Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose 13‑unit Daring Circle townhouse plan, council urged to uphold UDO buffers
Summary
A proposed 13‑unit townhouse development on Deering (Daring) Circle drew strong opposition from adjacent homeowners who said the project’s density, buffer reductions and lack of on‑site open space would harm neighborhood character and worsen drainage, while the applicant said townhomes address the city’s 'missing middle.'
City planning staff presented a 13‑unit townhouse proposal for 2145 Deering Circle and explained the requests for multiple variances and waivers, including reducing the required 30‑foot zoning buffer adjacent to NR‑1 property, lowering the 20% open‑space requirement, and variances related to private street width and retaining‑wall height.
Staff noted one requested variance (to reduce minimum lot size) could not be processed because the UDO prohibits reducing minimum lot area. Staff recommended approval of variances tied to hardship (topography and shape) and denial of variances that would impair the UDO’s intent; staff also proposed conditions, including an 8‑foot privacy fence and graded zoning buffers for certain lots.
Applicant Brent Hill said the townhome product answers the comprehensive plan’s call for 'missing middle' homeownership and argued that without relief the economics of building for ownership do not pencil. “We need townhouses,” he said, and pointed to local rental availability to argue for owner‑occupied alternatives.
Several neighbors opposed the project. George Lloyd said his neighbors “all oppose this development” because of scale and density, tree loss and stormwater concerns; John Mark Shields, whose property borders the site, told council that the ordinances exist to be followed and urged the city to prioritize neighborhood separation. Council members asked detailed questions about sanitation truck access, fire marshal turnaround requirements and alternative housing types (duplexes, cottage clusters) that might be less intensive.
Staff and the applicant acknowledged outstanding design and access issues; the item will return later on the agenda for further council questions and potential action.
