Summary of
These
options for evaluation may be considered in combinations as well.
v
Open Space and Recreation
Strategy.
(See Figure 1)
Concept: As a public
policy, the city council pursues action to acquire/negotiate lands for obtaining
all or part of the study area for public open space (passive recreation) and/or
for some active recreation uses. The
remaining lands not included in an open space strategy would be subject to
existing RR-1 zoning or to any revised zoning that is implemented. The use of the open space lands should be
used for preserved natural area/passive recreation balanced with active
recreation uses (if any.) Any uses
including active recreation should apply a conservation site analysis approach
and be low-traffic generating uses.
Approaches and Funding: If this is a preferred option, the city will
need to explore with interested landowners first. Funding options include using local funding,
pursuing grants, or performing a combination of the above. Another creative option is a land swap of the
desired open space lands with city-owned property downtown for economic
development. Details on such potential
approaches to achieving this option are as follows:
q The city could consider
buying the properties of interest in fee title from willing landowners
(possibly using the city’s open space bond act funding if the properties
qualify under the city’s open space bond act funding criteria.) This would avail the city of site control and
enable public access to the open space.
q The concept of a “land
swap” is a creative approach that would involve the city and the landowners
trading city-owned land where development is desired, such as a downtown
property owned by the city, with lands in the study area for permanent
community open space, as well as other potential benefits to the city.
q The city could purchase
development rights of selected properties.
This option would require willing landowners and the lands would remain
in private ownership, and thus not necessarily achieve public access.
q The city could seek
competitive private, state and federal grant funding to achieve open space and
active recreation land uses within the study area. However, this approach may
be a long-term proposition, due to the competitive nature of the grant
programs.
POTENTIAL
IMPACTS:
Comprehensive Plan Changes required (if any): The refined vision for the area developed
through this study process should be adopted as an amendment to the
comprehensive plan.
Zoning changes required (if any): No change in zoning is required to achieve
use of these lands for public open space or public recreation parkland
use. However, the city may want to
change zoning of the area earmarked for a public park and public open space
once it is becomes used for that purpose, as is generally the city’s policy.
Open Space - Amount Provided: The open space acreage will depend upon the
specific parcels sought for public open space. The lands obtained for ownership
by the city would be 100% public lands. The
city may or may not seek all the parcels within the study area.
Open Space -
Public Access: With public ownership, 100% public access
would be possible.
Fiscal impacts on city: Open space lands would be removed from the tax
rolls if the city obtains ownership, so there would be a net loss of property
tax revenue. However a positive aspect
is that there would be no new expenses for school services. Whatever limited uses of the site for public
open space use and access and/or active recreation use and access would require
a level of public investment in infrastructure and maintenance/operation
services.
Costs borne by the city: Public costs will depend on the negotiated
final value of the lands that is agreed to by the landowner(s) and the city and
any other not-for-profit that could be involved, and whether or not a land swap
can be achieved. If the land swap idea
is not feasible or a viable approach, the alternative is the process of
utilizing the open space bond may be an option.
If the lands do not qualify for using the open space bond act funds, other
local financing options would need to be considered. Any necessary infrastructure, access, park
improvements or transportation improvements in the study area would likely be
borne by the public, unless dedicated fundraising was conducted or grants were
sought.
Traffic impacts: The city would need to be careful to achieve
a balance of public uses of land (active recreation vs. passive) because active
recreation uses can have high trip generation.
Popular passive areas can also generate traffic.
Potential Traffic Mitigation / Improvements:
If the city obtains ownership of lands within the
study area, there would be no private investment assistance for transportation
improvements or other community benefits.
The community amenity could be significant open space benefits. Any necessary infrastructure or transportation
improvements in the study area would likely be borne by the public.
Figure
1: Open Space and Recreation Strategy. The above figure indicates use of the entire
study area for open space and active recreation. However, an open space and
recreation strategy could also be that only portions of the study area are used
for open space and/or active recreation combined with development uses under
the existing RR-1 zoning or any revised zoning.
v Maintain the Current RR-1 Zoning.
(See Figure 2)
Concept: Make no
changes and accept development as-of-right that would be required to comply
with all currently applicable comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances,
including the Rural Residential-1 Zoning District regulations and the
conservation subdivision regulations. Under
this scenario if all the parcels involved are fully built out as residential
uses, taking into account the approximate constrained lands, the city could
expect perhaps approximately 50 residential units within the total study area
based on a preliminary build-out analysis with the new conservation subdivision
regulations. No public access is
guaranteed with this scenario. However,
if a developer supplies public access to the open space provided, the developer
could obtain an incentive of 20% density (thus increasing the total to
approximately 60 total units).
Approach / Funding: With this scenario, private market forces will
proceed when the market is ripe.
POTENTIAL
IMPACTS:
Comprehensive Plan
Changes Required (if any):
None, although including or referencing this report in the comprehensive
plan would be appropriate.
Zoning Changes required
(if any): The refined vision for the
area developed through this study process should be adopted as an amendment to
the comprehensive plan.
Open Space - Amount Provided: Constrained lands (floodplains, stream
corridor buffers, NYSDEC wetlands, 25% slopes or greater) plus 50% of the
remaining buildable land would be conserved as open space.
Open Space - Public Access: Public access is not required. However, if the private developer grants
public access to the open space set-aside, there is an incentive for a 20%
density increase.
Fiscal impacts on the city: This scenario will require a potential
additional demand for school services; municipal services. Yet it will also add tax revenue to the tax
rolls more than vacant land. A low to
moderate value residential development is likely to be a net fiscal cost
(see city’s fiscal analysis 2002).
Costs borne by the city/public: No additional costs per se.
Traffic impacts: Primarily
single-family home trip generation for say 50 to 60 homes.
Traffic mitigation/improvements: No significant developer-borne improvements
are anticipated. Private development
would make traffic/transportation-related improvements as necessary for access
and circulation for the private development.
Improvements would likely be frontage sidewalks (or for this rural character
corridor -- off-road paths), and site access road construction.
Figure 2: Two
Scenarios Depicted: No Change in
Zoning/As-of-Right Development and
Figure 3:
Incentive Zoning Scenario. This
option could provide flexibility and opportunity for additional community
amenities paid for by developer in exchange for a development density bonus.
v
Create
Concept: Existing RR-1 zoning remains in place with the
change of adding flexibility in allowed uses.
Add a limited list of special permit uses within the specific “Lake
Avenue Country Gateway Overlay District” (the study area). Residential uses should continue to be the
predominant development land use, with any non-residential use as the
subordinate, complementary use.
The additional special
permitted uses that are proposed to be added to the existing list of special
permit uses under this scenario are:
§
§
Multiple-family
dwellings (notably, only a small
proportion of 2-family dwellings are currently allowed)
§
Senior
housing
§
Professional
or business offices
§
Recreation
business (indoor or outdoor facilities)
Approach: Make minimal changes to zoning code.
q
Keep
current RR-1 Zoning District.
q
Create
a study area overlay district - a rural gateway overlay called the “Lake Avenue
Country Gateway District” to achieve this option, so that only the study area
would have the potential for these additional uses.
q
Add
the limited list of additional special permit use to the list of special permit
uses that would only be applicable for the “Lake Avenue Country Gateway
District.”
q
Strengthen
the tests articulated in the zoning ordinance for the granting of a special use
permit that would apply, including: meeting rural character, maintaining no
greater density than for RR-1 residential uses, and generating equal or less
traffic than the RR-1 land uses.
q
Condition
of special permit uses: On significant
size parcels, a minimum requirement would be established for primary uses that
must be agricultural or residential to ensure maintenance of the rural
character.
POTENTIAL
IMPACTS:
Comprehensive Plan Changes required (if any): Adopt an amendment to the comprehensive plan
to describe the Lake Avenue Country Gateway vision that is more inclusive of a
few limited additional uses that would complement the rural character.
Zoning Changes required (if any): Amend the zoning as indicated above.
Open Space - Amount Provided: Constrained lands (floodplains, stream
corridor buffers, NYSDEC wetlands, 25% slopes or greater) plus 50% of the
remaining buildable land would be conserved as open space.
Open Space - Public Access: Public access is not required. However, if the private developer grants
public access to the open space set-aside, there is an incentive for a 20%
density increase.
Fiscal impacts on the city:
Costs borne by the city/public: No additional costs per se.
Traffic impacts: This
scenario would maintain comparable traffic impacts to other existing RR-1
potential uses.
Traffic mitigations/Improvements: With additional special permit uses allowed,
require no significant increase in traffic generation beyond other RR-1 uses.
v
Develop an Incentive Zoning
Program For the
Concept: Amend the zoning to allow customized study
area incentive zoning program to achieve community amenities for granting
approval for an equal value of development bonuses. The
uniqueness about this option is the flexibility in allowing the opportunity for
a developer to propose paying for a community amenity in exchange for
additional density. The benefit to
this option is that it would clearly establish the requirement of obtaining and
approving a comparable value of a public/community amenity/benefit in order to
allow a developer bonus.
This option could be used
to strengthen the land protection and open space conservation element of the
area and grant more flexibility in allowable land uses. The benefit of this scenario is to create
more rural conservation set asides than would be achieved by the current zoning
and to work with private landowners to realize additional community benefits
such as for desired traffic improvements.
Residential uses should continue to be the predominant development land
use, with any non-residential use as the subordinate, complementary use.
Conditions could be placed on this scenario such as
the following to ensure the rural character is maintained: This scenario could create a minimum of 75%
of the total buildable (unconstrained) land area to be set aside as permanently
protected open space with a minimum of 50% of the open space accessible to the
public. (This is an increase of total
open space area from the RR-1 and guarantees greater public access to open
space.) The additional uses could include mixed uses and limited commercial
uses. No office parks, general retail or
restaurants would be allowed. Any new
use proposed outside of the current zoning would not be allowed to create
significant traffic impacts beyond a residential development scenario.
POTENTIAL
IMPACTS:
Comprehensive Plan Changes required (if any): The refined vision for the area developed
through this study process should be adopted as an amendment to the
comprehensive plan.
Zoning Changes required (if any): Adopt incentive (amenity)
zoning specifically for this area.
Open Space - Amount Provided: Requires 75% of the land area to be
protected, meaningful and accessible open space. Potential opportunity to achieve greatest
amount of open space paid for privately.
Open Space - Public Access: Requires public access to a minimum of 50% of
the open space.
Fiscal impacts on the city:
Potential Traffic Impacts: Traffic generation limited to 1.5 x RR-1
uses.
Traffic Mitigation/Improvements:
Costs borne by the city/public: No additional costs per se.