Rezoning 1310 Wisteria Drive Woodbury Gardens

At a glance

Based on auto-generated captions; names and details may be misheard.

What: ordinance to rezone about 41.29 acres at 1310 Wisteria Drive (Woodbury Gardens) from R3 and R4 multifamily and PL public land to TC1 (transit corridor) with conditions, tied to a first-phase redevelopment on about 5 acres (about 342 apartments).
Where it stands: defeated at second reading on 2026-10-19 by voice vote (tally not given in the captions). The linked site plan and development agreement (DB1) was then rejected as well.
Next: none scheduled. Several members said they wanted the city's transition-area zoning standards written first.

Owner's team (architect Moore) said the request is TC1 with conditions over the whole parcel: heights restricted below what TC1 allows, wider buffers beside the existing townhouses on the north and east, and no commercial use there.
Commitment not to displace residents in phase two: 33 of the 538 existing units would be removed and tenants moved into comparable units on the property.
Open space on the site-planned parcel would be 56 percent, versus 61 to 66 percent now.
The water main easement the city needs to loop its lines is "a work in progress"; the owner says it is not opposed.

Scale: a 41-acre rezoning for a 5-acre project, binding future phases that would not return to council (Davodto, Ainsworth, Benson).
TC1 was written for commercial and office sites with large parking lots; the comprehensive plan puts TC1 in Hub areas, and this site is a Transition area whose zoning standards are not yet written (Pearlman, McKee).
Conditions must be volunteered, so they are not a durable substitute for city-written rules. Stalberg argued courts disfavor such height conditions and urged denial, or a planned unit development (PUD), which could add affordable housing (15 percent or about $5 million in lieu) and a vehicle for the water easement.
Displacement of existing affordable, family-oriented housing and loss of green space (Lipson, Marshall).
Long-running water quality problem for South Boulevard neighbors: rust and sediment, daily flushing, and an easement the city resolved to pursue by eminent domain in 2023 and 2025 (Ainsworth).

Fits the new comprehensive land use plan and bus service on Industrial; more housing near transit (Duskevich, Hill, and a returning in-person speaker, apparently Gossay). One caller wanted 10 stories rather than 7.
Hullman was neutral on the site plan but warned the zoning could allow a 10-story hotel near the stadium.

Mallek called the result "a zoning Frankenstein": TC1 forced onto a site that is not on a transit corridor and replaces housing rather than parking lots. Voted no.
Eyer supported housing and the plan, voted yes at first reading, but could not resolve the mismatch with TC1 and open space; transition standards should come first. Voted no.
Radina said TC1 was not identified for this area and that a PUD would at least bring community benefits. Voted no.
Briggs called it missing middle housing but said 41 acres deserves the transition work. Voted no.
Mayor Taylor said it fails TC1's purpose (replacing office, commercial and similar districts) and the scale and thin vision for such a large parcel is a stumbling block. Declined to approve.

About 51 minutes across 1 meeting (from transcript timestamps; approximate).

Meeting	Minutes
2026-10-19 - City Council	51

2026-10-19 - City Council - Public hearing (about 42 minutes, mostly opposed; supporters also spoke), then second-reading debate; rezoning defeated, and the DB1 site plan and development agreement rejected.
2026-09-22 - City Council - First reading: approved rezoning 41.292 acres to TC1 with height conditions (35 ft within 300 ft of residential, 85 ft from 300 to 600 ft); Akmon voted no. Many residents opposed in public comment (342 units on 5.2 acres, garage, affordable townhomes demolished).