Bruceville‑Eddy council and developer negotiate Eagle Prairie PDD terms; traffic study required before preliminary plat

Bruceville‑Eddy — City leaders and WBW Development negotiated terms for a proposed 122.46‑acre Planned Development District (PDD) at 901 Eagle Drive on Tuesday, directing the developer to provide a traffic impact analysis before submitting a preliminary plat and agreeing not to require a homeowners association as part of the PDD.

Developer Adrienne Donatucci told the council WBW would include a park in exchange for zoning concessions and “we as the developer, would build that park and dedicate it over to the city with the development.” Donatucci said the project would include a mix of lot sizes and that, if approved, preliminary plat approval could be submitted by November or December 2025 with initial home construction beginning later in the build schedule.

The council debated lot widths after residents and council members said too many 50‑foot‑wide lots in the draft plan would create a “compressed” neighborhood. Councilman Wiggins urged fewer narrow lots, saying he wanted “no more than 40% of the 50 foot wide lots.” Several council members asked WBW to return with alternative lot‑mix options that balance wider frontage and the developer’s goal of keeping homes affordable.

Council members also discussed street design and collector classifications. Developers and staff said interior streets shown in the PDD would meet minimums but that collector streets may require larger rights‑of‑way. Council members asked that two streets connecting to Eagle Drive be considered collectors and noted the ordinance allows larger right‑of‑way dedications for collectors.

On a motion by Councilwoman Joyce McLaughlin, seconded by Councilman Brian Richardson, the council required a traffic impact analysis to be completed and submitted prior to the preliminary plat; the motion carried by a 3‑2 vote. Council members and staff explained the traffic study would inform final street design, collector designations and any needed road improvements.

Councilors discussed whether the park and common‑area maintenance should be handled by an HOA or dedicated to the city. After discussion, the council voted to not require a homeowners association as a condition of the PDD; the motion passed by council vote. City and developer representatives said the developer could still include deed restrictions or a voluntary HOA later, and that initial architectural and lot standards could be written into initial lot sale contracts if council prefers not to require an HOA.

Council and staff also instructed the developer to revise language describing the park‑design committee so it reads that the developer, with assistance from the city and the economic development corporation, will form a committee to assist with park design. Developers cautioned that moving the lot mix toward larger frontages would reduce the acreage available for the proposed park and could lower the total number of lots the project could yield.

Donatucci presented a high‑level pro forma and schedule during the meeting, saying the property represents a substantial portion of the city’s acreage and that the development could materially increase annual property tax revenue if fully built; she cited an estimated additional $552,000 per year in city tax revenue (as stated by the developer) but said detailed fiscal analysis and engineering studies would follow. She also cautioned buildout is a multi‑year timeline and depends on utility studies, platting, builder schedules and market conditions.

The council and developer took no final zoning vote at the meeting. Staff and the developer will return with revised PDD terms, updated lot mixes and the traffic analysis timeline for further council action.