Commission recommends denial of Wellstone General Plan amendment and rezone after residents raise traffic, water and plan‑integrity concerns

The Planning Commission considered a legislative request to amend the General Plan future‑land‑use map and a companion rezoning (R‑1‑21 to R‑1‑12) for parcels near Pear and Quirk Streets to allow higher single‑family density for the proposed Wellstone Subdivision. Community Development Director Bill Cobabe emphasized that General Plan amendments are legislative and should reflect community vision rather than be granted for a single development.

Residents and emailed commenters expressed sustained opposition citing four recurring concerns: (1) departure from the adopted General Plan and the precedent piecemeal amendments set, (2) increased traffic and safety on narrow streets, (3) water‑supply and sewer capacity, and (4) costs to expand infrastructure. Jewel Allen, who said she helped lead the 2020 General Plan revision, urged denial: "I urge you to deny this amendment," arguing the change departs from a plan that deliberately places higher density closer to the city center.

Fieldstone Homes representative Jason Harris responded that developers construct required roads and utilities and presented density estimates: he said the project could yield "approximately 250 to 280 homes" and that gross-to-net calculations reduced projected units; Shelby Moore clarified net estimates closer to ~270 homes after roads and open space. Harris and other proponents argued that allowing denser product types can support more affordable housing options and that developer-funded right-of-way and infrastructure would be part of the development process.

Commission discussion focused on whether a single‑project amendment was appropriate before a planned General Plan update (funded by a recent $100,000 grant). Vice Chair Jason Hill and Commissioner John Montgomery said they were not comfortable amending the General Plan for a single project and preferred addressing density through the broader update. Cameron Moulton moved to recommend denial of the General Plan amendment; the motion passed 3–2 (Moulton, Hill, and Montgomery in the majority). On the companion rezoning, the commission again recommended denial by a 3–2 vote.

The decision is a recommendation to the City Council for final action; staff and the applicant noted that the developer may later pursue a Planned Unit Development or reapply in the context of the next General Plan update.