Eastman's Preserve developer scales back cemetery fencing; commission moves item to regular agenda for outreach

3176038 · May 1, 2025

Loading...

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

A developer revised fencing plans for a small cemetery at the Eastman's Preserve site, proposing landscaping and partial fencing instead of full enclosure; commissioners asked staff to contact the applicant and the historic commission and moved the item to the regular agenda for further public outreach and review.

Planning staff presented a revised preliminary plan for the Eastman's Preserve subdivision that changes a previously proposed full fence around a small cemetery to a more open, defined area with landscaping and partial fencing.

Staff described the cemetery as a grassy area with two visible headstones and additional depressions that a prior study had identified as burial sites. The developer proposed limiting fenced sections to red-highlighted locations and creating a distinct landscaped entrance; the gate/entrance would include posts and slatted fencing rather than stone columns. Staff said the cemetery area will remain part of the development’s green space.

Commissioners sought clarity on cemetery boundaries, protections and whether any family members had been contacted. Staff and commissioners noted the city’s historic commission keeps a list of protected cemeteries and that the city code is intended to protect burial grounds from encroachment and disturbance. Commissioners expressed a preference to give neighbors and interested parties an opportunity to comment; one commissioner proposed removing the item from consent so the public would have a chance to speak. The commission directed staff to reach out to the applicant and to the historic commission and moved the item to the regular agenda to allow further public input.

Staff said they would contact the applicant and historic-commission representatives and return the item for additional review; no final approvals or votes on the revised fencing were recorded in the transcript.