Laserfiche WebLink
Residential Development Potential <br /> <br />Maas: <br /> <br />Roberts: <br /> <br />Kameny: <br /> <br />Sullivan: <br /> <br />Density is clearly the root of the problem with this development and the <br />consequences of 1900 units. <br />Prefers Option "B" of the document entitled: "Density Intensity Options," with <br />1200 units. Not completely satisfied with the units/acre onthe table; she would <br />like to see some larger lots. Need to look at the future home-buyers; regional <br />responsibility; and how the development will fit in with surrounding <br />neighborhoods. <br />Has a terrible time with the number of units at 1900. Would like to have a <br />minimum set, as well as a maximum number of units (possibly 1000 to 1900). <br />There is a flexibility to have different densities on different parcels; therefore, <br />affording the opportunity to provide different kinds of housing for different <br />people. Suggested looking at housing for 55 years and older, such as townhomes <br />or three-plexes along the golf course. This population would have no impact on <br />schools; little impact on commuter traffic. <br />Would like to see parcels 7 and 8 dropped to 3-10 units; parcel 20 changed to 2-10 <br />units, with the potential ora few larger lots. Would like to see the small lots <br />eliminated; anything over 8 units should be attached. <br />Noted concurrence with Commissioner Kumaran; 1900 units is far to dense. <br />Likes the idea of including housing for the older age group, such as Rossmoor. <br />Wants to see something more affordable. Would like to see something a lot less <br />than 1900 (does not have a number). Wants to see different type of houses; larger <br />lots along the golf course. Likes the design with alleys. Can see alternative uses <br />in lieu of residential. <br />The number of units is way too high; doesn't know what the number is. Would <br />like to see some kind of community support analysis combined with an <br />environmental analysis to determine what the site can support and what the <br />community will accept. Feels the high density in some places, such as the Village <br />Center is good; however, the overall development "intensity" is too high. <br /> <br />Residential Product Type Mix <br /> <br />Kameny: <br /> <br />Sullivan: <br /> <br />Roberts: <br /> <br />Would like to see more of a rental-market (affordable), plus "real" <br />affordable. Would recommend a mixture of apartments, townhouses, small lots, <br />and medium lots, but it is difficult to arrive at a percentage of each type. <br />Need to specify mix and relationships; likes the idea of the small-lot houses; need <br />more specific guidelines based on the area. Prefers Plan "D" for mixes, not the <br />number of units. <br />Any thing over 8 units to an acre should be attached, not detached. Suggested <br />10% small-lot; 20% townhomes. Likes the garages in the back of the residences. <br />Would like to see the affordable housing spread throughout the entire project. <br />Referenced "the intensified Village Center Option D," and suggested 30% <br />apartments somewhere, no more that 30% single-family medium lot; and the <br />remainder in the middle. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION M1NUTES Page 5 July 7, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />