Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning 202507 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney says SW Ives Drive townhomes fit surrounding RM zoning; planning staff lists 11 conditions
Summary
Planning staff presented a rezoning request for 8.79 acres on SW Ives Drive to allow a 70‑unit townhome community; staff listed 11 conditions (unit limit, HOA, rental cap, architectural and landscaping standards) while planning commission denied the request. Applicant counsel said the proposal is consistent with adjacent townhomes and will submit additional condition language.
A rezoning request for an 8.79‑acre parcel on Southwest Ives Drive to convert C‑2 general commercial zoning to RM (residential multifamily) for a 70‑unit townhome development was presented to the board June 26.
Planning staff read 11 recommended conditions to the record should the board adopt the rezoning: development in compliance with RM district standards; maximum of 70 units; guest parking adjusted to meet code; establishment of a mandatory homeowners association to maintain common areas; a rental restriction limiting rentals to 5% of units; two‑car garages for each townhome; sodded lawns; underground utilities; preservation of natural vegetation until development permit issuance; screened stormwater detention ponds; and amenity structures built with exterior materials complementary to adjacent residential structures. Staff said the planning commission voted to deny the rezoning.
Josh Mahoney, attorney for the applicant (Battle Law, PC), said the site is adjacent to existing townhomes and compatible with the county comprehensive plan designation (Mixed‑Use/Employment Center) that allows RM zoning. Mahoney said his client accepts the staff conditions and proposed additional commitments on architecture (no two immediately adjacent townhome facades identical; two‑foot offsets for visual variation) and increased buffering (an average 25‑foot buffer across the development, replacement trees for large removals), and pledged to send detailed proposed wording to staff and commissioners the next day.
The fire, transportation and water/sewer technical reviews were noted in the staff presentation; staff required a downstream sewer analysis where applicable. The Board of Education flagged enrollment impacts when considered alongside other approved residential developments.
No final decision on the rezoning is recorded in the transcript. The applicant said they would provide more detailed conditions and a tree survey with the formal submittal of proposed language to staff.
What’s next: The board will take up the item at its decision meeting according to county procedure; the applicant will submit detailed condition language for staff review.
