Resolution 2006-60 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. The Gateway Lane Subdivision property, as described on Exhibit A (hereafter the "Subdivision" or "Property"), is currently zoned Single Family Rural (SF-R) and platted to allow for a total of nine single-family homes (seven on the east side of McCaslin Boulevard and two on the west side of McCaslin Boulevard). 2. The owner of the Property that is the subject of the appeal is Omni Financial Services, Inc ("Omni"). The applicant for the requested rezoning, preliminary subdivision plat and preliminary PUD development plan is McStain Enterprises ("McStain"). 3. The Property was annexed to the City in 1995 as part of a larger annexation. The parcel was zoned to Single-Family Rural (SF-R) (east of McCaslin Blvd.) and Restricted Rural Residential (R-RR) (west of McCaslin Blvd.) at the time of annexation. A final subdivision plat and final PUD development plan that encompassed the Property, styled as Gateway Subdivision, was approved in 1998. That entitlement approved seven single family lots on the east side of McCaslin Blvd. ranging in lot area from 1.5 and 1.8 acres. 4. The preliminary subdivision plat and preliminary PUD development plan proposed by McStain requests approval of 25 single family lots. The preliminary plat and preliminary PUD development plan are accompanied by a proposed rezoning of that portion of the Property east of McCaslin Blvd. from SF-R to Single-Family Medium Density (SF-MD). 5. The minimum lot size for the SF-MD district is 12,000 square feet per dwelling unit with a minimum lot width of 100 feet. The preliminary PUD development plan requests relief from the minimum lot size requirement for 15 of the 25 proposed lots, and requests relief from the minimum lot width for most of the proposed lots. McStain's representatives testified that the requested relief from the SF-MD yard and bulk requirements was necessary to justify other amenities being offered in connection with the application, including the proposed dedication to the City of the two lots lying east of McCaslin Blvd. 6. The LMC states that the requirements applicable to the underlying zone district apply to planned unit developments; those requirements may be waived or modified through the PUD process. LMC Sections 16.16.050, 17.28.110. The City Council finds that the proposed preliminary plat and preliminary PUD development plan do not meet underlying zone district requirements and that the proposed amenities and other site features set forth on the proposed preliminary plat and plan do not justify the increased density and modifications as requested under the proposed plat and plan. 7. The existing zoning and entitlements for the Gateway Subdivision are consistent with the 2005 Citywide Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, City Council finds that approval of the proposed preliminary plat and preliminary PUD development plan is not necessary or warranted in view of the Comprehensive Plan. Further, the City Council finds that the owner/applicant has not demonstrated that approval of such proposed plat and plan, including the modifications to City requirements, is necessary to further the Comprehensive Plan or elements therein. 2