The application sought to rezone approximately 1.9 acres from RS-35 (single-family) to MR-3, with planned site development and site plan review to allow for a 30-unit multi-unit development. Developer and applicant representatives told the board that the project is a “missing middle” type of housing, with gated access, crime prevention through environmentally friendly design and balconies that provide the required open space.
Neighbors said the proposal would compromise privacy, increase traffic on the already busy Greenfield Road corridor and create safety risks next to the Consolidated Canal. “This project proposes to put people right on top of each other. That doesn't fit with the neighborhood,” said Wendy Wise, a resident who said her backyard borders the canal.
Applicant representative Dave Richins said the project would generate “less than 360 car trips per day” on a road that carries about 19,600 vehicles daily, arguing that the development would add a modest number of school-age children and put productive use to an underused property. “We just asked for a positive vote so we can move forward with this project,” Richins said, adding that the bill includes buffers and CPTED measures to reduce crime risk.
Owner David Johnson told the board that he has tried to reach out to the public and that he would be open to design changes, including alternatives to upper-level patios, if it would limit views of neighbors' yards. “We're not here to push through a project. We're here to create housing in the missing middle,” Johnson said.
City planning staff clarified several technical points in the file: setback measurements are taken from the property lines or canal right-of-way (not the canal centerline), the closest setback along the western property line is approximately 3 feet 11 inches at a pinch point, and in other locations the first story facade is approximately 8 feet from the property line. Staff also noted that the plan submitted indicated that the utility line would be placed underground along the canal.
Board members weighed these technical clarifications against visual and safety concerns. A presiding board member said, “Three-story features… present a major obstacle to me on this site.” He pointed out that there was no three-story precedent in the immediate area and that tall trees would not grow on the canal right-of-way to blunt sight lines. Several members said an updated neighborhood meeting would have been appropriate given the population fluctuation in the neighborhood since a previous meeting in 2022.
After deliberations, a motion to reject the motions was recorded and supported; The motion was approved with five votes in favor and two abstentions. The board's rejection will be forwarded to the city council as a board recommendation.
The applicant indicated he preferred an up-or-down vote at the hearing to a continuation, although the owner said he was open to changes that could address neighbors' privacy concerns. City staff did not provide a date for the City Council's discussion at the meeting.