Kent Grove Community

Community news, neighborhood history, public records, photos and local information.

NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION · RESEARCH UPDATED SEPTEMBER 29, 2026

Mitras Project

A proposal to change the zoning of property west of Kent Grove Drive. A recommendation, a proposal and a final approval are different steps.

Project overview

OFFICIAL RECORD
Case identifiers
PDE26-7901 · RZ-7901 · REZONE-2025-00016
Property
12500 Hamlin Road · Parcel 05-25-18-0000-00100-0000
Requested zoning
A-R Agricultural-Residential to R-4 High Density Residential
Proposed cap
77 detached single-family homes
Size
40.96 acres in the June staff report and survey description. Other applicant notice material uses approximately 41.5 acres; the figures are not silently combined.
Proposed access
Kent Grove Drive

June staff recommended approval. The packet’s unsigned resolution and declaration do not establish that the rezoning was adopted or the restrictions recorded.

Source: June 11 packet, original PDF page 104 (excerpt).

Source: June 11 packet, original PDF page 105 (excerpt).

Source: Full June packet; acreage descriptions also at PDF pages 123–124, 144 and 150–151.

Concept plan

The concept is a proposal subject to engineering review, not a construction authorization. See the original drawing in the excerpt.

Source: Concept plan, original PDF page 152 (excerpt).

Road / access review

The June staff report describes an alternative-standard process and a $375,000 road contribution. The executed agreement, payment status and exact obligations remain to be confirmed. Completed paving does not by itself establish what drainage or intersection work was included.

The county transportation review calls for access-management review at preliminary-plan review. We are seeking the later analysis and enforceable improvement requirements.

Source: June 11 packet, original PDF page 108 (excerpt).

Source: June 11 packet, original PDF page 141 (excerpt).

Traffic review

OFFICIAL RECORD

77 proposed homes and 85 analyzed units are different figures. The June proposal contains a 77-home cap. Its transportation review uses 85 dwelling units and approximately 802 average daily trips as analysis assumptions. The 802 figure should not be presented as a recalculated total for 77 homes.

Outstanding questions include actual left/right turning delays and queues at Kent Grove Drive / SR 52, turn-lane storage, and improvements required before additional traffic.

Source: June 11 packet, original PDF page 105 (excerpt).

Source: June 11 packet, original PDF page 140 (excerpt).

Stormwater / floodplain review

The staff report identifies Flood Zone A along the northern portion and Zone X on the remainder. It describes later compliance requirements. That is not a completed prediction of effects on neighboring roads.

We need the current drainage model, existing-condition assumptions, flood-storage calculations, discharge points and downstream analysis.

Source: June 11 packet, original PDF page 107 (excerpt).

Source: June 11 packet, original PDF page 109 (excerpt).

Wetlands / wildlife

The applicant narrative describes 31.96 upland acres and 9 wetland acres and anticipates no wetland impacts. These are applicant statements in the packet. Final agency determinations, permits and any later revisions remain to be reviewed.

Source: June packet, PDF pages 124 and 127–128.

Utilities

The staff report and applicant narrative discuss different utility connection options. The approved capacity, service route and easement rights remain unresolved in our reviewed record.

Talavera CDD supplied records September 29. Full attachment review and additional district-engineer records remain pending; no conclusion that all service alternatives are unavailable is drawn here.

Source: June 11 packet, original PDF page 107 (excerpt).

Source: Applicant narrative, PDF page 127.

Records tracker

Compatibility and the public record

The staff report describes surrounding single-family conventional and mobile-home development, and cites related residential zoning and Talavera to the east. The applicant argues that the proposal fits the Comprehensive Plan’s Central Market Area policies. These positions belong in the record alongside resident concerns about lot sizes, buffers and the neighborhood’s rural character.

Objective comparisons of lot size, setbacks, screening and drainage remain useful. Rural appearance alone does not establish a protected rural land-use designation.

Source: June 11 packet, original PDF page 104 (excerpt).

Source: June 11 packet, original PDF page 107 (excerpt).

Source: Applicant narrative, PDF page 128.

Hearing history and official documents

See hearings and meeting sources · Open the document library

What remains unresolved

See the current questions, missing records and request status