Council tables Cowboy Landing PUD after hours of neighborhood opposition

The Storrs City Council on June 16 tabled action on a proposed planned unit development called Cowboy Landing — a 42‑unit, small‑lot single‑family project proposed for 4.2 acres at 1924 and 2002 East McElroy Road — after more than an hour of public comment from nearby homeowners and questions from staff and the fire marshal.

Councilors voted 5‑0 to table the item to a July 21 date certain so the applicant and city staff can work through concerns raised by neighbors and several technical issues the council identified.

Cowboy Landing would reconfigure a property previously rezoned to RSS (small‑lot single‑family) into a PUD that requests several deviations from the standard code: lot areas of about 2,400 square feet (code minimum 5,000), lot widths of 30 feet (code 50), and two‑story structures at 5‑foot side setbacks where the standard would step back additional feet for second stories. The developer’s statement of intent described 42 units with a mix of one‑ to three‑bedroom homes, two parking spaces per unit and a gated private street layout.

Planning staff reviewed the application and told council it met several PUD objectives but noted concerns about providing a “smooth transition” to adjacent lower‑density neighborhoods, internal sidewalks, parking, and fencing heights. The Planning Commission recommended conditional approval on June 3 by a 3‑1 vote and asked that the wooden fence along the western property line be increased to a minimum of 8 feet and the eastern fence to a minimum of 7 feet. Staff added a recommendation that at least one side of private streets include sidewalks.

Dozens of neighbors attending the council meeting urged rejection or substantial revision. Speakers said the proposed density — 10.2 units per acre compared with surrounding densities as low as about 1.2 dwellings per acre — would not “provide a smooth transition” required by code, would strain parking and emergency access, and risk changing neighborhood character. Several residents cited the 2022 rezoning discussion and said they expected a lower “worst‑case” density (participants at that hearing had discussed roughly 18 lots). Other public commenters raised concerns about short‑term rental potential, lack of connected sidewalks to existing sidewalks on McElroy, stormwater and grading across the site’s 25‑foot slope, and the sufficiency of proposed landscape buffering and fence materials.

The fire marshal, Thomas Tharpe Stewart, answered questions about emergency access: the proposed 24‑foot private streets would be required to function as fire lanes (no parking) and the code requires 26 feet inside curb to inside curb where a hydrant is present to allow two fire apparatuses to pass. He said the site plan as shown met current code for a 150‑foot dead end with an accompanying 150‑foot reach around structures, but noted the gate for the proposed development would need Knox key access for emergency entry.

The developer’s team — represented at the meeting by Steven Gose of Gose and Associates and the property presenter who identified himself as Mr. Lucey — said the PUD was intended to create smaller, lower‑cost single‑family ownership opportunities and that the project was designed in phases. The applicant offered to increase the width of one internal road to 27 feet to allow parking on one side and to add additional planted screening and taller fences following Planning Commission direction. The applicant also said they were working with utility holders (OG&E) about an easement that affects the required right‑of‑way dedication along McElroy.

Council members expressed divided views: some said the city needs more smaller, more affordable for‑sale housing and that a PUD is a preferable tool because it specifies the development plan; others focused on the abrupt transition to large‑lot residential to the north and west, parking enforcement, absence of internal sidewalks, and emergency vehicle turnaround. After discussion the developer asked for more time to work with staff and neighbors; council agreed to table to July 21, and the vote to table passed 5‑0.

The project will return to council on the July 21 regular meeting docket as a general business item (not a reopened public hearing); the public will be allowed to comment again under the city’s public comment rules.

Votes at a glance: the council voted 5‑0 to table the PUD until July 21.