Council committee approves Richardson Road townhomes after community seeks lower density and buyer‑sale assurances

The Land Use & Zoning Committee voted Feb. 4 to approve a PUD rezoning that would allow roughly 40 townhomes on a 3.36‑acre parcel near New Kings Road and Richardson Road after neighborhood opposition and staff review. Committee members attached conditions intended to limit disruption and respond to neighborhood concerns, including an amendment asking the applicant to offer the units initially as for‑sale homes.

Why it matters: Residents argued the parcel should remain lower density and expressed safety and traffic concerns on Richardson Road, where sidewalks are limited. Proponents said the townhome project is consistent with the 2045 Comprehensive Plan and would provide new housing choices at a price point the developer estimates near $250,000.

What the committee approved: Planning staff told the committee that the site is in the RPI land‑use category, which allows up to 30 units per acre; the applicant proposed 40 townhomes (about 11.9 units/acre) and provided a revised written description and site plan. Council members added conditions at the meeting including: adoption of the revised exhibits, a provision (requested by council) that the townhomes be initially offered as for‑sale units, and clarifying language limiting the parking impacts and requiring the usual civil traffic review. The committee also accepted a developer commitment for a six‑foot vinyl fence along much of the property line and other mitigating measures. The Planning Commission had already recommended approval.

Community response and negotiations: The applicant’s agent, Mike Herzberg, said the project will bring new investment to a neighborhood that last saw large‑scale development decades ago and that site economics require roughly 39–40 units for feasibility. He said the site is a logical place for townhomes because the nearby roadway network and transit access can serve the extra units, and he cited FDOT review noting adequate capacity on nearby arterials.

Neighbors and civic leaders voiced concerns at a well‑attended community meeting and in public comment before the committee. Opponents said the neighborhood’s roads (notably Richardson Road) are narrow and already experience congestion and safety issues; speakers asked for lower unit counts, additional buffers, and clarity about parking and sewer/stormwater impacts. Councilmember Joanna Pittman, who represents the district, said residents are not opposed to housing but asked for conditions that would make the project more acceptable; she and others pressed for sale‑first assurances and for further study of driveway access and street improvements.

Key technical points and conditions: - Planning staff: Site area 3.36 acres; proposed 40 townhomes = ~11.9 units/acre; RPI land use allows 30 units/acre; FDOT: nearby roadways adequate to accommodate trips in staff analysis. Planning Commission recommended approval. - Committee conditions adopted: attach revised written description and site plan (dated 12/05/2024), require a 6‑foot vinyl fence on the north/south/west sides (per applicant offer), require traffic study at civil site plan review following LDPM standards, and the applicant agreed to a written commitment that units be initially offered for sale (applicant said he would agree to deed instead if required). The committee also discussed but did not require deed‑restricted 55+ status; the applicant said they would consider deed restrictions if desired but made clear the standard federal “housing for older persons” exception would apply if imposed.

Outcome and next steps: The committee approved the rezoning as amended by voice vote and forwarded the ordinance with conditions. The PUD moves to civil site‑plan review, where staff will check the traffic study, onsite stormwater and required frontage improvements; any deviations from the approved exhibit set would require additional approvals. Neighbors who opposed the rezoning said they will continue to press for additional protections at the site‑plan stage; the developer said it will proceed with engineering and marketing in line with the committee’s conditions.

Ending: The committee’s decision balanced the developer’s stated economic feasibility needs with neighborhood requests for limits and sale assurances. The final product will be shaped further in the civil review process, where engineering standards and the committee’s conditions will be enforced.