Commission sends New Vista condo-townhome application back for clearer plans after residents object

The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled action on Z2513, a conditional use permit and site-plan request for 1032 South Lima Street, after neighbors and commissioners said the applicant’s late-stage change — removing one seven-acre parcel from the request — left unanswered questions about access, buffering and future development.

The application was made by PB Macman Jr., director of operations for New Vista Development LLC, who told the commission he was withdrawing Lot 1R2 (the second seven-acre area) from the submittal and asking that the permit cover only the townhome portion. “The townhomes are my vision,” Macman said, adding that the condominium concepts shown earlier were preliminary and that Phase 2 could be redesigned after Phase 1 infrastructure is installed.

Neighbors, represented in public comment by Marlene Pilon, president of the Windcrest Patio Homes Association, said a meeting with the applicant led to improvements in the draft conditions but left major issues unresolved. “We acted in good faith, and we expect Mr. McMinn and New Vista to act in good faith,” Pilon told the commission.

Cliff (staff) told commissioners that staff had reviewed the site and dimensional standards and could support approval of a CUP for a single phase if conditions were met. Staff listed several recommended conditions discussed with neighbors: a 20-foot continuous buffer between the project and the Windcrest townhomes; removal of guest parking areas that face the patio-home development; a six-foot earthen berm topped with shrubs or, where a berm is not possible, a common-level solid fence (potentially up to 12 feet where warranted); prohibition of short-term rentals enforced through the city STR permitting process; identification of residential areas on the final site plan so density standards apply by unit type; and construction hour limits.

Staff also recommended that any final site plan return to the Planning and Zoning Commission for final sign-off and suggested bonding or other financial assurances be provided as part of subdivision/construction permitting to guarantee completion of required infrastructure.

Commission discussion emphasized that splitting the property into two legal lots changed the scope of review: if one lot received a CUP and the other remained governed by its existing C1 or other underlying zoning, the future development of the second lot could produce uses and intensities the neighborhood had not reviewed. Several commissioners and members of the public said the applicant’s mid-meeting change — proposing to develop only one lot now and leaving the other undeclared — was offered too late in the process.

The commission moved to send the application back for revision. The motion instructed the applicant to return with a clean, standalone site plan for the townhome lot, with the staff- and neighbor-recommended conditions incorporated and with clear documentation on access, final lot lines, buffer locations and a parking plan. The commission recorded concerns about policing owner-occupancy limits (which staff said would be more appropriate for an HOA than the city) and noted the city cannot enforce some suggested occupancy ratios.

What’s next: The commission asked the applicant to prepare a final site plan that shows the requested buffers, berm/fence locations, a final roadway/access layout, and the documented parking/financial assurances and to return to the Planning and Zoning Commission for final action.