Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Master Development Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press commission on density as Planning Commission backs Mac Canyon MDA, general plan amendment and rezones to send to council
Summary
After extensive public comment from neighbors worried about loss of half‑acre character, traffic and impacts to horse properties, the Planning Commission recommended that city council consider the Mac Canyon master development agreement (MDA), a future‑land‑use map amendment to medium density, and rezones from R‑121 to R‑112; commissioners added language to trigger city reconsideration of unbuilt portions if the developer fails to meet MDA obligations.
The Planning Commission spent its longest discussion on the proposed Mac Canyon master development agreement (MDA), a future‑land‑use amendment and related rezones covering roughly 114 acres that could include up to 170 residential lots and a small commercial/mixed‑use node.
Staff (voice S5) explained the MDA and why staff recommends pairing a rezone to R‑112 with a development agreement: the developer would be locked to the submitted site plan, lot sizes and amenities (open space, trails, detention basins), and the MDA provides enforcement levers if the developer does not deliver required improvements. The developer’s representative (voice S10) said the total unit count stays the same as underlying zoning and that the developer is offering parks, trails and dedication of over 10 acres of public open space to the city.
Neighbors spoke at length. Julie Mackley (voice S11) and others said rezoning to medium density would undercut the half‑acre character that drew many residents to the area. Joseph Kennedy (voice S8) and other neighbors warned of traffic and maintenance burdens; Angela Kempe (voice S12) raised concerns about horse properties adjacent to smaller lots and asked for safeguards if the development does not proceed as promised. Several residents asked whether the commercial piece (including a possible gas station along SR‑138) was necessary; staff and the developer said commercial is included in the concept but may be adjusted during later phases.
Commissioners and staff discussed procedural options. Planner (voice S2) clarified that the general plan amendment is aspirational and has no entitlements; rezoning and the MDA would grant entitlements if approved by the council. Commissioner (voice S6) said the MDA’s automatic reversion language could create a limbo where smaller lots already built would remain despite the zoning reverting; the commission amended their recommendation to have a city reconsideration trigger for unbuilt portions rather than an automatic reversion to avoid that limbo.
After public comment and discussion, the commission moved to recommend consideration of the MDA, the general plan amendment, and the parcel rezones to city council. The motions passed by voice vote; staff recorded that commissioners will forward concerns raised by residents for city council consideration.
