2008-04-07 Regular Council Session Agenda

Home Browse Search

Text Amendment Proposed for “PD” – Planned Development District: Increased and varied density housing is permitted for new major developments under the “PD-R” – Planned Development Residential and “PD-M” – Planned Development Mixed Use Districts. Both of those districts are supposed to only be used in areas where there is over 2 acres to be developed and would assume that the new districts would be for new subdivisions. Although in most cases Staff proposes that those area restrictions remain in order to protect the current residential character of existing subdivisions but there is also flexibility in the code to allow for smaller developments, if necessary and appropriate. It is Staff’s recommendation that the smaller developments not encompass just one lot, in order to retain the characteristics of surrounding areas. The use of the Planned Development Districts in these areas should be considered the key tool for increased and varied density housing in University City. This would allow higher density lots with multi-family dwellings to be allowed throughout several more areas in University City, either by combining lots or using lots that are larger in area than the surrounding lots. However, there is an obstacle in the current code that must be addressed. The current code only permits density in the same amount in the new district than it had in the underlying original district. It does allow for an increase but only in amounts that go up to 20% which is insufficient if the City is serious about increasing density. In other words, if a Planned Development District is created over a single family residential district, it will only be allowed one dwelling unit per original lot. There is no point in rezoning a property to “PD” (except maybe to shift placement of buildings on those lots). That would not increase density as is the goal. The increase in density is only permitted to be up to 20% in section (3)(c) which does not help much in the pursuit of increased density. Staff finds this restriction to be far too restrictive and counter-active to the whole concept of Planned Developments and increasing density in areas that have been designated as such. Staff suggests that the portion limiting density to the original district be deleted altogether. That restriction eliminates all possibilities of varied and increased density if it occurs where an existing “SR” district is located. Further, it gives no benefit or increase in density for multi- family residential districts. This is especially restrictive in the areas north of Olive in the northeast neighborhood where such density is being discussed. It basically means that any existing areas that are rezoned from “SR” to “PD” cannot have a greater density than the previously zoned area. Staff doesn’t see the point of that restriction. Since the property would have been studied during the rezoning process to have been ripe for increased density, it makes no sense. Staff proposes the following change to the text of the “PD” District density regulations (with bolded additions and deletions stricken):