The Planning and Zoning Commission approved GPA 24‑03, a minor general plan amendment to change roughly 9 acres of Hartman Ranch from a commercial designation to Master Plan Community, and continued the related Hartman Ranch PAD rezoning (PAD 24‑07) while the applicant and neighboring landowners work toward resolving outstanding issues.

Derek Shearer, Planning Division, described the applications as a combined request: a minor general plan amendment for about 9 acres and a PAD major amendment for roughly 193 acres. Shearer said the PAD amendment modernizes a legacy Hartman Ranch PAD to the current PAD zoning and that the requested Master Plan Community designation would align the general plan map with the approved PAD zoning for the site.

Julie Vermillion of CBL Consultants, the applicant’s representative, said the mapping discrepancy likely was a GIS/mapping error and that the proposal retains single‑family residential intent: “we believe that it was just a mapping error on the the general plan GIS itself,” she said, and that the PAD update will provide modern development standards while preserving connections to adjacent Hartman Trails and the original Hartman Ranch parcels.

At the public hearing, members of the Hartman family raised several specific concerns they said should be resolved before final rezoning. Mary Hartman, identified as a family representative and daughter‑in‑law to a landowner, asked that the eastern drainage ditch be designated as a legal access so the homestead retains practical access, requested written confirmation that the domestic well serving the homestead will not be interrupted by future owners, asked that an existing MSIDD irrigation pipeline remain undisturbed and that the developer preserve the historic western entrance and protect the family’s ability to use the Anderson Road/Petersen Knoll access until a formal agreement is reached. Mary Hartman also requested that no two‑story homes be built immediately adjacent to the homestead property line to preserve privacy.

Scott Cole, the property owner and applicant present at the meeting, said he received the Hartman letter about an hour before the meeting and indicated a willingness to work in good faith with the Hartman family to resolve outstanding items, but also said the applicant would prefer moving the planning process forward and resolving the specifics prior to council review.

Commissioners asked staff and the applicant questions about the PAD details, lot yields and flexibility. Staff noted the PAD area under consideration proposes a maximum of 826 lots for the new PAD segment, and that alternative housing types such as zero‑lot‑line or motor‑court products could be proposed later through additional applications; staff said such subsequent applications would be analyzed against code and general plan policies.

On the motions, Vice Chair Horace moved to approve GPA 24‑03; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Culp and the commission voted to approve the minor general plan amendment. For PAD 24‑07, Commissioner Robertson moved to continue the zoning map amendment; the motion was amended so the continuation would run until staff advises the commission that the parties are ready to proceed (the applicant and Hartman representatives had indicated ongoing discussions), and the commission approved that continuance. The motion specified the item would be continued to the first meeting in September or earlier if staff and the parties were ready.

The continuance was requested by Hartman family members in part to secure legal representation and to allow time for the applicant and landowners to negotiate easement, well protection and access details; staff noted some of the easement and irrigation pipe information would appear on survey/ALTA maps reviewed at the development stage and clarified that Anderson Road is a public section‑line road created historically by the county Board of Supervisors.

No final rezoning decision was made for PAD 24‑07; the PAD will return to the commission after staff determines the parties have had reasonable opportunity to resolve the Hartman concerns and is likely to be scheduled for a hearing in September unless the parties notify staff earlier that issues are resolved.