Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission recommends denying R3 rezoning for Bethany Meadows after residents raise density and privacy concerns
Summary
After a lengthy public discussion, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend denial of a developer’s request to rezone two tracks at Bethany Meadows from the mapped zone to R3, citing concerns that rezoning would permit higher‑density options inconsistent with neighbors’ expectations; the recommendation goes to City Council.
The Planning and Zoning Commission on June 4 recommended denying a request from Bethany Meadows to rezone two parcels (tracks 10 and 11) to R3, a change developers said is needed to attain the unit count proposed for new twin homes.
Joel Engel, representing Harlem Development Sou Falls as the developer’s contractor, said Bethany Meadows needs more inventory and described the submitted plan as roughly "21 buildings [42 units]" that could be built over five to eight years. Engel told commissioners the developer intends to construct twin homes and described the proposed units as smaller than earlier phases to meet tax and size limits.
Neighbors and residents spoke at length with concerns that include loss of a mature greenbelt, reduced privacy, wind‑blown snow concentrating on a ridge line and narrower spacing between new homes. One resident who identified herself as C I O C H E T O said the proposed buildings would "encroach upon that green belt" and reduce privacy for backyards; another resident, Arty Pine, cautioned commissioners not to grant open flexibility because future property owners or developers can change plans.
Commissioners and staff debated technical points including a mapping discrepancy (the parcel is shown as NRC on some maps but referenced in documents as R2), whether R2 could support the desired unit count, and whether the commission can place a condition on rezoning to require twin homes. Staff and several commissioners said a rezoning cannot practically be conditioned to mandate a particular housing type; that limitation informed concerns about approving R3 because it would allow other higher‑density options in perpetuity.
One commissioner said the central practical question was whether the extra units (an additional building on each side of the street in the proposed plan) were justified. "Once we change the zoning, it's there forever and people's minds can change," the commissioner said, arguing the commission could lose leverage to ensure twin‑home development only.
Citing those concerns, a commissioner moved to recommend denial of the rezoning; the motion was seconded. The commission held a roll call and recorded at least one abstention. The commission’s recommendation is to deny the rezoning to R3; that recommendation will go to City Council for final action.
Developers were told to work with city staff and residents; council review will be the next formal step.
(Procedural note: the commission’s action was a recommendation to City Council, not the final legal change of zone.)
