Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Site Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council upholds approval of Horn Drive site plan with conditions on lighting and access
Summary
After an open‑record appeal hearing, the Benton City Council voted to deny an appeal and allow preliminary approval of a commercial site plan at 1520 Horn Drive, adding conditions to limit lighting impacts and to control access from 14th Street.
Benton City — The Benton City Council on May 20 denied an appeal of a staff decision to preliminarily approve a commercial site plan at 1520 Horn Drive, but it added conditions aimed at reducing lighting impacts and limiting traffic access through adjacent residential streets.
The appeal was filed by neighboring homeowner Zachary Howard, who argued the planned construction of two commercial buildings (each roughly 62 by 180 feet) with 38 paved parking spaces would create noise, light and traffic that reduce nearby residents’ quality of life. Howard also suggested rezoning the undeveloped land between Horn Drive and 14th Street to residential.
The applicant’s team, including owner Jeff Von Schmader and civil engineer Gary Hall, said the property has been designated commercial in the 2017 comprehensive plan, the proposed buildings comply with current design standards and the development would bring trade‑sector businesses to Benton City. Hall noted existing plat and deed language that indicated the lots were planned for commercial use.
Neighbors including Amy Davalos and Zachary Howard raised concerns about security lighting, increased traffic on 14th Street, and wear to chip‑seal surfacing. The applicant’s team said lighting would be designed to remain on site and that project access would be routed primarily to State Route 225, with the 14th Street connection limited to emergency or exit‑only use.
After discussion, a councilmember moved to deny the appeal while adding stipulations that project lighting be designed to minimize spillover into the residential area and that access to 14th Street be controlled as described in the hearing. The motion was seconded and passed on a roll‑call vote (Wadsworth: aye; Reid: aye; Apisar/Alcazar: aye; Stevenson: aye).
The action preserves the administrator’s preliminary approval but directs staff and the applicant to document and adopt the agreed conditions before final site‑plan signoff. The council’s decision was an exercise of its appellate role for an administrative (Type 2) site‑plan approval; the council noted it could have approved with conditions, remanded the matter, or denied with resubmittal options.
Next steps: the applicant will incorporate the lighting and access conditions into final submittals; the council did not remand the project to the planning commission.
