Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors oppose proposed MF-2 multifamily development in Mountain Creek; developer and council member back project
Summary
At a public hearing on April 9, neighbors opposed an MF-2 zoning request they said would require multiple exemptions and raise floodplain and erosion concerns; the developer said voluntary deed restrictions and amenities address concerns, and a council member said the market-rate project fits district housing needs.
Neighbors and the developer sparred at a public hearing about a proposed MF-2 multifamily development near West Kiest Boulevard and a nearby creek, with one resident urging the council to reject the project because it would require numerous exemptions and could worsen erosion, and the developer and a council member defending the proposal.
Ellen Taft, a nearby resident, told council the project would introduce “234 units and 21 townhomes on 3 acres in a canyon,” require at least 15 exemptions, and involve a two-story underground garage and five-story buildings that neighbors say exceed proximity-slope and setback expectations. Taft argued the site is within a flood plain and that permitting the exemptions would consume staff resources at a time when the permitting office is under a hiring freeze.
The developer’s representative, Steven Utrecht, said the project is at preliminary engineering and that the proposal stays within the proximity slope and setbacks as presented. Utrecht said the developer will donate and amenitize roughly 2.7 acres of parkland and has offered a voluntary deed restriction not to develop within 55 feet of the creek; he also said the team will enter a good-neighbor agreement to memorialize commitments.
Chairman Gracie said he reviewed designs and engineering work and that the project would bring market-rate units to the district and complete an ongoing pattern of development in the area. He said the developer had committed to design measures to prevent additional erosion and that the topography limits single-family options at the site.
The council adopted the zoning consent agenda that included this MF-2 case (Z1) as part of the consent package; an explicit roll-call on exemptions or subsequent site-specific building permits was not recorded at the public meeting. Because neighbors raised multiple technical concerns, the exchange signals additional engineering and permitting scrutiny will likely follow at staff level if the project proceeds.
