-in-20 acres. However, the higher PUD density was to be achieved through
transfers from areas less suitable for development. The only mention of a
density bonus was a modest 30% for development in areas deemed particularly
suitable. There was no provision for caretakers (though there has always
been agricultural employee housing). Unfortunately the drafting of the
original regulation wasn't crystal clear. Subsequent amendments and ongoing
ambiguity led to the prevailing interpretation of PUD density as a bonus
(almost a giveaway). The county quit keeping track of density transfers more
than 15 years ago, as they no longer serve much purpose. (I would be
interested to hear the stories of people who were around at the beginning or
along the way; I wasn't quite in diapers at the time, but have to rely on
reading old documents.)
That's why we need to know what people want. Do we codify the commission's
current practices, and change the vision in the General Plan to reflect the
higher density, or do we try to improve the Zoning Regulation so that it
better implements the Plan, restoring something closer to 1-in-40, with
clear objective standards for any transfers or bonuses in PUDs?
Thanks again for all your input.
Tom
_______________________________________________
Canyon mailing list
Can...@bcpoa.net
To change your address, subscribe, unsubscribe, or manage preferences, visit:
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/canyon
Note: this list is moderated for announcements only; messages will not normally be accepted. For discussion, use:
http://groups.google.com/group/bridger-canyon-forum