Laserfiche WebLink
<br />appropriate use for an overage of density. Several property owners have expressed concern over <br />the rezoning, stating that the development should move forward in conformance with City <br />standards for the R -1 Residential District. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Daines advised the only viable method for preliminary plat approval in this' <br />case is to approve a zoning amendment to PUD due to the overage in density, the non- <br />conforming lot widths, and the non-standard cul-de-sac radius that is proposed. The City <br />Council reviewed the sketch plan for this developmt:;nt and directed the applicant to work to <br />achieve a development that meets the existing zoning regulations. Given the direct comments <br />from the City Council and the requirements in City Code regarding the use of the PUD, staff <br />does not support this rezoning for the sole purpose to achieve five lots on the site. If the Council <br />is inclined to deny the zoning amendment, it would be necessary to re-examine the findings of <br />fact. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec inquired about the County's response regarding the access. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Daines indicated the County replied to the sketch plan with 10 units of <br />townhomes which the Council reviewed at work session. She has sent in the preliminary plat <br />and has not received a response. The primary concern during sketch plan was that it does not <br />meet the access spacing guidelines to Sunwood Drive, but an effort was made to move the access <br />as far north to stay as far away from Sunwood Drive as possible. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dehen clarified with Associate Planner Daines that the Council directed the <br />applicant to meet the existing zoning requirements. He asked why this was not done. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Daines replied there was some discrepancy on the interpretation of the work <br />session minutes. The applicant is seeking five lots because that is what works for him. <br /> <br />Councilmember Elvig commented if there were only four lots it is conceivable that the access <br />could be shifted further to the north. <br /> <br />Associate Planner Daines replied that is difficult to analyze without seeing the plan, but it is a <br />possibility. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Elvig, seconded by Councilmember Jeffrey, to adopt findings of fact <br />in denial of the request to rezone the proposed plat of Bridgewater from R -1: Single Family <br />Residential to Planned-Unit Development. <br /> <br />Further discussion: Councilmember Elvig stated there was citizen input, staff gave direction, <br />and the Planning Commission had a thorough discussion of this. He also thinks there are some <br />strong conditions in town to start reducing some areas to overpopulating, especially using the <br />PUD to do so. He does not see that this is a hardship remedy. To allow wetlands or green space <br />or something the City is getting back is what they have tried to push for in the use of a PUD. <br />Councilmember Strommen concurred. She stated the Council was clear that they wanted the <br />existing zoning met and she could not agree more regarding the PUD. The Council has been <br />trying to get away from the criticism that the PUD is an automatic density bonus. The City's <br /> <br />City Council / June 26, 7007 <br />Page 22 of 38 <br />