6/13/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Gross pointed out that the planned developments rated about 50 percent better than regular subdivisions. Chairman Macht felt that would have been markedly different if they had toured 5th Street SW. The subdivisions there are beautiful and a standard percentage is somewhat skewed by what we saw. Dr. David Cox, 9495 Periwinkle, President of the Planning and Zoning Commission, limited his remarks to Mr. Gross's presentation. He thought the a -b -c -d grid analysis was very helpful. However, coming up with an average assumes that the categories and what they reflect are all of equivalent value. That may not be so to neighbors looking at a conceptual site plan at the outset. Pedestrian and recreation amenities are not going to be of concern to neighbors who are more concerned with perimeter and compatibility issues. The weighting of categories will vary depending on who you are and what you are concerned about. These categories are all appearance related. They do not relate to value, infrastructure, or the concerns of neighbors. Mr. Cox felt that at times specific categories will be of much greater importance and weighted more heavily. Mark Brackett, a developer, commented on the analysis of the statistics. His concerns regarded the Heron Crest subdivision where there are no trees and no wetland preservation. When someone rates it a nine that means it meets 90% of their requirements. The Grand Harbor subdivision was rated a zero although it has two golf courses, 2 -dozen tennis courts, miles of bike paths, miles of walking paths and is all set back off the roadway. Mr. Gross clarified that if the evaluation actually showed a zero, he would have left the zero there. Grand Harbor was based on 10 evaluators rather than 11 because one person didn't rate Grand Harbor. At Grand Harbor some of the rates went from 2 to 8 or 9, showing that people do see things differently. JUNE 13, 2003