Applicant’s request and staff framing

At roughly 03:36 into the public-hearing sequence staff described the McMurdie/McCurdy parcel (1379 S. Arnold Lane, ~2.6 acres) and the applicant’s request to change the zoning from rural/large-lot residential to highway commercial to enable development under the county’s ADO (Accessory Dwelling Overlay) program. Staff noted the parcel’s location near existing highway-commercial uses and said the request was presented for consideration with responses to the A–K issue list in the record.

Applicant explains financing constraint

Applicant Mike McCurdy introduced himself as “the current owner” and told commissioners he had a private lender earlier who would have financed the project; after that lender’s death he said local banks and credit unions would not finance the ADO while the parcel remained in its residential zoning. McCurdy said changing the zoning to highway commercial was intended to allow him to access commercial financing and move the ADO project forward.

Commission deliberations and objections

Commissioners expressed sympathy for the goal of producing affordable housing but repeatedly objected to using a highway-commercial zoning classification as the mechanism to obtain financing. Concerns included the parcel’s access from a private neighborhood road (raising queuing and traffic-safety questions), the risk of creating a "spot upzone" that could later permit high‑intensity commercial uses (gas stations, fast-food) incompatible with the neighborhood, uncertainty about annexation options with the nearby city, and the ADO program’s timelines and deed restrictions. Several commissioners said they found the project conceptually attractive yet inappropriate to achieve via an upzone to highway commercial.

Procedure and lack of final recommendation

Commissioners discussed possible alternatives—general business, neighborhood commercial, PUD clustering, or conditional approvals with a construction timeline—but disagreed about whether recommending an alternative zone not advertised in the public notice would be procedurally allowable without re‑advertising the hearing. The meeting record shows a motion to not recommend the highway commercial rezone and subsequent alternative motions and discussion, but no single, undisputed final recommendation to upzone to highway commercial was recorded at the end of the public hearing session.

Next steps and developer options

No final county-level decision was made at the Planning Commission meeting; staff, the applicant and commissioners indicated follow-up steps would include coordination with county road/fire/engineering reviewers, consultation about annexation with the city, and possible re-advertisement if an alternate zoning district is pursued.