Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Boone Hollow Pud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission tables Boone Hollow PUD after residents and commissioners raise density, traffic and affordability concerns
Summary
Developers proposed Boone Hollow PUD (PUD-006): 85.54 acres, 227 lots, 48.9% common open space, variances to lot size and setbacks to target first-time buyers; after sustained public and commissioner concern about density, access and whether the homes would be affordable, the commission voted to table the proposal at the developer's request, 8–0.
The commission on Nov. 6 heard a detailed presentation of the Boone Hollow Planned Unit Development (PUD-006), a proposed 85.54-acre residential subdivision within Warrenton city limits that would add 227 single-family lots and asked the developer to return with a revised plan after the commission and neighbors raised questions about density, access and affordability.
Cochran Engineering’s Kurt Daniels, speaking for the applicant, said the project would provide 227 lots (about 2.65 units per acre) and retain roughly 41.79 acres (48.9%) as common open space. The plan proposed three lot-width categories (42-foot, 54-foot and 62-foot lots) and sought variances to reduce the city’s 10,000-square-foot minimum single-family lot requirement down to a proposed 5,040 square feet on the smallest lots, along with reduced front setbacks and minimum lot widths to lower development costs and reach entry-level buyers.
Residents who spoke — including Cindy Byington (representing the Meadows of Walnut Hollow HOA), Tammy Rimmer (a nearby resident) and Andrew Marks — expressed concern that the proposed road connections would route traffic through established neighborhoods, increase speeding, stress existing roads (including a low-water bridge on Highway AA), and create safety and lighting problems. Byington said the HOA worried construction traffic and long-term traffic patterns would burden Walnut Hollow’s streets; Rimmer described limited shoulders and poor lighting at the proposed entrance and asked where construction access and clearing would occur.
Commissioners pressed developers on density calculations, market pricing and the PUD’s community benefits. Several commissioners questioned whether reducing lot sizes and pushing for smaller lots would actually produce affordable closing prices for first-time buyers; staff and the engineer said they could provide more concrete closing-price information later. One commissioner noted that, although the overall density across the whole site was about 2.65 units per acre, the acreage actually developed for lots equated to a higher per-developable-acre density.
After hearing resident concerns and several commissioners’ recommendations (for clearer definition of amenities, possible lot reductions and reworked access), the applicant asked the commission to table PUD-006 to allow time to revise the plan. Commissioner Cornell moved to table the application; Commissioner Frederick seconded. The motion to table carried on roll call, 8–0, with two members absent. The developer indicated willingness to revise the plan (possible reductions of 20–30 lots, clearer green-space definitions and refined access points) and return to the commission.
What happens next: the developer will revise the application and the commission may consider it again at a future meeting. Any variances or code changes would still require approval by the Board of Aldermen.
