Planning commission holds work session on Reserve at Johnson Ranch: 92-acre annexation, mixed housing and a neighborhood commercial node

City staff and the applicant presented updated materials for the Reserve at Johnson Ranch, a proposed roughly 92-acre annexation and planned unit development at the northwest corner of Old Reserve Drive and Stillwater Road.

Staff said Spartan Holdings Whispering Trails submitted applications for annexation, a growth-policy amendment to create a neighborhood business and a high-density residential node, initial zoning requests of R-3, RA-1 and B-1, and preliminary plat approval for about 86 single-family lots, two multifamily parcels (one with 237 units, one with 70 units) and one commercial lot. “The B-1 would include a 40,000-square-foot neighborhood grocery, with a total of 110,000 square feet of commercial,” staff said in the presentation.

The commission’s discussion focused on design, circulation and conditioning the project to better integrate with surrounding neighborhoods. Staff highlighted issues still to be addressed: frontage-improvement phasing (public works indicated a full-frontage rule and did not support a mid-block crossing), areas of steep slope with grading that may exceed 25 percent and would require mitigation, updates to the Traffic Impact Study (TIS) — which staff said did not include the area north of Stillwater — and potential effects of a well site and water-right considerations on park and stormwater planning.

Commissioners and staff discussed growth-policy expectations for neighborhood commercial nodes: walkable, bikeable design; reduced visual prominence of large parking lots through landscape buffering or building placement; and architectural treatments to ensure the commercial area fits residential scale. Commissioners asked for more developed facade treatments or renderings and stronger landscape and design details that could be included as conditions before public hearing. One commissioner said the intent is not to “design this for the applicant” but to establish conditions and themes (e.g., breaking up facades, residential scale) the applicant must meet.

On circulation and phasing, staff said the applicant showed a center north–south connection through the site that would serve pedestrian and vehicle movement; public works objected to a mid-block crossing and asked for frontage improvements tied to the phase that requires the infrastructure. Staff recommended working with the applicant to reconcile phasing, storm-drainage and parkland sequencing so that required infrastructure for early phases is not deferred inappropriately.

Several commissioners said they did not need another work session but wanted the applicant to address the landscape/streetscape, facade treatments and the TIS updates before a public hearing. Staff said they would work with the applicant to produce more detailed landscape plans and renderings, resolve TIS and public-works comments, and return the application for a public hearing — possibly at the next meeting date if materials can be prepared in time.

This was a work session and not a public hearing; no land-use approvals were granted. The planning commission provided guidance and directed staff to continue working with the applicant to strengthen design, update technical studies and prepare materials for the public hearing.