A conditional rezoning to allow construction of 36 single-family detached homes on a wooded triangular parcel off Springside Road returned to the council agenda briefing July 24 for additional review ahead of the July 29 public hearing. City staff described the application as a rezoning that would keep the RS-4 base district but include technical modifications to lot dimensions and setbacks that would increase buildable density.

Staff said the application on file is the version planning used for its recommendation and that alternate drawings have been circulated by neighbors and the applicant. Planning Director Steph Munson Dahl said buy-right outcomes depend on site design and site constraints: “you can’t use the base of what, like, someone says RS-4 allows and think that that’s what you can actually produce.” Will Pankhurst, a city planner, confirmed that multifamily is not a permitted use in RS-4, meaning the site could not, as currently zoned, be developed as multifamily without a rezoning.

Why it matters: Council members raised safety, infrastructure and procedural issues that could affect whether the hearing proceeds. Council members asked for clearer documentation of sidewalk gaps and how proposed sidewalks would connect to existing sidewalks and school access; one council member cited an estimate of about 6,000 students within a mile and urged clarity on pedestrian infrastructure. Opponents and neighbors have produced alternate site layouts that remove three lower lots, add a single-access lane or propose different retaining-wall and stormwater designs; staff said they would check whether any revised drawings have been formally submitted.

A legal complication: City Attorney Brad Branham told council staff had worked with the applicant’s counsel and proposed amending any approving ordinance so it would only take effect after the ownership/title dispute is resolved. Branham said the amendment would make any rezoning “contingent upon that” dispute being settled, which would allow council to hear the matter without making the rezoning effective until ownership is clarified.

Council options and procedure: Council discussed continuance versus proceeding. Staff emphasized that council may decide to proceed if it has enough information, may ask the applicant to consider delaying, or may refer the matter back to planning if substantial design changes are submitted before the hearing. Several council members expressed openness to a continuance if it would allow the neighborhood and applicant to reach consensus or to provide additional information on sidewalks and safety.

What remains unresolved: Staff said they would (1) confirm whether alternate drawings circulating by email were submitted through the development portal, (2) detail the sidewalk connection gaps and the scope of required sidewalks, and (3) report back on the ownership/title issue and its legal implications. No formal motion or vote on the rezoning occurred at the briefing; the public hearing was scheduled for the July 29 business meeting.

Ending note: Planning staff advised council to pose any remaining procedural questions at the July 29 meeting; the city attorney and planning staff said follow-up documents would be provided in advance of the hearing.