Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision‑planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and council probe density, road and buffering in Lother subdivision concept
Summary
A concept for subdividing a 9.87‑acre RSF‑1 lot at 10110 County Road 116 into 22 single‑family lots prompted questions about whether the proposal should be rezoned to RSF‑3 or re‑guided to conservation residential, how Hunter’s Ridge street upgrades would be funded, and how a century‑old farmhouse and barn would be treated.
The council reviewed a concept plan from Brian and Jackie Lother for a subdivision at 10110 County Road 116 that proposes 22 single‑family lots (with a possible future split of the existing homestead to reach 23 lots). The site is currently guided and zoned for single‑family residential RSF‑1 and would need a comprehensive‑plan amendment to move to either RSF‑3 or a conservation residential land‑use to allow the proposed lot sizes and density.
Staff summary: Planner Dwight (last name not specified) told the council the proposal’s estimated net density is 2.83 units per acre, which is inconsistent with RSF‑1 minimum lot areas (20,000 sq. ft.). Staff said the plan is more consistent with RSF‑3 (7,500 sq. ft. lots) or the conservation residential category (2–3 units per acre) and asked whether council would support reguiding the parcel. Staff also recommended that the two proposed dead‑end streets be connected into a loop to increase emergency access and reduce the number of cul‑de‑sacs and maintenance issues.
Neighbors’ concerns: Jason Bartles (representing Hunters Ridge neighbors) and other residents urged council to hold the applicant to existing lot‑area standards, cited traffic and safety concerns at the 116/Hunters Ridge intersection, and asked that existing residents not be assessed for infrastructure costs (water, sewer, road) that would serve the new lots. Council discussed that any required sewer, water and on‑site construction costs would normally be the developer’s responsibility, and that road‑upgrade assessments would be addressed by the city’s assessment policy after engineering studies and public hearings.
Historic structures: Applicant representatives said the plan preserves a more than 100‑year‑old farmhouse and an old barn; they indicated interest in preserving or adaptively reusing barn materials but said restoration is costly. Staff noted that the existing house appears to be nonconforming and that lot‑line adjustments or variances would likely be needed to accommodate the home and meet setback requirements.
Council direction: Several councilmembers expressed general support for a lower density that aligns with conservation residential guidance rather than approving the proposal in its current RSF‑1 context. Council asked staff and applicants to consider a reworked plan that reduces density, evaluates looped street connectivity, and clarifies the effect on Hunters Ridge and the water‑treatment facility access.
Next steps: If the applicant proceeds, staff said formal submissions would include a comprehensive‑plan amendment, rezoning (either RSF‑3 or a planned unit development), a preliminary plat with neighborhood meeting, and, later, a final plat and watershed/stormwater approvals. Any road‑improvement costs and assessment considerations would be analyzed during the preliminary application and public‑hearing process.
Ending: Council did not take a binding vote; members asked for additional engineering and feasibility details and encouraged the applicant to work with staff to address setbacks, buffering, access and preservation of historic features.
