Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines to back proposed 68‑unit senior complex at Motley Drive, citing site and amenity concerns
Summary
After staff and developers presented a plan for a 68‑unit senior affordable project at 2700 Motley Drive, the council voted 7–0 to deny the developer’s request for local support, citing floodplain constraints, insufficient on‑site amenities and proximity to another senior project.
The Mesquite City Council voted unanimously Feb. 16 to deny local support for the Reserve at Motley, a proposed 68‑unit senior (55+) affordable housing development at 2700 Motley Drive.
Planning staff presented the proposal and explained that the site is roughly five acres and contains areas shown as a floodplain and a drainage easement. Developers from Woda Cooper, including Omer Sarig, said the site was competitive for state funding and that their design includes gated access, a clubhouse and security measures. "We see strong demand for this income type in this area," Sarig said, noting the project’s proposed rents and unit mix.
Council members raised multiple concerns: the available site appeared constrained by floodplain and a drainage pipe, limiting placement of amenities and building orientation; several members said the project's current amenity package did not meet the city’s expectation for high‑quality senior housing; and some noted the development’s proximity to another nearby senior project. Councilmember Casper said the proposal "would be a step backwards" from recent standards for tax‑credit projects and registered a reservation about the amenities shown.
A local developer who spoke during public comment suggested the site could be made attractive with careful design and fences around riskier drainage areas, but others in the audience urged reconsideration of alternative sites. After council discussion, a motion to deny the resolution of support passed 7–0. The mayor asked the developers to consider alternative sites and to return if they can address the council’s concerns.
