Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors petition council over Shadow Pines subdivision; petitioner cites traffic, wildlife and infrastructure concerns
Summary
Neighborhood residents presented a citizens’ petition Nov. 4 opposing the proposed Shadow Pines subdivision on Schweitzer/Switzer Mesa, citing traffic safety, wildlife habitat and infrastructure concerns.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Multiple residents spoke Nov. 4 to request further council attention to a proposed 47-lot Shadow Pines subdivision on Switzer/Schweitzer Mesa, citing traffic congestion at nearby intersections, wildlife impacts adjacent to protected McMillan Mesa open space, concerns about sewer pumping and emergency access, and what they described as insufficient neighborhood notice.
Vance Marshall and other neighbors said lot sizes proposed at about 5,000 square feet would be smaller than existing adjacent lots, could block view corridors and would rely on shared access that could worsen congestion at the Ponderosa Parkway/Pine Cliff Drive intersection. Mary Oatman described long post-event traffic delays and said limited escape routes during emergencies increase risk.
Attorney Trevor Corson, representing the Shadow Pines applicant, said the project is planned as a 47-lot single-family development on an 18.6-acre R‑1 parcel using a PRD to allow slightly smaller lots; he said the proposal is a by-right development that meets zoning code requirements and noted staff is reviewing traffic and other technical materials. Corson also stated there is no sewer lift station for the project and that the applicant’s traffic analysis found no required off-site road improvements.
Under council procedure the public petition was considered for possible placement on a future agenda for discussion. Council members debated whether to advance the petition; some members said the proposal is by-right and will proceed through staff review, while others urged staff to address neighbors’ concerns. No council action to place the petition on a future meeting for debate was recorded during the meeting.

