The Derby City Council voted 6-1 on Oct. 28 to deny a proposed zone change that would have reclassified a roughly 39.8-acre parcel at the southwest corner of 50th Street South and Woodlawn Boulevard from R1A (urban density single-family) to R2 (two-family residential).

The denial came after more than an hour of public comment, testimony from city staff and the applicant’s agent, and repeated council discussion about flooding, traffic, and neighborhood character. Council President Nick Engel moved to override the planning commission’s recommendation and deny the zone change, saying the proposed density and acreage did not fit the character of the surrounding area; the motion carried 6-1.

The proposal would have applied R2 zoning to most of a 50.8-acre tract, with the subject site described in staff materials as 39.8 acres of that parcel. City Planner Scott Knebel told the council the applicant’s sketch showed five types of two-family dwellings (one- and two-story homes, three- to five-bedroom units) and that the houses would be built “with no basements.” Knebel and staff noted the site contains portions of an existing floodway and floodplain; Knebel said the planned development must meet accepted engineering standards and that “the development of the property, in accordance with accepted engineering standards will not make adjacent properties more flood prone,” though it would not improve existing flood conditions.

Several residents spoke in opposition during the public forum. Audrey Goff said she “take[s] issue with the 63 page agenda item report posted by Scott Knebel regarding the zone change,” and argued the district did not need more duplexes. Trina Hodges said she had watched the planning commission “favor the developer” and criticized the commission’s process; she closed her remarks by saying, “They’re not qualified to build an outhouse for the Flintstones.”

Phil Meyer, agent for the applicant with Boffman Company, told the council the sketch was preliminary, that house types now commonly are “slab on grade” rather than basement homes, and that layout details (including drainage and lotting) could change during platting and engineering review. Meyer said the applicant is open to different mixes of single- and two-family development but noted any final layout would depend on engineering, infrastructure and what the developer would accept.

Council discussion repeatedly returned to three issues: floodplain and drainage engineering, traffic and intersection safety at Woodlawn and 50th, and the scale/density of the proposed two-family development. City Engineer Alex Lane confirmed Woodlawn will be reconstructed to a curb-and-gutter section up to 50th with storm sewer work; he said there was no current plan for a traffic signal at that intersection. Planner Knebel said the planning commission recommended buffers of single-family zoning on the north and south edges of the site (365 feet on the north, 165 feet on the south).

A valid protest petition covering roughly 66% of the affected properties remains in effect; under the city’s enabling rules and state statute referenced in the staff report, an approval of the zone change would have required a three-fourths affirmative vote of the council. Council members repeatedly noted that legal standard when weighing options. Because the council’s final vote was to deny the change, no rezoning was adopted; if the developer seeks the same zone change again it would wait one year from the date of the prior planning commission hearing (measured from Aug. 7), or six months for an application that is substantially different.

Council President Nick Engel said he is not opposed to multifamily housing in general but opposed this proposal’s scale and acreage at the proposed R2 density. Several councilors — including Molt, Neal and Webster — said they were conflicted but ultimately supported denying the change because they felt the proposed level of two-family housing did not fit the neighborhood’s character. Engel encouraged the developer to consider returning with a different mix of single- and two-family housing if they wished to reapply.

With the vote, the property remains zoned R1A. Staff and the applicant noted that, if a zone change were approved in the future, the council would later review a subdivision plat for conformance with subdivision regulations; council members emphasized that plat review could produce additional design requirements but would not change the zone by itself.