Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Crossroads PUD rezoning fails after resident concerns about floodplain and neighborhood buffering
Summary
A proposal to rezone roughly 20.7 acres to adopt the Crossroads PUD (base GC3C) failed after the commission split on compatibility with an adjacent neighborhood and concerns from nearby residents about floodplain, buffers, and screening. Motion failed 3–4.
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted down a proposed Crossroads PUD on Nov. 13, rejecting an application that would have rezoned about 20.7 acres at Baghdad and Hero Way to a planned unit development with a GC3C base zoning.
Carina Castillo of the Planning Department presented staff's recommendation to approve the PUD, describing allowances for screened outdoor storage and noting compatibility with the comprehensive plan. Dan Mitchell of Headwater Companies told commissioners his firm intended shallow‑bay industrial buildings aimed at local trades and low‑water/sewer users.
Two residents who live adjacent to the site raised questions about easements, floodplain boundaries and whether the development would provide a meaningful barrier to shield a historic 1850 house at 301 North Baghdad Road. Bruce Safely, who identified himself as the owner of the historic home, asked whether the development would include a wall or other buffer between his backyard and the new site.
Commissioners debated whether the proposed industrial‑style buildings fit the designation of a neighborhood center and whether the site design provided adequate screening, masonry walls or landscape buffering. Commissioner Joshua Oliver said the plan read more like an industrial park than a neighborhood center and suggested higher architectural and screening standards where the site adjoins homes.
When the commission took its vote, Commissioners Mahan, Lewis and Bray voted in favor; the remaining commissioners voted against. The motion failed and will not move forward as presented. No formal alternate approval or continuance was adopted at the time; the planning file will reflect the commission's action for the record.
