Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Decision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies Bennett Forest rezoning after split vote and neighborhood concerns
Summary
Council declined a proposed rezoning (C2 to R2) for a Bennett Forest subdivision after a tie on an approval motion and subsequent motion to deny citing traffic concerns and loss of commercial land; the record was reopened briefly for applicant rebuttal about single‑story homes on 50‑foot lots.
A request to rezone approximately 8.84 acres from C2 (commercial) to R2 (residential) and approve a preliminary plat drew extended council debate at the May 4 meeting and ended in denial.
Staff reopened the record for a limited rebuttal after an April 20 hearing produced a tie. The applicant provided sample floorplans and a letter asserting that single‑story homes could be built and marketed on revised 50‑foot lots along the southern boundary and offered to limit homes along that boundary to single‑story designs with optional bonus rooms. "We ... are willing to restrict all homes along the southern boundary to single story designs," the applicant's written rebuttal stated when clarifying earlier miscommunication about lot widths.
Council members questioned whether the change met approval criteria and expressed concern that converting commercially zoned frontage to residential would create adverse impacts including increased traffic and loss of planned commercial opportunities. After a motion to approve failed on a tie, council made and adopted a motion to deny the rezoning; the denial motion cited traffic and impacts to surrounding properties as the factual basis for the conclusion. Council additionally stated that returning the property to commercial use would be the clearest path to acceptance if the applicant wanted to refile.
The council treated the matter as quasi‑judicial; legal staff advised members on the need to tie factual findings in the record to any denial. Planning staff confirmed there were no new development changes submitted between the prior hearing and the May 4 continuation other than the applicant's clarification on single‑story units.
No amendment or tentative approval was adopted; the denial preserves the current C2 commercial zoning for that site unless the applicant modifies the proposal and remedies the impacts identified by council.
