Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission fails to recommend rezoning for John McCain subdivision amid flooding, access concerns
Summary
The Planning and Zoning Commission did not recommend approval of a rezoning request that would split about 11.7 acres on John McCain Road into up to 12 single-family lots, citing unresolved drainage concerns, neighborhood opposition and a disputed requirement for a second access.
The Planning and Zoning Commission did not forward a favorable recommendation for a rezoning request for property on John McCain Road after extended public comment and technical testimony about flood risk, downstream drainage and emergency access.
Staff presented a rezoning request (Case ZC 25-001) to change roughly 11.7 acres from agricultural (AG) to single-family residential in two zones: R-30 and R-40. The applicant proposed 12 lots (seven R-30 lots and five R-40 lots), with one lot enlarged to accommodate floodplain. Staff described the future land-use designation as residential and said the materials provided included a statement of planning objectives, a utility plan and a tree-preservation plan. Staff noted opposition letters and reported the protest level at approximately 49.95 percent within the 200-foot notification area, meaning the issue would require a supermajority at the city council.
Curtis Young of the Sage Group, the applicant’s agent, said the plan was designed to blend with adjacent zoning: smaller R-30 lots near existing R-30 and the Monticello PUD and R-40 lots adjacent to R-40 neighborhoods. Young said the project totals 11.7 acres, would yield 12 residential lots and that the developer plans high-end single-family homes built by Cali Custom Homes. Clayton Redinger of Redinger Group, the civil engineer, testified the site represents about 3 percent of the overall watershed that drains through two creeks; his firm supplied a drainage study concluding that on-site detention would not reduce downstream flooding and could produce a concurrent peak that worsens conditions.
Larry Wright, city engineer, said the site’s effective FEMA map currently identifies a 500-year floodplain but that a preliminary FEMA study shows a larger 100-year floodplain that would bring more properties into the 100-year floodplain when it becomes effective. Wright described the development as a small portion of a larger drainage basin but agreed the development will increase impervious cover and said the timing of runoff release is critical; he summarized, “detention sometimes is a good thing. Sometimes it’s a bad thing.”
More than a dozen nearby residents spoke in opposition, raising repeated concerns about ongoing flooding in the Whitechapel/West Whitechapel Creek confluence, recent changes to nearby development and road grades, and damage to private fencing and landscaping when water levels rise. Several residents showed photos of repeated flooding and described routine road overtopping and damage to yards and fences after storms. Jeff Kavanaugh, representing Monticello Homeowners Association, summed up the neighborhood view by urging caution and stronger infrastructure mitigation near the “bottom of that funnel.”
Commissioners debated two related code issues: the land development code limits cul-de-sac lots in R-30/R-40 to 10 lots without a second point of access, while R-20 zoning allows up to 12 lots with a single access. The applicant included a secondary emergency access on the plan but said the property owners who control that private access easement prefer not to upgrade their drive and would prefer the plan not require that work. The applicant requested that the commission recommend approval notwithstanding the 10-lot limit.
A motion that would have removed the secondary access from the site plan and asked the city council to waive the 10-lot limit failed on a 4-2 vote (two commissioners voted aye; four voted no). Because the commission did not adopt a favorable recommendation and the applicant faces a protest at the council level, the application can be appealed by the applicant to city council; the applicant has 10 calendar days to appeal. If appealed, the council will consider the rezoning and — because of the protest level within 200 feet — will require six votes of the seven-member council to approve.
No final rezoning was approved at the commission meeting; the application’s next procedural step is a possible appeal to city council. The record includes the applicant’s drainage study, tree plan and utility submittal; commissioners and staff directed continued dialogue and additional technical review to address neighbors’ concerns.
