Planning staff told the Verona Planning Commission on Oct. 6 that the required public hearing on a comprehensive‑plan amendment for the Backus property east of Blue Ice Pass and west of County Highway M was not properly noticed, and the applicant has withdrawn the item and asked to be heard at the Dec. 1 planning commission meeting.

That matters because the withdrawal pauses formal consideration of land‑use changes that neighbors say would allow a three‑story apartment building immediately adjacent to single‑family lots — a change residents said would affect privacy, sunlight and property values.

"The public hearing agenda items for the Backus property East Of Blue Ice Pass and West Of County Highway M will not be discussed this evening. The required public hearing for the comprehensive plan amendment was not properly noticed by city staff, and therefore, the item cannot be considered," Lucas Severson, planning staff, told the commission. He said separate notices will be republished in the run press, mailed to properties within 250 feet and posted at the property.

Chair, Verona Planning Commission, told the meeting the commission has received neighbor feedback and that staff will compile those comments into a letter to send to the applicant. "We've gotten some feedback from some of the neighbors, and we'll be compiling that into a letter to send to the applicant as well, and to encourage them to talk to the neighbors because there's more time now," the chair said.

During the public‑comment period, several neighbors said the applicant's plans for a multi‑unit building would place three stories of apartments directly against existing single‑family backyards. An unnamed resident said she had raised concerns previously about building height and setbacks and that the developer moved the structure only a few feet in the revised plan. "I feel like they did the bare minimum ... but I feel like we also tried to talk about, like, where else is there a 3 story apartment building butting up to single family lots?" the resident said.

Scott Side, who identified himself as living at 308 Monte Cristo Circle, told commissioners he and other neighbors expected single‑family homes behind their lots when they bought. He said the property owner knew the comprehensive plan when they purchased the land and now is seeking a larger development because of drainage and cost issues. "They bought the property knowing that going in and now they're asking the city to bail them out to put this huge apartment complex in there so that they can make what I would imagine is a fairly handsome profit," Side said. He added that a local real‑estate agent told him the proposed buildings could reduce nearby home values by "about a 10 reduction in the value of our home, which is like $100,000." That claim was presented as Mr. Side's report of an agent's opinion.

Neighbors also asked the developer for three‑dimensional renderings from the perspective of adjacent homes and urged commissioners to visit backyards to see the visual impact.

Because the item was withdrawn, the commission took no formal vote on the Backus application on Oct. 6. The chair and staff reiterated that members of the public may still provide comments to city planning staff and that compiled neighbor feedback will be forwarded to the applicant. Planning staff advised residents to send written comments to Lucas Severson or Catherine Holt so the commission receives consistent information.

Procedural notes from the meeting: the commission approved minutes from the Sept. 2 meeting (motion by Commissioner Powers; second by Alder Swanson; ayes recorded), and later adjourned at 6:54 p.m. after a motion by Commissioner Powers and a second by Commissioner Wood.

The Backus item is scheduled to return to the planning commission agenda for a Dec. 1 hearing; staff said the city will publish new notices and mail required notices to properties within 250 feet and post notices at the property prior to that meeting.