December 11 : Planning & Zoning Work Session Recap - Last Night

This is a summary written by John Seufert and originally published on FB 

The Planning & Zoning work session regarding the Brock Built proposal was very brief — less than 15 minutes — and consisted almost entirely of a staff presentation, with no interaction between the commission and the applicant:

Key highlights:

• The City Planner summarized the annexation request, but did not initially mention that it deviates from the City’s Future Land Use Plan (CLUP). That issue was only acknowledged after a commissioner asked directly. This could be considered a "Procedural Error" according to our research. Since they already reduced the Employment Zone by 20 acres, this rezoning almost eliminates it. According to our research a Future Use Map amendment process must be completed prior to rezoning.

• Staff stated the applicant is requesting a rezoning from R-40 to Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) with a maximum density of 8 units per acre.

Later in the presentation, the planner added the “Planned Development” (PD-R/T) designation to the TND zoning.

• The buffer variance was briefly described. When asked whether the buffer was being reduced, staff clarified that the request is to eliminate the buffer entirely.

• Staff also referenced lot size reductions and setback deviations, noting that other zoning districts have reduced side setbacks, in some cases as small as 3 feet.

• During a short mention of our subdivision, one commissioner asked, “What is R-40?”, highlighting limited familiarity with the adjacent zoning.

• Brock Built representatives were present, but there was no discussion between the commission and the applicant; all interaction occurred only between commissioners and staff.

• Staff also stated that a new traffic study will be completed, noting that the recently reopened charter school changes traffic conditions and must be accounted for.

• An HOA board member asked after the meeting for clarification on the relationship between TND and Planned Development (PD-R/T). Staff indicated the two are essentially treated the same — simply as TND zoning.

That explanation conflicts with the zoning ordinance, which distinguishes between:

• Standard TND, which has defined parameters set by ordinance, and

• PD-R/T, which allows a developer to propose custom standards, but requires a detailed master plan that must be approved and followed exactly.

A standard TND rezoning does not require a finalized development plan at the time of rezoning; a PD-R/T does — and that distinction matters.

Bottom line:

The work session generated very limited discussion, raised several unresolved issues, and provided no substantive evaluation of impacts. The formal public hearing will be the only opportunity for residents to speak.