Minutes 061595 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

that involved everyone having to make some sacrifices. Bob Strayhorn said the problem was called, "People." Meg McKean asked if it would be acceptable to hook descriptions. and visions to evaluations of presentations already seen by the group? Verla Insko responded affirmatively. McKean said a hazard was to think of plans already given as "real" or to think there are only four alternatives. She said, however, she could explain a lot more about her vision by referring to the neo- traditional plan. She said she was not prepared to see 10 square blocks of three -story buildings in this area. She cited several urban areas where this might be acceptable. Insko asked what she would like to see. McKean reiterated her previous comments of as little change as possible, a break from conventional development patterns of just stuffing more in, thinking that the more housing units there are the more money you ,get out (taxes ?), and open space set - asides. She said the neo- traditional plan prepared by the students was denser than any neo- traditional plan anyone has ever proposed for the area. She indicated the number of housing units was triple the proposal by Arthur Cogswell. She said, " This may make us think negatively about neo- traditional plans when we should not." She said the principles of such planning may be fine, but designing them to that extreme would make them undesirable. In terms of visions, however, she added that there has to be a lot of green left in the future. Bob Hall said he was interested in seeing current landowners have the value of their land go up and not feel like what this group does takes away from their value. He liked the idea of preserved chunks of undeveloped land (parks, open space, vistas) . He said he was not hung up on;'how to define it, but the point was that it wasn't commercial or residential. It is open land that has other purposes and is preserved into perpetuity in some legal way that can't be circumvented. He was also interested in getting a sense of what the population goal (in real numbers) is for this area to have some sense of 'how many people are we talking about living here. In regard to the density question, he was interested in there being some way for land owners to exchange density bonuses back - and - forth, i.e., transfer of development rights (TDR). Verla Insko asked Bob Hall if he hoped there would be a maximum density. He responded that there would be some concept of what we're talking about in our vision. Are we talking about 50,000 people here, 30,000, 10,000 ... what kind of range for the buildout of the area? Lee Rafalow asked Hall what his vision was. Hall responded that the beginning vision was to think about the area, i.e., if it is 5,000 acres and under current conditions the land supports one unit per two acres, that's 2,500 units. There is some basic math tha +t needs to be done. Insko sought clarification asking Hall if he would like to see some agreed upon buildout. He said he wanted to see a sense of what the consequences of buildout are. Insko asked how this was part of his vision. Hall offered an