Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Comprehensive Plan Fair East topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears broad public feedback and staff update on Fair East (Baird campus) comprehensive-plan progress
Summary
Staff and the commission reviewed public feedback from a June 16 open house on the Fair East comprehensive plan (Baird campus reuse), highlighting recurring themes — open space, trails, tree retention, traffic concerns and possible housing — and discussed next steps including further study, a PGAV presentation and traffic counts.
City planning staff provided an update on the Fair East comprehensive-plan process and shared PGAV materials from a June 16 open house. Staff reported strong public turnout and common themes in public comments: preservation of open space and trees, improved trails and pedestrian connections, retention of the Tealwood access road, and interest in reusing existing Baird campus buildings for research and development.
The commission and members of the public discussed housing scenarios — including the potential for apartments and what housing types the market would support — and concerns about traffic and parking. Staff said the developer has submitted initial concept materials for a 4-story mixed-use option (three residential levels with ground-floor commercial), describing roughly 168 apartment units (predominantly studio and one-bedroom units) and about 10,500 square feet of commercial space at street level; staff emphasized that the concept is an early submission for comment rather than a formal code application.
Traffic capacity and timing were central concerns. Commissioners asked about the schedule (a multi‑year sale, potential lease-back of the conference center) and whether the traffic study would reflect school schedules; staff said a traffic study is underway and that counts will be done when school patterns are representative. Commissioners also asked staff to consider preservation of significant trees and buffers where the site interfaces with adjacent residential neighborhoods; staff said PGAV will be asked to present development scenarios and that the commission will receive a formal PGAV presentation at a future meeting.
Staff outlined next steps: PGAV will present recommendations to the commission at a subsequent meeting, staff will post meeting materials and public comments to a dedicated project web page and the project team will coordinate additional outreach. Commissioners and members of the public were directed to expect further refinements after the consultant’s next submission and after the traffic engineer completes field counts.
What happens next: PGAV’s presentation and refined materials are expected at a future Planning and Zoning meeting (tentatively in late summer or September); staff will circulate notices and the commission will have another opportunity for early feedback before any formal applications are scheduled for public hearings.
