Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears reprocessed Pruitt Health variance request for Ashton Woods site; staff recommends denial of two variances
Summary
A reprocessed application for 3535 Ashton Woods Drive requests two variances (open space and buffer reductions) and two waivers; staff recommended denial of the variances citing topographic and buffer concerns but recommended approval of the waivers with environmental and erosion‑control conditions; the applicant's attorney urged the council to approve the open‑space variance.
City staff presented a reprocessed application for 3535 Ashton Woods Drive, a matter that was partially approved and partially denied at the Nov. 18 meeting and has been refiled with a new case number to correct what staff described as actions that did not fully reflect council intent.
The application requests two variances (reduce required on‑site open space from 10% to 0% and reduce a required 40‑foot buffer to 10 feet) and two waivers (landscape planting requirements and street‑tree installation). Staff recommended denial of the two variances because topographic conditions do not support the requested open‑space or buffer reductions, but recommended approval of the waivers to allow existing landscaping to remain, subject to conditions addressing invasive species removal, engineered slope restoration to address erosion, and coordination for plant rescue of native species.
Baxter Russell, a zoning and land‑use attorney representing applicant Pruitt Health, told council the current site plan removes buffer impacts and maintains the status quo on open space; he requested that council approve variance #1 related to open space as a way to align the action with the site plan the applicant submitted.
Staff noted that, with the revised plan, there may be no need for the open‑space variance for the project to move forward. The council will consider the refiled application on the regular council agenda; no action was taken at the work session.
Council members and staff emphasized that any redevelopment would still require separate zoning or site‑plan approvals and additional public hearings if the annexation or other approvals proceed.
