Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks PD rezoning for 2.5-acre Rodine Road retail/office center; neighbor raises drainage and traffic concerns
Summary
R and L Enterprises requested approval to rezone about 2.5 acres on the north side of Rodine Road from AS‑1 to Planned Development to allow a 13,000‑square‑foot retail and office center; county staff recommended approval with conditions.
Get email alerts on the Commercial Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
R and L Enterprises requested approval to rezone about 2.5 acres on the north side of Rodine Road (east of Balm Riverview Road) from AS‑1 to Planned Development to allow a 13,000‑square‑foot retail and office center. Applicant attorney Patricia Ortiz told the hearing master the project would be limited in uses, include buffering, and restrict hours for certain activities; staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
Development Services staff said the PD would provide buffering and screening along the eastern property line adjacent to residentially zoned property and along the property line abutting an existing childcare center. The staff report notes the applicant agreed to transportation improvements outlined in conditions, including a four‑foot raised concrete separator in Rodine Road’s westbound lane and paved shoulders, and that project certification and site development review will require compliance with the county stormwater technical manual.
Neighbor Todd Medrano, who owns adjoining property, spoke in opposition. He said the existing retention pond and drainage in the area is already “severely taxed” and that previous grading on nearby property had worsened flooding at Rose Lane and along Balm Riverview; he said traffic at Rodine Road is already heavy and that the roadway is not set up for more development. Medrano asked the county to require roadway and drainage improvements before permitting additional development.
Michelle Heinrich of Development Services and Richard Perez of Transportation Review responded on the record. Perez described the transportation improvements the applicant has agreed to and said the county engineer found the proposed roadway design exception approvable; Heinrich said stormwater review occurs at site development review and that the PD does not grant relief from stormwater technical manual requirements.
The applicant’s rebuttal repeated that conditions of approval limit cumulative trips from development and require the transportation and stormwater improvements discussed, and the hearing master closed the item for record with staff recommendations to follow.

