The Planning Commission took a strong stand against recommending high density zoning in the town during their meeting Monday evening. The Commission denied two rezoning options presented by D.R. Horton to rezone the 98-acre Wilson property just north of the Town Center District on Wilson Boulevard. The first option requested a mixed use Planned Development District (PDD) with much smaller lot sizes to be determined by the builder. The second option requested a combination of R-8 (8,000 square foot lots) and R-5 (5,000 square foot lots). The land is currently zoned Development (D-1) which allows development of 20,000 square-foot minimum lot sizes.
The applicant, represented by Jordon Hammond, D.R. Horton’s Land Acquisition Manager, asked the Commission to send recommendations to Council on both zoning options.
The Town’s Planning Consultant, Michael Criss, pointed out, however, that the PDD request might have some flaws, explaining that a PDD is a customized zoning map peculiar to a particular property with a specific site plan for the commercial development. Criss said, however, that D.R. Horton had failed to include a specific commercial site plan in the request packet, and suggested that using a PDD zoning designation could be a way for a developer to get smaller lot sizes and more homes than in traditional zoning districts since unconventional and smaller lot sizes can be carved out in a PDD. Criss said this could be an issue the Commissioners might want to consider.
“State statute says a developer can use the PDD zoning to get smaller lots, but PDD also means mixed use and has a commercial component to it,” Criss said. “There is a 1.7 acre commercial area at the entrance, but is that an adequate amount of commercial land use for 98 acres to qualify for mixed use development?”
“We feel, at staff level, that the minimum lot commercial space should qualify for true mixed use land development,” Criss said. “Because the developer has omitted a specific commercial site plan in the packet, we don’t know what kinds of commercial uses might be planned.”
“Since the statutory language specifies a unified site design, doesn’t that tell us the PDD concept should include not just residential but also say what the commercial land uses are going to be?,” Town Administrator Gary Parker asked Criss.
“Yes, and not just a listing of the uses, but a depiction on the site plan,” Criss said. “And if the Town Council should approve this as proposed, we would need to find a means whereby the commercial component would be assured by the completion of the development.”
In his presentation, Hammond discussed the higher density that is possible for the property.
Commissioner Donald Brock challenged whether the density that could be approved for the property, should be approved.
“If you left it up to homebuyers looking to move to Blythewood, the answer would be absolutely yes,” Hammond said. “The demand for homes out here and in Cobblestone is huge. We’re in touch with homebuyers every day and the demand for this area is more than the density we’re proposing.”
“Yes,” Brock said, “but I don’t know if the demand for yards you can mow with a weed eater is there. Your rezoning request is a very nice masking job, but it’s nothing more than that. It’s skirting the requirement to get the high density zoning that you’re looking for. We have a two-land road out here and a rapidly growing town, and you’re attempting to cram as many homes as you can into a small area. Never mind the increased traffic, increased stress on first responders, police and fire or the school that is currently closed to choice. Bethel-Hanberry Elementary is maxed out and you have to be zoned for it to go there. The 56 units at the apartments that just came in is zoned for it and this development will probably be also. That’s probably almost 300 more children,” Brock said. “You will ruin what is attractive about Blythewood. This is not downtown Columbia.”
“Development is coming to this area,” Hammond countered, “whether it’s inside or outside the town. This is an appropriate way for Blythewood to control growth during a time when you’re going to grow. This is an opportunity for the town. We will improve Wilson Boulevard, and we want to be a part of this growth.”
“You can develop the land under the current R-20 zoning as it’s zoned,” Brock said.
“The property owner is not going to agree to that. And we would miss a demographic which we believe is missing in this market – someone looking to spend less than $350 on a home,” Hammond said. “The reality of the economics to develop 20,000 square-foot lots is that it would not be economical for us to develop it.”
“I stand with Mr. Brock on this,” Chairman Bryan Franklin said. “I think a 20,000 square-foot lot is a decent size.”
As Franklin was preparing to call for a motion, Hammond said that if the Commission recommended R -8 zoning, that he would be fine with that.
“I’m prepared to make R-8 the option,” Hammond said.
Nevertheless, Franklin called for a motion, and Commissioner Brock made the motion to recommend denial for a PDD to Council. The motion passed unanimously.
“You asked for feedback,” Franklin said to Hammond, “this is feedback. It’s not that we don’t understand your position and your business, but in our role here, the growth in Blythewood is so explosive that we need to pause and be responsible. People say to us, ‘You need to fix the roads before you approve another 300 homes.’ That’s where we’re coming from, as well as trying to satisfy you.”
“If you want unchecked growth,” Brock added, “go to Lexington. To put a lot of high density zoning in our town without first developing the infrastructure creates unnecessary stress for the current and future residents. It’s something I don’t think Blythewood can handle right now.”
Hammond asked the Commissioners to, “Imagine you’re the land owner. It’s value to them. You’ve got the power. You’ve got stuff in town to fund. How are you going to fund it? We’re a source for that revenue. R-20 is not viable for us.”
A motion was made to also not recommend option two for both R-5 and R-8 zoning. The vote to deny was unanimous.
The issue will go to Council for a vote on April 24.
