Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press council to deny NSG rezoning at 3070 W Mount Comfort; developers offer split‑zone compromise
Summary
A contested rezoning request at 3070 W Mount Comfort (0.4 acres) drew substantial neighborhood opposition focused on traffic and Gooseberry Lane access. Developers proposed a split‑zoning compromise (small NSG at the corner, RSF‑18 to the north) and agreed to further neighborhood talks; council left the item on first reading.
Strong public turnout filled council chambers Tuesday to oppose a rezoning request at 3070 West Mount Comfort Road that would change a 0.4‑acre parcel from RSF‑4 (single‑family, 4 units/acre) to NSG (Neighborhood Services General).
City planning staff recommended approval for the corner site, saying its location along Mount Comfort — a regional link street in the master street plan — and nearby infill factors made limited services and attached housing appropriate. Planning staff noted the item arrived to council on appeal after a split commission action; the planning commission’s favorable recommendation was narrow and the commission recorded both supporting and dissenting votes.
Applicants Wes Bates and Conrad Shimek told council they favor small, incremental infill that can preserve a large red oak tree on the lot. In response to neighbor concerns, they offered to explore a split‑zone approach: NSG for the immediate corner parcel that contains the existing house and RSF‑18 north of it, and to pursue a bill of assurance limiting certain uses if needed. The applicants asked council to leave the item on first reading to continue neighbor discussions.
Neighborhood speakers — including residents of Gooseberry Lane and adjacent streets — said Gooseberry is a narrow, largely dead‑end lane with limited turn opportunities onto Mount Comfort, and expressed fears that NSG could permit commercial uses (medical offices, delis, grocery, dry cleaner) that would increase deliveries, parking demand and safety risks. Residents cited near misses and past accidents and urged council to preserve residential zoning; several said they would accept lower‑intensity residential zoning (for example, a split or RSF‑18) as a compromise.
Council members encouraged continued negotiation. Council agreed to leave the matter on first reading so neighbors and applicants can attempt to reach a narrower compromise and to allow staff to evaluate the proposed bill of assurance language. If no agreement is found, applicants said they would return asking for RSF‑18 rather than NSG.
The council did not take a final vote on the rezoning at the meeting.
