Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission declines to recommend rezoning of 7.89-acre Old Gray Summit tract after residents raise traffic, density and tree-loss concerns

City of Pacific Planning & Zoning Commission · December 10, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The City of Pacific Planning & Zoning Commission voted 3–5 on a motion regarding a rezoning request for a roughly 7.89-acre site on Old Gray Summit Road; residents expressed concerns about traffic, lot density and tree removal, and commissioners debated current zoning versus the proposed R‑1B plan.

The City of Pacific Planning & Zoning Commission on Nov. 26 considered a map amendment (P&Z 2410) seeking to rezone an approximately 7.89-acre tract on Old Gray Summit Road from county and non-urban zoning to R‑1B single-family residential. The commission heard detailed staff analysis, statements from the applicant and multiple neighbors before voting on whether to recommend the rezoning to the Board of Aldermen.

Planning staff told the commission the site is designated for single-family residential use on the city’s future land use map and that the application "substantially complies" with municipal code section 400.260.b2 while emphasizing that tonight’s hearing addressed the map amendment only; annexation and a preliminary plat would be separate actions. The applicant’s preliminary layout proposes roughly 18 single-family detached homes with lot sizes the applicant and staff described as ranging approximately from 12,851 to 22,357 square feet, above the R‑1B minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.

Neighbors who live adjacent to or near the property urged the commission not to recommend the rezoning. Don Bridget read a letter on behalf of Robin Pritchard and Elizabeth Lynch saying smaller lots would be “not in character with the surrounding homes,” would remove trees that reduce noise and wildlife habitat, and would increase traffic. Dalton Mathis said sewer work could require removing trees in his backyard and questioned whether the sewer connection would be gravity-fed or require pumping. Mary Birdsong Fun, whose letter was entered into the record, warned that the Lamar Parkway/Gray Summit Road intersection is already “precarious” at school drop-off and pick-up times.

The applicant and developer told the commission they intend to preserve as many trees as feasible and described plans to construct roads and utilities that meet city standards. The developer said perimeter trees would be retained where physically possible and that grading would be limited largely to the retention basin area. “I will leave as many trees as absolutely physically possible,” the developer said during public comment.

Commissioners were sharply divided. Commissioner Bates argued the proposed plan is lower density than what could result under current county zoning and praised the local reputation of the applicants, saying the lots are substantially larger than the 8,000-square-foot average referenced in the comprehensive plan. “These folks could've come in here and not talk to us at all because it's in Franklin County and put a trailer park there,” Bates said, urging the commission to consider the comparative outcome under county jurisdiction. Other commissioners echoed neighborhood concerns about traffic, noise and loss of rural character and said the plan places too many houses on the site for that portion of Old Gray Summit Road.

After discussion, Commissioner Bates moved to recommend approval; Commissioner Summers seconded. The commission conducted a roll-call vote with results recorded on the public record as Bates Yes; Mar Marheka Yes; Kelling No; Summers Yes; Love No; Wehmeier No; Aycock No; Chairman Bruns No. The tally on the record was 3 yes, 5 no. The commission recorded “5 no, 3 yeses to go to the Board of Aldermen” in the meeting minutes and did not carry the motion to recommend approval.

Because the map amendment and annexation are separate, any future action on development will return to the Board of Aldermen for final decisions about annexation and any preliminary plat. The commission also received letters from additional neighbors (entered into the record) urging caution and smaller numbers of homes. The public hearing portion of the commission’s meeting was closed; no final annexation or subdivision approvals were made at this meeting.