Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Large Scale Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Large Providence Road petition draws neighborhood coalition opposition at zoning hearing
Summary
A proposed townhome and single‑family development on a 26‑acre Providence Road site prompted a detailed hearing April 21 as neighbors raised density, open‑space and process concerns; the petitioner says plans have been substantially revised from earlier apartment proposals.
A 26‑acre Providence Road rezoning (petition 2023074) drew a lengthy hearing April 21 as the petitioner and a coalition of nearby neighborhoods presented competing views about density, open space and process. The project proposes two development areas: a townhome‑focused frontage on Providence Road and single‑family development on the interior portion of the site.
Colin Brown, representing the petitioner, described a multi‑year outreach effort and said the applicant substantially reduced intensity from an early proposal that included large apartment buildings. "We are now doing a conditional zoning on the front portion, as Max has mentioned, town home plan here... and on the rear of this property... we're essentially... down zoning that so that it will be single family only," Brown said.
Representatives of the Kykendall Coalition, a neighborhood group of roughly 220 households, told the council they felt the petition remains inconsistent with the 2040 policy map's Neighborhood 1 place type and that approval would revise the policy map for development area A. The coalition cited concerns over the scale of the proposed townhome density (the petition describes up to 220 townhome units in development area A in staff materials), the layout and quality of open space and the preservation of tree save areas and creek buffers.
Neighborhood representatives also raised process concerns: they said the application has been on file for more than two years and that the timing of hearings and online marketing of the property caused confusion. The coalition asked for a revised proposal that addresses staff's detailed comments, including fewer six‑unit buildings, more duplexes/triplexes, improved amenity layout and stronger building‑material commitments.
The petitioner told council the project team has already committed to additional buffering, a multi‑use path on Providence Road, an acre‑and‑a‑half of tree save and transportation mitigations originally required for a larger apartment scenario. "We're incorporating all the mitigations that were recommended for basically twice the number of units that we are now proposing," the petitioner said.
Council members asked detailed questions of staff and the petitioner about building height, materials, parking and open‑space distribution and expressed a desire for continued negotiation. No final vote was taken; council closed the hearing and directed continued discussion between staff, the petitioner and neighborhood representatives.
Outcome: Public hearing held; no council vote. Staff and petitioners will continue outreach and revise the plan to address outstanding staff and neighborhood concerns before returning to the zoning committee and council.
