Board denies 25th and Midway plan change after months of public comment and competing visions

The county board on Jan. 7, 2025, denied a developer's request to change the future land use on a 34.2-acre site at 25th Street and Midway Road from commercial to a split of residential urban and residential medium. The vote on a motion to deny was 3 to 2.

Supporters of the application, including the applicant's representative Mariana Aria Sands and the property owner Craig Mason, urged the board to approve the plan as a balanced transition from a busy arterial intersection to surrounding low-density neighborhoods and to protect wetlands on-site. The applicant's team said the project would preserve all existing wetlands on the property and reduce daily vehicle trip generation dramatically compared with a full commercial development.

Residents and nearby homeowners criticized the proposal at public hearings and during the meeting, saying the plan would add traffic to already-congested Midway Road, aggravate drainage, and alter White City's rural character. Multiple speakers who live on Jorgensen, Christiansen and nearby streets emphasized longstanding drainage problems and said additional rooftops would strain schools and services. Jane Rowley and several other residents said they preferred the site remain commercial or to be developed at much lower residential densities.

Planning staff noted the site is within the county's urban services boundary and described the proposed split (roughly 8 acres residential medium and 26 acres residential urban) as intended to create a transition from commercial to lower-density residential. Staff also said the commercial future land use had been on the map since 1990 and that commercial uses by right could bring substantial traffic; the applicant argued their plan would generate far fewer daily trips than a build-out of the existing commercial designation.

The Planning and Zoning Commission had unanimously recommended approval before the Board hearing. At the Board meeting, Commissioner Clasby moved to deny the future land use amendment; Commissioner Lowery seconded. The roll-call vote was: Commissioner Townsend — No; Commissioner Leite — No; Commissioner Lawrie — Yes; Commissioner Clasby — Yes; Chair Fowler — Yes. After the vote the chair noted the denial meant the related preliminary PUD would not proceed.

Ending: The denial leaves the site under its commercial future land use designation. Planning staff and the applicant may pursue other proposals; residents urged the county to insist on a plan that reflects the existing neighborhood character and addresses drainage and traffic before any new approvals.