Agenda - 05-17-1994-X-B - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

17 • A spreadsheet analysis concluded that the rural character options might result in more units - but more open space. Also higher density and smaller lots. Neither package constrains the population buildout by 112030" (way out in the future) . • Rural character option: more open space and a denser population. Staff alternative: fewer units in a given time and less open space. • Question: Should we restrict growth? Answers: 1) No, give me balance, not caps. 2) Give me sustainable growth, not sprawl (as in other areas) . 3) Don't want development everywhere. Identify places for agriculture, low density. • Diversity in housing values? It was suggested that open space will lead to higher densities which will in turn lead to affordability. But, truly affordable housing is located in urban areas where infrastructure is in place. *• I don't know how to read actuality into these options. We don't want surprises, like University Station. • We are looking to design guidelines for real protection. Design guidelines exist for both. �#• Concern was expressed over the staff alternative allowing 130 units on 100 acres. *• Make design guidelines good for conventional as well as open space. • Agriculture is permitted in open space. Expressed interest in Transfer of Development Rights. Cluster. "Action Strategies." *• Public wastewater systems need to be carefully designed,, monitored and controlled to protect users. • Trailers with aprons are o.k. Summary (group recommendations) : #• Strong consensus about allowed uses in open space. • Ideas about restraining growth included balance and sustainability. #• The trade-offs between density and open space are difficult to say in general. One-acre conventional lots not good idea. *• Cluster development: lots of open space should be pursued. *• Diversity in housing values should not be discouraged but goes against the idea of large open space.