Neighbors of the proposed Golden Valley subdivision pressed the city at a tech-review meeting to address housing density, traffic and intersection safety if the project moves forward.

Why it matters: The tentative map TM-25-4 proposes subdividing about 95.48 acres into 361 single-family lots within the Anthem at Mesquite planned unit development (PUD). If adopted as proposed, the development would increase local housing units and daily traffic volumes on nearby roads, prompting residents to seek clarification on design, access and traffic mitigation.

What was presented: Staff read the administrative item as 7.4: consideration of tentative map case TM-25-4 Golden Valley to approve the subdivision of 95.48 acres of land into 361 lots located on APN 001-05-201-003, in the single-family zone within Anthem at Mesquite PUD. Several residents of adjacent Stonehaven Estates spoke at the tech-review.

Resident concerns: Tom Bender, a Stonehaven Estates resident, said the proposed housing density is quite high compared with surrounding developments and asked council to consider reducing the density from the developer's current proposal (Bender referenced a prior filing as lower). Nancy Seck, also a Stonehaven resident and HOA board member, said the agenda attachments indicated an estimate of 3,400 car trips a day and called that a lot of car trips on a two-lane road. Simon (city staff) responded that a one-lane direction can carry about 1,200 trips per hour in PM peak and that the roadway would be extended to four lanes in the area under the project's design assumptions; staff said intersection and traffic-signal warrants would be studied periodically and that the Mesquite Heights/Canyon Crest intersection could be evaluated for signalization as growth warrants it.

Timing and developer status: Staff told residents the developer is negotiating density and PUD-related issues with the PUD HOA and has not submitted a revised plan for staff review. Staff said the developer indicated it is likely to request a one-month tabling to allow revisions and settlement of outstanding issues; there was no formal council vote on the tentative map at the tech-review.

Discussion versus decision: The tech-review served as an informational discussion and public comment opportunity; no formal action or approval of the tentative map was recorded in the tech-review transcript. Staff indicated the item may be tabled by the developer and returned after revisions and internal negotiation.

Next steps: Residents were advised to monitor upcoming agendas; staff said when the developer submits revisions the city will review them and schedule the item for formal public hearing and decision at a future council meeting.