The Lafayette planning commission Monday heard public comment on the project proposal for the Lafayette Town Center Phase III.
The project is a 74-unit residential building on Dewing Ave., near the Lafayette BART station. Its multi-storied roof line reaches as high as five stories in places, a height which has drawn criticism from the project's detractors.
Town Center would require an amendment to the BART block specific plan, a zoning amendment, and design review approval.
After meeting with the design review commission twice, applicant KB Homes has come back with a revised project that includes a reduced number of units and a smaller footprint, according to Senior Vice President of KB Homes Northern California, Ray Panek.
The public differed on their opinions regarding the project, with some maintaining the project was correct for the space, while others called the building height “offensive” and inappropriate for the location.
Supporters cited sustainability and increased high-density housing as positive aspects of the project.
“I believe strongly… that as a responsible community we need to use our spaces in a more responsible way. This project, in its location, is very appropriate for us moving into the 21st century,” said Lafayette’s Sean Cooley.
On the other side, Matt Heavey of Lafayette called the height of the building “staggering,” and was concerned that the project does not represent the character of Lafayette. Many said they are worried that the project will block the views of the hillside in Lafayette, and that it will increase traffic congestion in downtown.
While most of the commission supported a residential project on this site, many were disappointed with the design and potential negative impacts of this specific project.
Commissioner Karen Maggio said she didn’t like the “boxy” architecture of the building.
“I don’t want to be too light about this, but it’s like a potato head and you just keep changing the nose and the ears and the different parts, but you’ve got the same, boxy structure,” Maggio said.
The discussion of the project was continued to the Sep. 4 planning commission meeting. After the meeting, the commission will forward a recommendation to the city council.
What do you think about this project? Does Lafayette need more housing downtown? Is it too big? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
We have no money to do any of this right now - regardless of where the money 'supposedly' comes from... Money = Control = over Food - Energy - Cars - and all freedoms. Why are unelected technocrats deciding our future - ? One Bay Area is a lazy plan by outside interests to do stack n pack housing projects.
Wait, you say we already have San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, and Walnut Creek? That's really not good enough. Social Justice demands that no one live in single-family detached homes with yards, etc -- all residential of the future must be high-density apartments. There can be no other types of communities, sorry, and please don't try and exert any local control as we move towards this utopia.
And hey, Michael Taylor, population control would be the wise approach, but then how would we pay for the ponzi schemes of social security and medicare? We need new youth to turn over most of their income to pay for the people already here.
What means success to a Liberal? Living in high density housing in close proximity to public transit. I'm just saying.
You say Montclair Village had everything in walking distance so you didn't need a car that often. If you wish to live that way, in the East Bay alone you could do exactly that and live quite well not just in Montclair but also Rockridge, the Solano Ave area in Berkeley, downtown Walnut Creek, and several other spots -- not to mention many other such places in the larger Bay Area. How many locations in the East Bay are like Lafayette? Far, far fewer than places like Montclair Village. So my confusion is, with all these other options, if you want that type of lifestyle why not choose one of those sites? Instead, must a relatively unique place like Lafayette conform to your desires and become yet another high-density neighborhood?
Although I am generally in favor of the right to develop one's land in order to maximize its value, I also think it is OK for local communities to agree to some level of reciprocal restrictions on land use intended to preserve favorable status quo attributes. In other words, I think elitism and an exclusionary attitude are legitimate. There should be no shame in advocating for them. Finally, I'm not sure what the term "sustainability" means these days, but, as used by groups claiming to be in favor of it, it seems to be an antonym of "freedom."
I'm not sure of the political alignment of the KB executives (although you might be surprised). I am, however, absolutely sure of this: They are a helluva lot more knowledgeable about how to design/build a community that people will want to buy and live in than anybody in the Lafayette Planning Dept. will ever be. In short, if we want our Cities to survive, we better get government out of the way and start building something pronto. Development fees are a massive revenue source. If we spend anymore time quibbling about roof lines and color schemes - KB will be scratching their checks to another municipality in very short order.
Government will never save the Blue Fin tuna. Paying $100K for one, however, absolutely will.
See more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KB_Home