Agenda - Council - 09/11/2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case #10: Request to Rezone from R-l Single Family Residential to Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Bridgewater; Case of CBR Development Associate PlaIll1er DaInes reviewed that on May 4, 2007, CBR Development submitted a rezoning application, in conjunction with a preliminary plat application to develop five single-fmnily lots on the property located to the east of Nowthen Boulevard and north of Sunwood Drive. The applicant has requested a rezoning from R-l Single Fmnily Residential to Planned Unit Development (pun) to accommodate five single-fmnily lots on the subject property. The site is 1.5 net acres, and. currently accommodates one, single-fmnily farmhouse. The applicant is seeking to develop five lots, and does not meet the standards established in the R-l District. Staff directed the applicant to seek a pun rezoning as an alternative to multiple variances in order to accommodate five lots. Ms. DaInes advised that the proposed lots meet the minimum lot size in terms of area. However, four of the five lots fail to meet lot width requirements due to the positioning of the lots on the cul-de-sac. Also, the proposed cul-de-sac does not meet the standard requirements for right-of-way radius, which is 60 feet. Third, the maximum density in the single-fmnily residential district is three units per net acre, and this plat is proposing 3.3 units per acre. The size of the property limits the applicant from obtaining an exact three units per acre. The applicant is attempting to develop single-fmnily, single-level living units, and is requesting these deviations in order to accommodate this style of housing. Mr. DaInes advised the PUD standards are listed in the staff report. The pun zoning option is designed to allow flexibility in land development to encourage housing affordability, new techniques in building design, efficient use of public infrastructure, energy conservation, preservation of desirable land characteristics, and/or mixed use development. The Planning Commission recommended adopting findings of fact favorable to the applicant and recommended approval of the PUD due to the access limitations, the size and shape constraints of the property, and the need to accommodate a 1 a-foot trail. However, they did not recommend approval of the development with an overage of density. In essence, the Commission was mnenable to the idea of using a PUD because 0'[ the small size of the property and the shape, but did not see the pun as an appropriate use for an overage of density. Several property owners have expressed concern over the rezoning, stating that the development should move forward in conformance with City standards for the R-l Residential District. Associate Planner DaInes advised the only viable method for preliminary plat approval in this case is to approve a zoning mnendment to PUD due to the overage in density, the non-confonning lot widths, and the non-standard cul-de-sac radius that is proposed. The City Council reviewed the sketch plan for this development and directed the applicant to work to achieve a development that meets the existing zoning regulations. Given the direct comments from the City Council and the requirements in City Code regarding the use of the pun, staff does not support this rezoning for the sole purpose to achieve five lots on the site. If the Council is inclined to deny the zoning mnendment, it would be necessary to re-examine the findings of fact. Mayor Gmnec inquired about the County's response regarding the access. -185- -