Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Large Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves rezoning of 82‑acre tract for high‑density subdivision after residents seek buffer and access protections
Summary
Council adopted ordinance 05926A to rezone 82.02 acres from Agriculture/R2 to R3 for a proposed 256‑lot subdivision; planning staff and the planning commission recommended approval; nearby residents urged retaining tree buffers and asked that wetland crossings be avoided.
Get email alerts on the Rezoning Large Subdivision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The council voted to approve an 82.02‑acre rezoning to R3 (high‑density single‑family) that will allow a proposed 256‑lot subdivision, despite resident concerns about buffers, wetlands and emergency response access.
Planning staff described the request (ordinance 05926A), saying the property — currently zoned agriculture and R2 in parts — lies along the north side of Old Salem Road and east of US 84. Staff said the comprehensive plan anticipates higher‑density residential growth along major corridors; the planning commission recommended approval subject to contingencies including two access points and upgrades to Old Salem Road.
A developer representative, Josh, told the council the plan minimizes impacts to wetlands and existing vegetation and noted “we have one stream crossing just to connect secondary access but outside of that leave all the existing vegetation that we can,” and said engineering will try to limit slopes and disturbance.
Nearby resident Richard said he did not oppose the rezoning but asked the city to preserve the existing tree buffer that protects his property from noise and light: “Our ask is that the city help us maintain the natural existing on this side and really around the whole thing…we want some noise pollution, light pollution protection,” he said. Jeff Luther, another adjacent landowner, also asked the council and developer to retain as much of the natural buffer as possible and confirmed prior assurances that the wetlands between his property and the proposed development would not be built over.
Planning staff told the council that approval of the preliminary plat would largely lock the developer to the submitted design and that any major change — for example developing across the main stream — would require the design to return for further review and new notices to property owners.
After public comment and staff discussion, council members moved, seconded and approved the rezoning by voice vote. The ordinance was adopted and staff will proceed with administrative actions required by the approval and the contingencies the planning commission placed on preliminary plat approval.
What happens next: staff will record the ordinance adoption, the developer may proceed with preliminary‑plat actions subject to the required access and road improvements, and neighboring owners will receive notice of any major design changes that would require fresh review.

