Phil Dodd
Five city committees have supplied comments to the Country Club Road (CCR) subcommittee or the full city council regarding the four proposals supplied by developers, with additional comments sent in by the Turtle Island Children’s Center that leases a city building on the site.
The Housing Committee did not make a formal recommendation but raised questions related to several topics, including affordability (sample: “What happens when affordability covenants connected to certain forms of funding expire?”), and materials, aesthetics, and community orientation. One of these questions was: “Would developers with less varied designs be open to greater variation?”
Another section of the Housing Committee comments focused on scheduling: “The Housing Committee is eager for housing units to come online sooner than later. Chinburg and Pennrose indicated that the initial units wouldn’t be completed until 2029. Execusuite was more aggressive on the timeline, but do they have the capacity to deliver the more aggressive schedule?” The Housing Committee also commented: “There was support for a local commercial market onsite and maintaining the farm if possible.”
The Planning Commission said it “found that the proposals offered by Execusuite, Chinburg, and DEW Properties are worthy of consideration by the city,” but it did not like the Pennrose submission. “The Commission recommends that the city decline to pursue Pennrose’s proposal,” the comments said. “Put simply, the proposal fails to adequately meet the goals of the City Plan; chief among them a failure to provide a meaningful mix of housing types.”
Specific Planning Commission comments on the other three included the following:
Execusuite: “The Commission was impressed by the proposal’s large number of housing units utilizing a broad mix of housing types. The proposal addresses housing needs across all income types while paying particular attention to developing critical workforce housing. The Commission does, however, have some concerns about Execusuite’s ability to execute such an ambitious vision given its inexperience developing a project of this size when compared to the other developers.”
DEW: “DEW’s proposal reflects a pragmatic and attainable scale of development. That said, the proposal could benefit from a redesign that creates a more centralized neighborhood center feel and community gathering place.”
Chinburg: “The Commission values Chinburg’s proposed diverse mix of housing types, its overall cohesion, and its explicit inclusion of 10,000 square feet of commercial space as part of the project . . . We are concerned, however, about the potential loss of existing recreation areas and suggest that the city explore ways to preserve those areas or mitigate their loss.”
For both Execusuite and Chinburg, the Planning Commission asked: “Are there ways to expand rental unit types beyond those targeted for 120[%] AMI [average median income] and below?”
The Recreation Advisory Board (or Rec Board) commented that it favors a proposal that retains the present recreation zone. “This area is flat and is presently used for rec programs (e.g., soccer).” It said it would also like to preserve space for a future community recreation center, a concept that has been discussed, but never officially endorsed, by the city council. The Country Club Road property’s $3 million purchase was funded in part by $1 million in Recreation Department funds.
The Rec Board pointed out that the Chinburg proposal would build on the area reserved for recreation, although in its recent interview with the CCR Subcommittee, Chinburg said it could revise its site plan to preserve space for soccer fields. The board said it preferred the DEW site design because it conserves space for recreation and leaves room for a community center.
The Complete Streets Committee recommended that the CCR Subcommittee “prioritize a design that meaningfully supports walking, bicycling, transit access, and safe street design for all users. This may mean requesting to development teams that their final plan include more detail of and planning for the following comprehensive Complete Streets components.”
The committee did not express a preference for a developer, but pointed out aspects of each proposal that addressed issues of interest to the Complete Streets Committee. It also suggested how the subcommittee could apply Complete Streets principles when it fills out the scoring matrix, a tool the subcommittee will use to rank the proposals, although other factors will play a role in the subcommittee’s final recommendation.
The Tree Board provided comments to the full city council that did not provide any specific feedback on the four proposals, but made suggestions on the future of trees at the property, regardless of the proposal accepted.
Among more than a dozen suggestions it made was this one: “Retain and protect as many of the existing legacy trees (previously planted in the open fields) as possible. Explore modifying plans, as needed, to protect these mature trees to better incorporate into the future of the site.”
Finally, Turtle Island Children’s Center, which has a ten-year lease with renewal options on the existing Elk’s Club building, weighed in with several comments, chief among them concerns about the half-acre gravel lot to the south of the Elks Club, which the center is granted exclusive use of in the lease.
“The Chinburg and Pennrose plans site high-density housing and parking lots directly against our perimeter,” Turtle Island wrote. “Surrounding a nature-based school with asphalt and high-rise structures compromises the very environment our program promises to families, and which families seek out.”
In terms of green space, Turtle Island commented: “We strongly advocate for concepts (such as those proposed by DEW and Execusuite) that maintain an expansive natural “buffer” upon entry to the site, pushing higher-density development further back. This promotes a safe perimeter for our youngest citizens, invites public recreation, and offers a more welcoming entry to residents and visitors.”
