Agenda - 02-20-2018 6-a - Greene Tract Conceptual Plans

Browse Search

Preserve Development Land Banking 20.8 ac. 20% 78.5 ac. 75.5% 4.7 ac. 4.5% Alternative 1 Based Low Density Medium Density High Density Illustrates a high development option with the greatest amount of acreage designated on (4 -6 units /acre) (6 -10 units /acre) (10 -20 units /acre) for development compared to the other 59.1 alternatives. acres 236-354 354-591 591-1182 Pros Cons — More acreage designated for development in the — Additional stormwater treatment will be needed due to greater short term amount of potential development and increased impervious surfaces — Provides greatest opportunity for highest number of — Protects the least amount of mixed hardwood /pine forest from short affordable housing and market rate housing to help term development meet housing demand in the urban area — Only allows for the required 80 foot wetland buffer — More acreage available for development to offset — Depending on density, may have greater traffic impacts to Purefoy infrastructure costs Drive and Merin Road — Allows for double road frontage to offset road and infrastructure costs — More development and residential units to support transit Alternative 2 Preserve Development Land Banking Illustrates a moderate development option by shifting acreage away from the develop- 23.8 ac. 22.9% 66 ac. 63.4% 14.2 ac. 13.7% Based Low Density Medium Density High Density ment land use with the transfer of acreage to additional preserve and land banking. Al- on (4 -6 units /acre) (6 -10 units /acre) (10 -20 units /acre) so allows for a 150 buffer along a portion of 47 the existing wetlands located onsite. acres 188-282 282-470 470-940 Pros Cons — Proposes 150 foot wetland buffer adjacent to wildlife — Less acreage is available for development in the short term or to off - corridor set infrastructure costs — Allows for additional areas of preserve — Less opportunity for affordable housing and market rate housing to — Provides opportunity for a mid -range of affordable housing and market rate housing to meet the general help meet housing demand in the urban area housing demand — More acreage available for development to offset in- frastructure costs — Allows for double road frontage to offset road and infrastructure costs Preserve Development Land Banking Alternative 3 34.3 ac. 33% 43.6 ac. 41.9% 26.1 ac. 25.1% Illustrates a low development option by Based Low Density Medium Density High Density shifting additional acreage away from the on (4 -6 units /acre) (6 -10 units /acre) (10 -20 units /acre) development land use category to the addi- 24.6 tional preserve and land banking. acres 98-147 147-246 246-492 Pros Cons — Proposes 150 foot wetland buffer adjacent to — Less acreage is available for development in the short term wildlife corridor — Provides lowest opportunity for affordable housing and market rate — Allows for additional areas of preserve housing to help meet housing demand in the urban area — Strives to protect the existing wildlife corridor and — Less acreage available for development to offset infrastructure costs provide for landscape connectivity — Does not allow for double road frontage to offset road and infra- - Protects the greatest amount of Mixed Hardwood/ structure costs Pine Forest from short term development — Less development and residential units to support transit — Depending on density, may have less traffic impacts to Purefoy Drive and Merin Road