Laserfiche WebLink
<br />6.Up to 25% of new town project area is allowed to be non-contiguous <br />“sending areas”. Such sending areas will have zero density and will <br />become managed green space. <br /> <br />7.Required percentages of various land uses within new towns, and <br />requirements for affordable and/or workforce housing, are modified to <br />reflect currently accepted planning standards. <br /> <br />8.Requirements for common open space and greenbelt areas are increased <br />and provided with more specificity to reflect currently accepted planning <br />standards. <br /> <br />5. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS <br />Commissioner Bowden said the Board needed to hear the total ramifications of <br />having a “new town.” <br />Staff responded to Commissioner Wheeler’s questions regarding the location for <br />new towns, benefits of having Agriculture Planned Developments (Ag PDs), and density. <br />Discussion ensued by the Commissioners regarding the need for flexibility on <br />policies for Ag PDs. <br /> <br />6. PUBLIC COMMENTS <br />George Hamner, <br />member of the Planning and Zoning Commission,spoke in <br />favor of the “new town” concept. He, too, wanted to hear the overall advantages of a “new <br />town”. He felt terms needed to be defined. He was particularly concerned how much space is <br />allocated for commercial services. He liked the idea of all development occurring together, but <br />he thought it needs more review. <br />Joseph Paladin <br />, as a member of the Conservation and Rural Lands Committee, <br />handed out a brief statement defining the overall purpose and objectives of his Committee (copy <br />on file). Also as a member of the Growth Awareness Committee, he mentioned that they want <br />March 3, 2006 <br />3 <br />Public Workshop <br />Proposed New Town Policies <br /> <br />