Council denies Verbena Ranch annexation and PUD application after traffic, density and compatibility concerns

The Council denied an application to annex about 282.5 acres for a master planned community called Verbena Ranch, rejectin g requests for R‑1 zoning, a planned unit development (PUD) and six preliminary plats covering 1,039 dwelling units.

Senior planner Joseph Dodson presented the staff review. The project proposed 1,039 dwelling units across 282 acres (about 3.68 units per acre) arranged as six planning areas (Meadows, Regency, Heights, Reserve, Trails and Place). The plan included clustered single‑family housing, 56 lots that would hold four‑plexes (224 units), gated private streets on the west half, multiple ponds, pools, clubhouses, pathways and about 45 acres of open space (roughly 16% of the site). The developer proposed a well to serve Zone 3 pressure needs and agreed to construct a traffic signal at Tenth Avenue and Holmdale when phases trigger the work; city engineering said those proposals could meet infrastructure requirements if conditions are met.

Toll Brothers representatives said the plan was a master‑planned approach to provide a mix of housing types and amenities. Toll’s representative said the company agreed with staff’s recommended conditions and that the developer will construct the Tenth/Holmdale signal as part of initial work and design a well that will be reimbursed per an MOU. The applicant said it expects to start construction in 2025 with build‑out around 2032 and said it is donating $500 per market‑rate dwelling to Valley View School District (about $289,000) to offset school impacts.

Planning & Zoning recommended denial. Commissioners raised multiple concerns about density, compatibility with surrounding county residential development, large requested PUD deviations (reduced lot sizes to as little as 4,000 square feet in places vs. the R‑1 standard of 8,000 square feet), guest and off‑street parking for compact lot types, and traffic assumptions (including how much traffic would circulate north–south on Tenth Avenue). Several written public comments opposed the project citing traffic, water pressure, and compatibility with existing county neighborhoods; some letters supported the project because of its amenities.

During the council hearing staff and applicant answered technical questions: city engineering confirmed the developer had committed to designing and building a well (per an MOU approved Dec. 16) and to construct full frontage improvements along Tenth and the Tenth/Holmdale traffic signal earlier than the TIS threshold would otherwise require. Traffic consultant Kittleson explained projected trip assignments and said the model assumed some portion of trips would head south toward Karcher/Highway 55; city staff and the applicant said ITD’s Karcher corridor improvements are expected to be completed over roughly three years.

Several nearby residents and civic speakers urged the council to deny or postpone the application, citing existing school‑capacity strain in Valley View, current construction and traffic on Tenth Avenue, groundwater and water‑pressure concerns, and the cumulative effect of multiple large subdivisions approved in recent months. Opponents said the project’s density — including many smaller lots and four‑plex units — would exceed the area’s existing rural/low‑density character and further pressure infrastructure.

Council deliberation focused on compatibility with surrounding county residential development, the number and scope of PUD deviations (including reduced lot sizes), uncertainty about demand for large blocks of 55‑plus housing, and the cumulative infrastructure impacts of rapid growth. After discussion the council voted to deny the annexation, zoning and PUD applications under the findings and reasons cited by the Planning & Zoning Commission: extensive incompatibility between the proposed PUD/deviations and the surrounding R‑1 and county residential pattern.

Action: motion to deny the applications (moved by Councilor Register; second by Councilor Stoddick). Final recorded vote after a roll‑call restatement: 4 in favor of denial (Dodi, Stoddick, Register and one other) and 2 opposed (Williams, Ditt enberg). The denial leaves the properties in county jurisdiction pending any future application or revised proposal.