Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer presents revised 377‑unit concept plan for Gford property; board raises stormwater and commercial questions
Summary
Developers presented a revised concept plan for the Gford property proposing 377 homes on about 157 acres with 32% open space, larger 70‑ and 80‑foot lots, a small commercial node and multiple detention basins; trustees probed stormwater impacts on Hampshire Creek and questioned commercial timing.
A developer team on Thursday presented a revised concept plan for the Gford property that would place 377 residential units on roughly 157 acres, increase lot sizes and add a small neighborhood commercial parcel at the site entrance.
Attorney Richard M. Gard introduced the principals and design team and said the plan is intended to address the board’s prior concerns. Planner Rich Olson of PR Land Architects and planners described a mixed community of primarily 70‑ and 80‑foot single‑family lots, front‑entry townhomes, two main vehicle entrances, and a connected multi‑use trail system. Olson said the plan eliminates the smallest lots from earlier designs and reduces the unit total by about 37 units from a previous ~400‑unit concept.
“The darker yellow is really our larger single‑family home which is 80‑foot lots… the lighter yellow is our 70‑foot lot,” Olson said during the presentation, adding the project would include roughly 32 percent open space and a central park/detention amenity.
Trustees and attendees pressed the developers on stormwater and downstream effects on Hampshire Creek after the plan showed eight detention basins. Olson said contemporary detention basins are designed to slow runoff, filter through naturalized plantings and release flows at lower rates, and that the project will be reviewed by village and county stormwater engineers as part of the permitting process. “It’s going to be the same amount [of water], it just… releases it at a slower rate downstream,” he said.
Board members also questioned the 4.2‑acre commercial parcel at the entrance and whether the village should require the developer to build retail within a fixed timeframe. Developers said the commercial node is intended for neighborhood‑scale uses (coffee, convenience, small retail) and that commercial build‑out usually follows market demand and rooftops rather than an arbitrary date; they cautioned that forcing early construction can produce vacant buildings if demand is not present.
Developers provided a unit breakdown during the meeting: about 154 single‑family homes on 70‑foot lots, roughly 79 single‑family homes on 80‑foot lots and about 144 townhomes. They said the product is intended for sale, not build‑to‑rent.
Trustees asked about traffic, connectivity to existing bike paths and whether the plan’s lot and housing mix would create parking or winter maintenance issues in denser pockets of townhomes. The developer said details including the stormwater engineering, phasing and market mix will be refined as the project advances through formal plan review and any required engineering studies.
The presentation was informal; developers did not request action this meeting but were encouraged to proceed to the next planning steps and to continue coordination with village staff on stormwater and infrastructure review.
