Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Villas of Chadwick rezoning deadlocks; applicant requests more time to address staff stipulations

5862551 · September 26, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Commissioners tied on a motion to approve the Villas of Chadwick rezoning and preliminary plat (case 47-25); the applicant asked to continue and the commission agreed to let the developer revise the plan for a future hearing.

The Planning Commission considered case 47-25 (Chadwick Place, Villas of Chadwick) on Sept. 30, a request to rezone about 15.62 acres and approve a preliminary plan and plat for a 62-unit, 31‑lot residential development (twin villas) and associated commercial-to-residential rezoning.

Planning staff recommended approval with stipulations (1 through 18 in the staff report) but flagged several technical items, and the commission spent substantial time on site access, stormwater and landscaping, parking, private versus public streets, and a stipulation requiring relocating overhead power lines.

Planner Carrie Camiller said the proposal includes a requested deviation reducing side-yard setbacks from 30 feet to 20 feet, provides roughly 50.8% open space (the LDO requires 30%) and preserves about 23 existing trees along Chadwick. Staff noted the project would require private streets because certain curve radii could not meet city public-street geometric standards; the developer agreed to maintain private drives and the related maintenance obligations.

Developer representatives and attorneys focused discussion on stipulation 14 in the staff packet, which would require placing about 475 linear feet of overhead power lines along 130th Street underground. Attorney Curtis Holland asked the commission to defer that decision to the governing body and said the applicant would participate financially but requested the applicant's contribution be capped at about one-third of the cost (the applicant cited a nearby case with a different cost-sharing arrangement).

Commission discussion also centered on whether the plat should include an access easement for a roughly 1-acre adjacent agricultural parcel to avoid landlocking that parcel in the future. Several commissioners said an access easement should be required at final plat; Commissioner Franze moved to add a stipulation requiring the developer to grant an access easement to the adjacent agricultural parcel, and Commissioner Belzer seconded.

A motion to approve the rezoning, preliminary plan and preliminary plat (as amended to add the access-easement stipulation) was made by Commissioner Black and seconded by Commissioner Belzer. The motion ultimately produced a tie vote at the dais and did not carry; the transcript records a 4-to-4 split and the chair declared the motion not adopted.

After recess and a legal review of the LDO, the applicant asked for and was granted a continuance to revise the plan and continue negotiations with staff; commission staff and the applicant agreed to work together on outstanding items. No final recommendation will be forwarded to the governing body until the applicant returns with a revised submission at a future regular meeting.