0:00During the meeting, a detailed presentation by Development Services staff outlined the context and implications of the proposed amendment. Staff emphasized that the surrounding area predominantly comprised single-family residential zones, with varying degrees of density. Despite assurances that the existing facilities could support the proposed development and that the site was not in a floodplain, agency members expressed reservations about the shift in density.

One member highlighted a consensus within the commission on controlling density, recalling prior discussions favoring a three-to-one density ratio as opposed to the proposed five-to-one increase. This member articulated concerns about the long-term impact on density management in the area and urged consideration of alternatives, such as waiving the impervious surface ratio, rather than increasing density. Another member noted that altering the impervious surface ratio would require changes to the comprehensive plan, affecting similar properties citywide and potentially setting a precedent for future developments.

Public input added another layer to the discussion, with resident Cindy Newton expressing strong opposition to the amendment. She contended that the property was not part of a subdivision and that the proposed change would violate existing deed restrictions, which allowed for only one dwelling unit. Newton warned of the precedent this amendment could set, encouraging the agency to honor current deed restrictions and consider the broader implications for community development.

Charles Leonard, the applicant and recent area resident, addressed the agency, expressing his understanding of the complexities involved in the land use change. He conveyed a willingness to work with the community and the agency members to find a resolution that aligned with the property’s needs while respecting broader development concerns.

14:35Another discussion centered on a property owner who sought assistance with his property’s use. Describing himself as a hobbyist, he explained his intentions to use the land for personal activities, such as working on cars and motorsports racing. While he had obtained a permit for a building, he faced challenges due to the property’s layout and setbacks. He emphasized that despite the potential for constructing five residences, practical factors limited development to three homes.

Board members grappled with balancing the property owner’s needs with the community’s growth management goals. One member acknowledged the property owner’s predicament but stressed the importance of maintaining control over growth. The discussion included exploring a rural residential designation that might better accommodate the owner’s circumstances without necessitating broader regulatory changes.

Ultimately, the agency decided to postpone the matter, allowing the property owner to return with his request at a later date. The motion to postpone was unanimously supported.