Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council deadlocks on Aspen Creek Village PUD rezoning after residents raise traffic and school‑capacity concerns
Summary
A proposed rezoning and PUD (Aspen Creek Village) that would allow up to 415 single‑family detached homes on roughly 90 acres failed on a 2–2 tie after residents and council members raised concerns about traffic, ingress/egress and school capacity.
A rezoning request and planned unit development that would have allowed the Aspen Creek Village project — proposing up to 415 single‑family homes on about 90 acres along Tucson — failed to pass after a 2–2 tie vote.
Rocky Hinkle, community development director, summarized the request as a change from A‑1 agricultural to RS‑4/PUD, noting a comprehensive plan amendment earlier in 2024 converted the site to a level that supports RS‑4 single‑family zoning. “The requested zoning changes in association with the potential Aspen Creek Village development, which proposes to create a single family detached development with a maximum of 415 dwelling units,” Hinkle said.
Developer representative Alan Betchen said the PUD would preserve certain connectivity elements and that a traffic impact analysis (TIA) and engineering phase would examine access, deceleration lanes and possible collector connections. “There is a collector requirement… an East West collector that, in theory, goes all the way from Aspen to Olive,” Betchen said, and he noted right‑of‑way dedication could help future roadway projects.
Neighboring residents opposed the rezoning at the council meeting. James Mitchell said the two‑lane streets and stop‑sign controlled intersections near the site are already congested and argued the city should complete planned road improvements before approving higher density. “I think that we should do this the right order, wait for the bond package to be approved by voters,” Mitchell said. Steve Arledge, speaking for Riverstone Estates HOA, cited traffic and school capacity concerns and asked the council to deny the application or delay action.
City engineering director Charlie Bright told council his team has placed the corridor on its priority list and expected to solicit design proposals for Tucson improvements in the coming months; he estimated best‑case construction would likely be later than 2027 because of design, right‑of‑way and utility work. The developer estimated initial phases would deliver roughly 30‑plus lots for phase one and that build‑out is phased over multiple years.
After discussion, a motion to approve the rezoning and PUD was made, seconded and then failed on a 2–2 vote; the transcript excerpt does not list named yes/no votes. The record shows two council members voted in favor and two opposed, resulting in denial by tie.
