Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves PUD 2086 rezoning for large Mustang Road subdivision over residents' objections
Summary
After public opposition citing abrupt density changes, traffic and buffering concerns, council approved the PUD 2086 rezoning (14900 N. Mustang Road) with amendments to the master design; the ordinance passed 8–1.
The council approved PUD 2086 — a rezoning application for a roughly 160‑acre development at 14900 North Mustang Road — after significant public comment and amendments to the master design statement.
Caitlin Turner, counsel for the applicant, described a predominantly single‑family proposal with a maximum of 17 duplex lots, 7,500‑square‑foot lots at the north and west edges, and substantial landscaped buffers and screening along boundaries to protect adjacent Greenwood neighborhood properties (SEG 2856–2910). Turner told council that the proposal yields about 2.81 dwelling units per acre and falls below the comprehensive-plan density range for the area.
Multiple neighbors testified in opposition. Kelly Work, representing homeowners in the Greenwood neighborhood north of the site, argued the development would be a “dramatic and abrupt contrast in density” compared with existing rural five‑acre lots, would overwhelm rural-scale streets, and lacked adequate transitional buffering; he asked the council to deny the PUD or require graduated lot sizes and a six‑foot masonry wall and enhanced landscape buffers along key boundaries (SEG 2956–3010). Leslie Doyle and others similarly cited loss of views, wildlife, and the need for stronger transitions.
Council debated tradeoffs between private property rights, comprehensive-plan consistency, and neighborhood compatibility. The applicant proposed amendments including larger lots along the north and west edges, capped duplex units, and additional screening; the council approved multiple amendments to the master design statement and then approved the ordinance on final hearing by an 8–1 vote. Supporters said the plan fits surrounding recent zoning changes and will be one of the lower‑density outcomes compared with other recent PUDs; opponents said impacts on local roads, drainage and schools need continued attention.
Council directed staff to ensure conditions in the final master design are enforced during platting and subdivision review and emphasized continued monitoring of traffic and drainage impacts as the project advances.
