Planning Commission OKs rezoning for five-unit project on McClellan Avenue with 35-foot height cap

The Metropolitan Planning Commission on Thursday approved a specific-plan rezoning to allow five multifamily units on two lots at 406 and 408 McClellan Avenue, after neighbors raised concerns about privacy, stormwater and design and staff said the proposal meets policy for the site.

Jeremiah, a staff planner, told commissioners that staff found the plan consistent with the city's T4 urban neighborhood "neighborhood evolving" policy and recommended approval with conditions. "Overall, staff finds that the proposed SP meets the goals of the T4NE policy and recommends approval with conditions and disapproval without all conditions," Jeremiah said during his presentation.

The approval came with conditions to address neighborhood concerns, including a clarified maximum building height of two stories and 35 feet to the top of the roof and increased landscape buffering on the west property line. Commissioners voted by voice; the motion to recommend approval carried and the commission adopted the staff recommendation with the added roof-height clarification.

Why it matters: The site sits immediately adjacent to a commercial corridor and transit service, and planning staff said its location supports an increase in residential intensity under the city's comprehensive-plan transect. Neighbors said the rezoning and development pattern will alter the long-standing single-family character of the block and aggravate existing drainage and privacy problems.

Project details and conditions - Proposal: Rezone two parcels from RS 7.5 (single-family residential) to Specific Plan (SP) zoning to permit five detached multifamily residential units on about 0.4 acre. The application limits buildings to two stories. - Conditions (key items adopted by the commission): a maximum height of two stories and 35 feet to the top of the roof; additional landscape buffer along the western property line; alley widening and improvement per the submitted plan; and other staff-recommended conditions. - Design: Three of the five units face McClellan Avenue; two units are oriented to an internal open space and the improved rear alley. All units include two-car garages.

Public comment and neighborhood concerns Owners and supporters, including property owner Benjamin Adewi, submitted written testimony and told the commission the applicant met neighbors after the item was deferred at the July meeting. Adewi's written statement said the project will "increase the value of the other properties in the neighborhood" and pledged to help address a neighbor's upstream plumbing problem during construction.

Residents opposed to the rezoning spoke at length. Daniel McClure, who lives at 410 McClellan Avenue, said the neighborhood has been "a long standing single family community for decades" and that the proposed lot sizes and building placement would intrude on privacy and worsen localized stormwater problems. Other neighbors raised the absence of a property survey at earlier stages, the potential for added driveways and speeding on McClellan, and the desire for fewer units (three homes instead of five) to preserve green space and privacy.

Applicant and staff responses The applicant's representative said he deferred the item at the July meeting to meet on-site with neighbors, and that some neighborhood concerns were not caused by the subject site. The representative noted the current RS 7.5 rules could permit three stories and 5-foot setbacks in places, and said the proposed SP actually reduces potential height and setback impacts relative to existing allowances.

Jeremiah, the staff planner, highlighted that the transect and policy framework (T4 neighborhood evolving) anticipate higher densities near commercial corridors and transit stops and found the two-story, 35-foot limit consistent with policy guidance for 1-to-3-story buildings.

Outcome and next steps The commission moved to approve the SP with the added condition clarifying the 35-foot measurement is to the top of the roof. The item passed by voice vote; no roll-call tally was recorded in the meeting minutes. The approved SP will proceed to the next steps required by metro procedures for rezoning/sp-specific plans.

Context and background Under the current RS 7.5 zoning, property owners could seek taller buildings on the lots; the applicant's SP proposal limits height to two stories and provides design commitments and alley improvements staff considered in recommending approval. The commission's decision reflects the planning policy goal of accommodating housing choice in areas near corridors while adding project-specific conditions to address neighborhood impacts.

Quote highlights - "Overall, staff finds that the proposed SP meets the goals of the T4NE policy and recommends approval with conditions and disapproval without all conditions," Jeremiah, staff planner, said. - "Our neighborhood has been a long standing single family community for decades," said Daniel McClure, a resident who opposed the rezoning. - "If given the go ahead, we promise to address a plumbing issue of the next door neighbor during the construction," read a letter from property owner Benjamin Adewi.

What commissioners emphasized Commissioners who spoke during deliberation emphasized balancing neighborhood character with the city's broader housing goals. Several commissioners noted the site's proximity to commercial land uses and transit and said the reduced height and increased buffers represented a compromise.

Implementation notes Staff will monitor compliance with the SP conditions and the applicant is required to carry out the alley improvements and buffering as approved. Any changes to the approved SP will require future review by the commission. The commission also directed the condition be explicit that the 35-foot limit be measured to the top of the roof.

Remaining questions Neighbors asked for clearer assurances about stormwater remediation and design details; the applicant and contractor volunteered to meet and address certain upstream drainage and driveway concerns. Those operational items are not part of the commission's formal approval and will be handled between the parties and through required permitting processes.