Feb 04, 2025
Key Topics Discussed
Zone Map Amendment — Rezone request from R-1-87 (2-acre minimum lots) to R-1-43 (1-acre minimum lots) for approximately 2.06 acres at 2232 East Pheasant Way (File #25-4-04), submitted by applicant Randall Paul
General Plan designation of subject property as "Country Estates – Protected" and its implications for the rezone request
History of the subject properties, including:
A 2007 Preliminary Subdivision and PUD for five units on 15.75 acres (approved but never recorded)
A 2014 two-lot subdivision that met the 2-acre minimum
A previously denied 2016 rezone application from R-1-87 to R-1-43 in the same zone
Purpose of the rezone request: To facilitate a property line shift, creating a 3-acre parcel and a 1-acre parcel between two neighboring properties (2232 East and 2242 East Pheasant Way), motivated in part by a recent divorce and the pending sale of the neighboring property
Spot zoning concerns raised by City Attorney Brad Christopherson
Precedent-setting risk discussed — approval could be cited by future applicants seeking similar rezones in the protected area
Alternatives to rezone explored: deed restriction, easement, boundary line agreement, or a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
PUD feasibility: Minimum of 6 acres required in the R-1-87 Zone; the two properties total just over 4 acres and would not qualify without involving additional neighboring property owners
Lot coverage standards in R-1-87 Zone: 23% maximum for lots 40,000–50,000 sq. ft.; 20% cap for lots above 70,000 sq. ft.
Open space and tree canopy preservation in the Country Estates – Protected area
Approval of Meeting Minutes from November 19, 2024, including clarification that Commissioner Brian Berndt was the one who raised the Traffic Study during that meeting
Non-conforming lots: Discussed that the City cannot create non-conforming lots through its own ordinances; a lot line adjustment was not approvable for this reason
Decisions Made
**Note:** The provided minutes are incomplete — the text ends mid-sentence during the public hearing discussion. Based on the available text, **no final formal decisions or recommendations were recorded** in the portion provided. The Planning Commission's role on this item is advisory — to make a recommendation to the City Council.
Chair Roach offered the applicant the option to temporarily withdraw the rezone request to explore alternatives (including a PUD with neighboring properties), or to proceed and potentially receive a negative recommendation to the City Council. No decision on this offer was recorded in the available text.
Votes
**No votes were recorded** in the portion of the minutes provided. The public hearing on the Zone Map Amendment and the approval of the November 19, 2024 minutes were still in progress or pending at the point the document ends.
Action Items
| Action Item | Responsible Party | Notes |
| Applicant to consider whether to withdraw rezone request and explore PUD or alternative options (easement, deed restriction, boundary line agreement) | Randall Paul (applicant) / Jane Snow (neighboring property owner) | Chair Roach presented this option during the Regular Meeting |
| Clarify blank space in November 19, 2024 Meeting Minutes regarding who requested the Traffic Study | Commissioners / Staff | Resolved during Work Session — Commissioner Brian Berndt confirmed it was him |
| Assess whether applicant's existing structure would exceed 23% lot coverage if rezone approved | Carrie Marsh, City Planner | Not yet completed as of the meeting |
| Explore whether future General Plan revisions could address property line issues in the Country Estates – Protected area | Carrie Marsh, City Planner | Ms. Marsh noted she does not foresee a shift in the protected area designations |
Other Notable Items
Applicant's Statement (Randall Paul): The rezone is motivated by a divorce involving the neighboring property. The neighboring house will be sold and is considered difficult to sell with the property line approximately 25 feet from the house and running through the middle of the driveway. No new structures are proposed; applicant suggested a no-build easement as a potential Condition of Approval for the center portion of the property.
Neighboring Property Owner's Statement (Jane Snow): Stated that when all four acres were originally purchased, it was always understood that the intent was for one acre to go to her parents and three acres to her family. She stated the CC&Rs explicitly allow division but require a City process. She had expected the process to be straightforward given 1-acre zoning on most surrounding sides.
Spot Zoning: City Attorney Brad Christopherson characterized the application as essentially a spot zone request, and acknowledged that approval could be referenced by future applicants.
Prior Denied Application (2016): A similar rezone from R-1-87 to R-1-43 was denied in 2016; however, applicant Randall Paul noted that prior applications involved new development, whereas his proposal does not.
Staff Recommendation: City Planner Carrie Marsh indicated the rezone request does not meet zone requirements and suggested pursuing a PUD with neighboring property owners as the more appropriate path, noting that a PUD offers flexibility on setbacks and lot size in exchange for meeting open space and natural feature preservation goals.
Minutes Correction (November 19, 2024): Commissioner Brian Berndt confirmed he was the Commissioner who raised the Traffic Study during that meeting, resolving a blank attribution in the prior minutes.
Document Note: The meeting minutes provided are incomplete — the text ends mid-sentence during the public hearing. Votes, final decisions, and any subsequent agenda items (including formal approval of prior minutes) are not captured in the available record.