Crestview council annexes 20-acre parcel, approves rezoning with conditions after neighborhood concerns

The Crestview City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to annex about 20 acres north of Fox Valley, amend the comprehensive plan and rezone the property after staff and the developer added a conceptual exhibit limiting initial development to 16 single‑family lots and an emergency access route.

The council approved Ordinance 1983 (annexation), Ordinance 1984 (future‑land‑use amendment) and Ordinance 1985 (rezoning) on second reading, each by a 5–0 vote. The adoption included a staff exhibit showing the split between an R‑2 single‑family area along the Fox Valley boundary and mixed‑use designation farther north.

The record shows the paperwork began with an application filed July 18, 2024; the Planning and Development Board recommended approval Dec. 2 and council approved first readings Dec. 9. Staff told the council the exhibit will be entered into the record and used as the basis for future development review, which staff said will limit the density and uses allowed adjacent to the existing subdivision.

Developer Greg Matovina, identified in the meeting as the proposed acquirer and developer, told council the 16‑lot configuration and lot sizes are intended to match Fox Valley. "The lot size and the general configuration is gonna be as you see in that plan, and cannot be changed unless we come back before this board again," Matovina said during the quasi‑judicial rezoning portion of the hearing.

Neighbors who addressed the council pressed for additional protections. Chad Rumchick, a Fox Valley resident, asked the council to require “single story, single family homes” and a buffer of about 30 feet between the new lots and existing yards to preserve the neighborhood character. Jeff Gerlach, a Fox Valley resident who spoke later, asked the council to delay action until a sale of the parcel closes; he told the council the parcel’s owner previously sued the city and the homeowners association in 2014 and the litigation ended without resolution in 2016.

City planning staff and City Manager Tim Baldock told the council they had worked with the developer to secure a conceptual plan amendment and exhibit that staff will treat as part of the application record. Baldock said the drawing is intended to "lock in" the maximum density adjacent to the existing subdivision and to ensure single‑family lots where the new development touches Fox Valley. He summarized the staff approach: the exhibit constrains future development review and gives planning staff grounds to require conformance when a formal development plan is submitted.

Council discussion centered on emergency access and whether the new entrance should be gated for emergency use only or open to general traffic. Supporters of opening the road said it would provide a needed second entrance to relieve traffic and ensure safer ingress/egress; others said a gated emergency access is a compromise to protect the neighborhood while addressing the fire marshal’s requirement for a second means of access. City staff said the portion of the road to serve the 16 lots will be built to city standards and will provide at minimum emergency access; whether it would become an open public connector will be decided later during development review.

Council members said they were voting specifically on the annexation, land‑use amendment and rezoning as presented, not on final construction details. The council adopted the annexation (Ordinance 1983) by motion (mover: Councilman Bullard; seconder: Councilman Hayes) and a 5–0 vote. The comprehensive plan amendment (Ordinance 1984) and rezoning (Ordinance 1985) were also approved 5–0 on second reading.

The council and staff repeatedly noted that a formal development plan has not yet been submitted for the mixed‑use portion to the north; the approved exhibit constrains density for the area adjoining Fox Valley but does not fix the exact location of roads or retention ponds. Staff said the developer told them a sale could close in mid‑2025 and that closing is a separate private step; if ownership does not transfer, the city’s approvals forward the land‑use and zoning but do not guarantee a particular developer will build.

Votes at a glance Ordinance 1983 (annexation, ~20 acres): Motion to approve (mover: Councilman Bullard; seconder: Councilman Hayes). Outcome: approved 5–0. Ordinance 1984 (comprehensive plan amendment to mixed use/residential): Motion to approve (mover: Mayor Pro Tem Capps; seconder: Councilman Frost). Outcome: approved 5–0. Ordinance 1985 (rezoning to R‑2 and mixed‑use with accompanying conceptual exhibit limiting adjacent development to up to 16 single‑family lots): Motion to approve (mover/second not specified in record). Outcome: approved 5–0.

The council directed staff that the exhibit will be part of the administrative record for future development review; conditions such as setbacks, buffers and whether the new road remains gated will be addressed during that subsequent review and any development order process.

Clarifying details and next steps - Parcel size: approximately 20 acres (staff report). - Initial constrained development: up to 16 single‑family lots adjacent to Fox Valley; typical lot sizes cited in the hearing around 0.24 acres (about a quarter acre). - Zoning split: south half to R‑2 (single‑family medium density) adjacent to Fox Valley; north half designated mixed use. - Application history: received July 18, 2024; Planning and Development Board recommended approval Dec. 2, 2024; first readings approved Dec. 9, 2024. - Developer comments: Greg Matovina said financing is in place and he expected to clear a title issue and close (he referenced a potential February closing). - Resident requests: mandated HOA buffer strip (suggested ~30 feet), single‑story housing request, and a suggestion to table the rezoning until sale closes. - Implementation risks: final buildout depends on developer financing, closing, development order review, fire‑marshal and public‑works approvals; the conceptual plan fixes density but allows minor alignment changes for roads and drainage during engineering review.

Ending The council’s approvals set zoning and future‑land‑use designations for the parcel and placed the developer’s conceptual plan into the record as a constraint on future applications. Residents and the developer said they would continue negotiating details during the development‑review stage; staff said it will review subsequent submissions for conformity with the adopted exhibit and city standards.