Commission votes 3-2 to recommend denial of Smithland Road rezoning after contested hearing

The Planning Commission on March 12 voted 3-2 to forward an unfavorable recommendation to city council for a rezoning application by Janice Brown Enterprises LLC for two parcels on Smithland Road (1211–1231 Smithland Road).

Staff briefed the commission on the lengthy review and the applicant’s revised proffers and conceptual layouts submitted after the February meeting. Staff said the applicant added duplexes (capped at 25% of units), limited the total number of units to no more than 70 in the proffers, proposed privacy fences and screening in identified locations, and included flexibility for either a shared-use path or a street stub connection to an adjacent parcel. Staff also removed several earlier commitments (including a tree-planting proffer) and provided two conceptual street-layout options that staff said could not be built as shown without variances to the subdivision ordinance and the City’s design and construction standards manual.

Planning staff explained those outstanding design and street-network questions are material because Smithland and the surrounding network are areas where future development will require consistent, long-term street alignments. “The conceptual street layouts that have been presented to planning commission cannot be built as shown without variances to the subdivision ordinance and the design and construction standards manual,” staff said, adding that staff continued to recommend denial unless the applicant provides more certainty about the street network and the variances that would be needed.

Developer and property owner David Gast of Riverbank Companies said the project is intended to deliver moderately priced homes and that full engineering and design work will follow a successful rezoning: “We can fund concept planning through a rezoning. But the investment of capital that’s needed to do a full engineering of the site... we’re just not able to do that without removing the rezoning uncertainty off the table,” Gast said. The applicant provided two alternate conceptual layouts showing roughly 40–50 lots depending on the configuration and said their designs conform to fire‑truck turning radiuses and other practical circulation checks; their land-use planner, Connor O’Donnell, joined by phone.

Neighbors and nearby residents spoke at the reopened public hearing. Dan Ruble and other neighbors said they had circulated a petition and remained concerned the proposal does not meet the comprehensive plan’s low-density mixed residential intent, that required variances remain unspecified, and that Smithland Road currently lacks sidewalks and shoulders necessary for the additional traffic and pedestrian movement the development would bring. Other neighbors stressed safety around the Smithland Elementary and athletic complex.

Commissioners debated the competing policy priorities of adding housing and ensuring a durable street network. Several commissioners said they support increased housing generally but found the proffer and concept-plan package did not provide sufficient certainty about street connections and design variances that would set precedent for a larger area. The commission first considered, and failed, a motion to approve; after further procedural steps the commission adopted a motion to deny. The final vote to forward an unfavorable recommendation to city council was 3 in favor of denial and 2 opposed.

The denial is a recommendation only; the applicant can revise the application and return to the commission, or the matter will be considered by city council.