Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Rezone topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning and Zoning Commission recommends rezoning Edgewood Estates lots to SF-10 planned development

5957227 · July 16, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that City Council change zoning for property in Edgewood Estates at 234–235 Edgewood Drive from single-family residential (SF-12) to a planned development overlay with SF-10 as the base zoning, and to allow four exceptions to the subdivision ordinance.

The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that City Council change zoning for property in Edgewood Estates at 234–235 Edgewood Drive from single-family residential (SF-12) to a planned development overlay with SF-10 as the base zoning, and to allow four exceptions to the subdivision ordinance.

Community Development Coordinator Autumn Amen told the commission the applicant, CCM Engineering on behalf of property owner Jason Burket, requested the rezoning and exceptions to create a planned development over roughly 4.13838 acres. "Tonight is just a request to change the zoning and asking for those special exceptions," Amen said, and she noted a separate preliminary-plat review would follow if Council approves the rezoning.

The request would permit: a cul-de-sac street longer than 600 feet but not over 800 feet; construction of the street with asphalt rather than concrete; development without sidewalks; and use of drainage ditches instead of concrete curb and gutter. Amen said the property meets the two-acre minimum required to establish a planned development under the city ordinance and that notices were sent to property owners within 200 feet; she reported no inquiries from addresses inside that radius and one resident outside 200 feet who reviewed the plan and had no objections.

Under SF-12 zoning, required minimum lots are 12,000 square feet, minimum lot width is 90 feet and maximum lot coverage is 35 percent. Amen said SF-10 requires 10,000-square-foot lots, an 80-foot minimum lot width and allows 40 percent lot coverage; the rezoning would therefore allow somewhat smaller lots and slightly higher lot coverage than SF-12.

Several commissioners asked practical questions about utilities, flood risk and design details. Amen said sewer capacity is available and that the trunk main lies outside the floodplain even though a separate main exists within it. She and the owner noted two proposed lots are affected by a mapped floodplain and that house construction would be prohibited in floodplain areas; future buyers typically will need elevation surveys and flood insurance where a lot touches the floodplain. "If it touches the property, you're gonna have to have flood insurance for sure," one participant observed during the discussion.

Amen reminded the commission that civil engineering, paving and drainage will be reviewed at preliminary plat if Council approves the rezoning. The history in the packet notes a June 2021 council action that replatted the property into two lots and included an earlier exception for cul-de-sac length.

Property owner Jason Burket spoke during the hearing and said the intention is to sell the newly created lots for residential construction. "It would be to sell," Burket said.

After a brief public hearing with no members of the public speaking, a commissioner moved to recommend approval of the rezoning and special exceptions; Spencer Wilkes seconded. The commission voted 6-0 in favor. Autumn Amen and staff noted that, if City Council approves the zoning change, the project will return to the commission at the preliminary-plat stage for engineering and civil-plan review.

The commission also discussed neighborhood context, saying the requested SF-10 density would align with adjoining subdivisions to the north and that the proposal would end at a cul-de-sac rather than create a through street. Commissioners expressed concerns to be addressed in civil plans about lot grading, driveway crossings and potential flood-related building constraints on the downslope lots.