Planning commission approves reduced side-yard setbacks in Hidden Creek Phase 3 after resident objection

The Red Oak Planning and Zoning Commission on Feb. 3 approved four separate zoning changes to allow reduced side-yard setbacks in the Hidden Creek Phase 3 subdivision.

City staff said the requests would convert individual lots from RAE zoning to a plan development (PD) district so all RAE standards remain in place except the side-yard setback, which would be reduced from 25 feet to 15 feet. Ben, the city’s director of development services, told the commission the lots are “large, over a half acre,” and the applicants are proposing single-story homes with wide footprints and side-entry garages that require more lateral room than a two-story plan would. The commission approved the four items individually: case ZAsInZebraCAsInCat25-01 (Lots 6 and 7, Block E; 304 and 301 Whispering Way) was approved 3–1; ZAsInZebraCAsInCat25-02 (Lot 10, Block E; 321 Whispering Way) was approved (ayes recorded); ZAsInZebraCAsInCat25-03 (Lot 7, Block B; 400 Whispering Way) was approved (ayes recorded); and ZAsInZebraCAsInCat25-04 (Lot 10, Block C; 419 Whispering Way) was approved 3–1.

The applicant, Duane Bryant, attended and said the resulting spacing between homes would still be substantial in most cases — noting that two adjacent 15-foot setbacks produce a 30-foot separation and that where an existing home has a 25-foot setback it could be 40 feet between houses. Ben also noted the applications are for noncontiguous lots and that similar requests have been made at earlier meetings; the staff presentation grouped the items because they are the same substantive request across separate lots.

A single written protest was read into the record by Ben from Stephanie Johnson, a Hidden Creek homeowner at 312 Whispering Way. The letter said the Johnson family purchased an “almost acre lot” for the privacy and setback protections and complained the neighborhood’s HOA was not being enforced. The letter expressed concern that allowing reduced setbacks could “devalue our property” and that the applicant’s changes undermined what motivated some buyers to pick the neighborhood. Ben read: “This should be illegal,” quoting Johnson’s letter.

Commissioners discussed the scope of the requests and whether the number of similar reductions in the subdivision represented a substantial change in the neighborhood’s character. One commissioner noted the commission had previously approved several similar reductions and, cumulatively, multiple lots within the roughly 35–40 lot subdivision may seek smaller setbacks. Commissioners also reviewed maps and on-screen measurements showing that the protesting home at 312 Whispering Way would remain dozens of feet from the proposed build lines on the lots under consideration.

All four items were voted on separately. Where roll-call tallies were recorded in the meeting record, the minutes show two items passed 3–1 and two items passed with the ayes recorded (no roll-call tally in the audio). No amendments to the proposed PD language were made at the meeting.

The commission’s approvals will be forwarded as recommendations to the city council for final zoning action under the case numbers listed at the hearing.

Ending: The approvals change only side-yard setback requirements for the specified lots; all other RAE standards remain in effect under the proposed PDs. Where neighbors raised HOA enforcement and neighborhood character concerns in writing, the commission recorded those objections in the public record but approved the individual PD requests based on the staff presentation and the applicants’ plans.