Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Cases topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning staff updates commission on several rezoning cases; mixed staff recommendations
Summary
Staff reviewed multiple rezoning requests at the Feb. 11 agenda review: a postponed PR‑5 case near Beaverbrook (staff still recommends approval), a small‑lot PR request (BT Davis Enterprises) that staff recommended denying, and a previously postponed RN4 request at 912 West Emerald Ave that remains denied pending any formal RN3 change.
Planning staff summarized several rezoning items on the Feb. 11 agenda review and provided their recommendations.
A previously postponed rezoning (case referenced as an agricultural-to-planned residential request adjacent to Beaverbrook Golf and Country Club) remains recommended for approval to Planned Residential (PR) up to five dwelling units per acre because staff said the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and surrounding area. Staff noted the case had been postponed to redraw boundaries after an omitted house was added to the request.
For BT Davis Enterprises (rezoning case referenced by staff), the applicant sought to rezone a 19,368-square-foot lot from RA to PR at up to 4.5 dwelling units per acre to allow subdivision of a duplex into attached units. Staff recommended denial, saying the lot is too small for the cluster development intended by PR, that PR allows attached houses (which RA does not), and that the property’s dimensions and surrounding RA zoning make PR inappropriate.
Staff also recapped case 11H204 RZ (912 West Emerald Ave), which the commission had postponed for 90 days. Staff said the applicant indicated an intent to request RN3 at an upcoming meeting, a change staff had not had time to review; staff republished its denial recommendation for RN4 for the reasons previously given. Staff noted RN3 also raises similar concerns about permitting more than one principal structure and not meeting lot dimensional standards.
No formal actions or votes were recorded at the agenda review; staff presented recommendations and answered commissioners’ questions.
