Far West Council reviews red-line changes to West Creek development agreement, debates height buffer and lot-size limits

Far West City Council and planning staff reviewed red-line changes to the West Creek Master Development Group agreement at their Dec. 5 meeting, focusing on provisions that would (1) automatically revert the project property back to the prior zoning if the developer does not submit a building permit within five years, (2) allow phased construction tied to logical extensions of roads and utilities, (3) cap lot sizes at 10 acres rather than 20, and (4) set building-height limits of 50 feet with a 40-foot maximum within the first buffer adjacent to residential zones.

Council members and staff said the five-year vesting/reversion clause is intended to prevent the development area from remaining under the development agreement indefinitely if no permit activity occurs. A city staff member explained the proposed clause would "immediately and automatically revert back to the existing zone at the time of the execution of this agreement" if no permit application to Far West is filed within five years.

The staff presentation also spelled out a phasing rule that would permit the developer to build in multiple phases so long as each phase provides a "logical extension of the road system, infrastructure, and utilities" and complies with the agreement and applicable vested laws. A city planner said that language is intended to balance the council’s desire for phased certainty on the residential side with commercial developers’ need for flexibility.

Council discussion on lot size and coverage focused on a proposed reduction from 20 acres to a 10-acre maximum lot size. Staff and council members ran rough calculations: at 55% lot coverage a 20-acre lot could yield a roughly 479,000-square-foot building (larger than the cited Amazon example), whereas with 10 acres the 55% cap produces about 219,000 square feet — a number council members said better aligns with the city’s expectations. Council members asked staff to clarify that the code intent is effectively one principal building footprint per lot, with accessory structures allowed but constrained by the lot-coverage limit.

A major portion of deliberations centered on maximum building height and how it should relate to adjacent residential neighborhoods. The agreement sets a 50-foot maximum building height, but imposes a 40-foot maximum for buildings located within 200 feet of a residential zone. Multiple council members said the written 200-foot buffer could be easily eroded by roadway width, setbacks and parking areas (for example: 100-foot open space buffer, a 60-foot roadway, then a small setback), producing only a small remaining distance where the 40-foot cap would apply. One council member proposed explicitly requiring that the first tier of buildings facing the residential boundary be limited to 40 feet “regardless of how the building is oriented,” to avoid a situation where a developer locates the taller portions of a single building just beyond the 200-foot mark and exposes neighbors to an abrupt height change.

Staff asked for clearer concept-plan data (building locations and types) so the council and legal staff can craft precise language that prevents the kind of ‘‘setback gymnastics’’ some council members feared. Several council members suggested increasing the buffer (a proposal to consider 250 feet was discussed) or adding language that would produce a uniform horizon line along the north and east boundaries that face residences.

No formal vote on the development agreement text occurred at the Dec. 5 meeting; staff said they will circulate a revised draft reflecting these red-line clarifications for further review and for potential action at a future meeting.