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

Home

- Associate Planner Dalnes indicated the County replied to the sketch plan with 10 units of townhomes which the Council reviewed at work session. She has sent in the preliminary plat and has not received a response. The primary concern during sketch plan was that it does not meet the access spacing guidelines to Sunwood Drive, but an effort was made to move the access as far north to stay as far away from Sunwood Drive as possible. Councilmember Dehen clarified with Associate Planner Dalnes that the Council directed the applicant to meet the existing zoning requirements. He asked why this was not done. Associate Planner Dalnes replied there was some discrepancy on the interpretation of the work session minutes. The applicant is seeking five lots because that is what works for him. Councilmember Elvig commented if there were only four lots it is conceivable that the access could be shifted further to the north. Associate Planner Dames replied that is difficult to analyze without seeing the plan, but it is a possibility. Motion by Councilmember Elvig, seconded by Councilmember Jeffrey, to adopt fmdings of fact in denial of the request to rezone the proposed plat of Bridgewater from R-l: Single Family Residential to Planned-Unit Development. Further discussion: Councilmember Elvig stated there was citizen input, staff gave direction, and the Planning Commission had a thorough discussion of this. He also thinks there are some strong conditions in town to start reducing some areas to overpopulating, especially using the PUD to do so. He does not see that this is a hardship remedy. To allow wetlands or green space or something the City is getting back is what they have tried to push for in the use of a PUD. Councilmember Strommen concurred. She stated the Council was clear that they wanted the existing zoning met and she could not agree more regarding the PUD. The Council has been trying to get away from the criticism that the PUD is an automatic density bonus. The City's goals should be met with a PUD, and she is not in agreement with it in this case. Mr. Tom Rollings, CBR Development, stated he met with the Council at work session when he brought forward the 10 units. They bought this property to put a 10 unit townhome development there and had a good comfort level from City staff that 8 to 10 units would probably work. The Planning Commission was clear that the 10 units would not work and single level living was suggested. Mr. Rollings stated they designed a 6-unit sketch plan and brought it to the Council in work session. His interpretation of the discussion that night was that with the single level living they might need to do a PUD. What he got from the work session was "Bring us five units and let's make it work." That is where CBR Development came forward with the five units changed from 6 units. The PUD was suggested as the best way to do it. This does not work at four units. CBR Development was trying to get what their original intent was and now are just trying to accommodate the City. He was just trying to accommodate what he understood. Mayor Gamec indicated the need to go by -186- .