Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Blueberry Lane topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rezoning for 35 Blueberry Lane tabled; developer previews 44‑unit proposal
Summary
Planning staff proposed rezoning 35 Blueberry Lane from single‑family to residential apartment to align with surrounding multifamily development, but the Planning Board tabled the rezoning to April 1 at a member’s request.
The Planning Board on a staff‑initiated item discussed rezoning a single parcel at 35 Blueberry Lane from residential single‑family to residential apartment, but a board member moved to table the rezoning to the April 1 meeting to allow more time for review.
Planning staff said the Bean Conference Center property on Blueberry Lane has repeatedly drawn developer interest for multifamily development and that rezoning the parcel from RS to RA would make the parcel more consistent with neighboring multifamily character. Staff cited the City’s 2018 master plan and the city’s expressed interest in encouraging mid‑market housing as background. One board member said they were not opposed to the concept but requested more time; the motion to table carried.
After the rezoning discussion, a developer representative presented an illustrative concept (no formal application recorded in the transcript) showing an eleven‑building plan with 4 units each—44 units total—on the site. The presenter said the buildings would be two‑story, two‑bedroom, one‑bath units served by city water and sewer and that the plan showed more than 80 parking spaces. The developer said the first phase would concentrate on three buildings closest to New Salem Street and that the units are intended to be market‑rate. The developer indicated site constraints in a few areas where separation between buildings was close; the presenter said the team had met with the Fire Department about fireproofing exterior walls where separation is less than 20 feet.
Board discussion touched on landscaping, snow storage, dumpster locations, drainage impacts and the need for additional TRC (Technical Review Committee) and Fire Department review. Board members urged the developer to include snow‑storage and drainage handling in any formal site‑plan submission and to vary building elevations and siding for aesthetic variety. No formal application or vote on the rezoning or the development concept occurred at this meeting; the rezoning item was tabled to the board’s April 1 meeting.
Ending — The board requested additional time to review the proposed rezoning; the developer was advised to advance a formal site‑plan application that addresses snow handling, drainage, fire department concerns and landscaping. The rezoning will return to the board at the April 1 meeting for further consideration.
