Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Pud Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Collegedale approves rezoning and PUD for White Oak Valley-area development; tax rate confirmed
Summary
After a public hearing with residents and the developer, the Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to approve Ordinances 11-61 (rezoning), 11-62 (planned unit development overlay) and 11-63 (confirming property tax rate). Commissioners and staff discussed a state-law gap that can leave annexed properties effectively 'unzoned.'
The Collegedale Board of Commissioners voted to approve three ordinances affecting a planned development near White Oak Valley Circle: an ordinance rezoning specified Hamilton County parcels to high-density single-family residential (Ordinance 11-61), a planned-unit-development overlay for the same parcel (Ordinance 11-62), and an ordinance confirming the city’s property tax rate (Ordinance 11-63).
The measures passed after a public hearing that included several residents who said they were disappointed the community’s earlier rejection of a larger proposal had not prevented the current approvals. Brian Barrett, who identified addresses in the area, told the commission he and other neighbors were told previously that opposition had succeeded, and called the current outcome “a betrayal” of the community process. Amy Douse and Alice Tim told the commission they were worried about wildlife, flooding and wetlands protections; Tim said she and neighbors rely on wells and called for protections for water.
Mike Price, an engineer representing the developer, told the commission that wetlands on the site had been delineated, buffers established and that stormwater facilities were designed to handle a 100-year storm event. Price said the developer purchased additional land to create a 50-foot buffer along White Oak Valley Circle and that the current plan met state, county and city stormwater and landscaping requirements.
City staff explained a legal gap that affected the case: because parts of the property were previously unzoned at the time of annexation, commissioners were told the city’s rejection of rezoning could leave the developer with the ability to pursue a higher-density build under existing county-approved construction plans. Staff described that alternative as a developer-approved plan for 208 dwelling units in a quadplex format that could proceed if the commission denied the rezoning and PUD overlay. Staff said the better long-term fix would be state legislation that establishes a default zoning when county property is annexed into a municipality.
Commissioners discussed the trade-offs of approving the rezoning and PUD, saying that the PUD overlay imposed additional restrictions and amenities (including playgrounds, community spaces and the 50-foot buffer) that the developer would not be required to provide under a less-restrictive base zoning.
After discussion, the commission approved Ordinance 11-61, Ordinance 11-62 and Ordinance 11-63 by roll call. Commissioner Baker, Commissioner House, Commissioner Johnson and Vice Mayor Sadler each voted yes on all three measures; motions and seconds were entered on the record during the meeting. The commission did not change the tax rate.
The developer and city staff said they will continue to meet with neighbors; commissioners asked staff to continue communication with state representatives about changing state annexation/zoning procedures to avoid similar situations in the future.
