Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Snowflake council hears contested rezoning for multi-family units; clerk flags procedural defect
Summary
The Snowflake Town Council considered rezoning two parcels to multi-family to allow up to a developer-proposed 12 units; neighbors opposed citing traffic and existing apartment issues, and a clerk's note said a procedural requirement was not met so final approval will require a second reading.
The Snowflake Town Council on Nov. 2, 2021, considered a request to rezone two parcels (202-10-057 & 046B) from residential (R-45) to multi-family to permit multi-family dwellings. Joe Jarvis, town staff, told the council that Planning & Zoning and staff recommended the rezone and that proper notice had been provided.
During questioning, Councilmember Lynn Johnson asked whether the change from R-45 to multi-family would allow only four additional units; Jarvis said yes and noted that a development review would be required, allowing council oversight. Councilmember Byron Lewis asked about sewer service; Jarvis said the developer had been informed they must extend sewer to town lines and had provided plans to do so. Lewis also raised concerns about parking and emergency-vehicle turnaround; Chief Martin said there was no issue for police vehicles, and Chief Nelson said fire concerns had not yet been addressed because fire plans had not been submitted.
Preston Webb, identified in the record as Mr. Wilcock’s partner, described the proposal as two-story, three-bedroom units to maximize land use and said, "there is a large demand for housing in this community; if everything goes as planned they would like to construct 12 units. Would like to get about $1600 per unit." Dennis Keasler, a neighbor two blocks away, supported the project and told the council there is a "waiting list of 82 people for Putter's Paradise," saying the proposal would help meet rental demand. Opposing the rezoning, Alan LeSueur said he submitted a petition asking that the zoning remain unchanged, warned it would "create a big traffic problem," and cited issues with the nearby Peterson apartments.
The council recorded motions and roll-call votes. The record shows councilmembers Brimhall, Cory Johnson, Flake and Ballard voting in favor and Lynn Johnson and Lewis opposed, with Allison Perkins absent. A clerk’s note in the record stated: "Because the reading was not passed by a majority plus 1, the subsequent ordinance approval is not valid, and the item will need to be read a second time at the next council meeting before it can be formally approved." The transcript records motions for first reading and for ordinance approval but includes that procedural caution; the ordinance therefore will require a second reading before it can take effect.
Why it matters: Council debates over rezoning affect neighborhood character, traffic and infrastructure demands and are a primary vehicle for increasing housing supply. Supporters cited local rental shortages; opponents cited traffic and impacts on neighbors. The council did not complete final, unambiguous approval of the ordinance at this meeting because of the procedural note and will need to consider the item again.
What’s next: The clerk’s note says the ordinance requires a second reading at the next council meeting before formal approval. The council did not finalize the rezoning at this meeting due to that procedural issue.
