Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mcgee Landing Townhomes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council defers McGee Landing townhomes proposal to July after residents and developers meet
Summary
Developers of the defunct McGee Landing apartment site presented a revised townhome plan and promised affordability and owner‑occupancy measures; opponents said the plan lacked detail and needed wider community review. Council deferred the case to July 22 to allow more community engagement and staff review.
The council on Tuesday voted to defer a developer’s rezoning request for a long‑vacant, partially built parcel known as McGee Landing to July 22 so the developer, staff and community can review a new site plan.
The applicant is seeking to replace previously approved apartment zoning with townhouse residential (TR) for a project the developer calls Magee Landing. Christopher Construction representative Garrett Christopher described updated plans and market goals, saying the project will focus on “affordable housing” aimed at first‑time buyers: “Our goal currently… is to stay under 300,000.” He said every unit would include a two‑car garage and the developer would cap rentals at 10% so “the owners will be living there.”
Christopher said the property already has utilities and partial infrastructure from an earlier project that stalled, and the applicant revised the plan after public comments; the latest site plan reduced the number of units from 50 to 46 to meet buffer and overlay requirements.
Opponents said they received the new materials too late for review and asked for a fuller redesign. Michael Venable told council the developer’s materials were not shared with the community in time and urged the council to deny the request: “You are giving staff the chance to redevelop this, but we're gonna move it forward and it just eliminates the whole community.”
Councilwoman Natasha Williams Brown moved to defer the case to July 22 so the developer, the city’s Community Development and Redevelopment Authority (CDRA) and residents could meet. The motion, seconded by Councilman J.C. Sebastian, carried 6–0.
Staff noted their recommendation remained denial based on a site plan submitted shortly before the planning meeting; staff and the planning commission both cited overlay and design concerns. Councilmembers said the deferral will provide time for the applicant to address the stated code issues and meet with neighbors.
What’s next: The developer and staff are expected to hold further community meetings and submit a revised packet to planning and the council before the July 22 public hearing.
