The development proposal, which includes a master plan, faced scrutiny from board members and local residents alike. The proposed maximum building height of 50 feet for the townhomes was a point of contention. One board member questioned the use of 50 feet as a standard for planned development zoning, despite the applicant’s representative assuring that the townhomes would likely be similar to existing two-story residences in nearby neighborhoods. Another member emphasized the need for height restrictions.

Concerns about wetland preservation were also prominent. The development plan aims to limit wetland impacts to under three acres while providing nearly five acres for parks and open space. However, board members and residents expressed apprehension about potential environmental disturbances. One member inquired about the possibility of placing certain land in a conservation easement to prevent future development, specifically focusing on areas adjacent to existing residential zones. The representative clarified that significant portions of wetlands would be preserved as conservation areas, yet skepticism remained about the enforceability of these commitments.

Public comments underscored the community’s anxiety over flooding and environmental degradation. A resident from Hillcrest Avenue highlighted past flooding experiences and voiced concerns that increasing the development’s footprint could exacerbate existing issues. Another resident advocated for the preservation of existing trees and natural buffers to protect against flooding and wildlife disturbances.

Traffic impact was another issue. Board members debated the necessity of multiple access points to the development, with some advocating for emergency access only to Highland Terrace to promote pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The applicant’s representative noted that the current proposal did not mandate two access points based on the number of units planned but acknowledged that a traffic study would be revisited during later planning phases. Public comments echoed these concerns, with residents emphasizing the narrow streets and lack of sidewalks in the area, which could pose safety risks if traffic increased.

Further complicating the discussion was the relationship between the proposed development and the city’s comprehensive plan amendments. The board considered a motion to recommend the city council approve the comprehensive plan amendment, which included changes to land use and building height restrictions. Despite some board members’ reservations about the potential impacts on local infrastructure and community aesthetics, the motion passed with a mixed response.

Another topic was the proposed amendments to the downtown policies in the future land use element. These amendments included provisions for increased building heights and density bonuses tied to public benefits such as park improvements and landscaping. One member expressed concern that allowing five- to six-story buildings could create a “condo canyon” effect, likening it to an unsuccessful development attempt in Winter Park, Florida. The board discussed the implications of a new zoning overlay that would enable higher density residential and mixed-use developments, particularly along Garden Street.

The meeting also addressed stormwater management requirements for the proposed development. The developers are mandated to submit a water plan and an environmental resource permit to the Water Management District. Concerns were raised about maintaining wetland hydration while preventing flooding, with the discussion emphasizing the need for thorough assessments to balance these competing interests.