Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Indigo Ridge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council Hears Major PD Amendment That Would Cut Planned Units, Require Early Employment Space
Summary
Council reviewed a first-reading amendment to the Indigo Ridge South planned development that would reduce allowed residential units from 1,500 to 650, lower some nonresidential height minima, and require delivery of 150,000 sq ft of employment space before residential certificates of occupancy.
Council members spent extended time on a proposed amendment to the Indigo Ridge South planned development, a rezoning and future land use amendment covering roughly 100.8 acres east of West Palmer Lane and south of East Whitestone.
Staff described the package as a cleanup to reflect new roads and property assemblies while altering development expectations: the PD would reduce the maximum residential units from 1,500 to 650, change the mixed‑use building‑height requirement so some nonresidential buildings could be 25 feet rather than a 30‑foot (two‑story) minimum, and set a 70% residential / 30% nonresidential land‑use split. Crucially, the amendment would require development of 150,000 square feet of employment‑oriented space in Area A (or equivalent aggregated buildings) prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for residential units in Area B.
“The 150,000 square feet is a total employment‑based square footage we have to deliver in that zone as part of the first phase,” Steven Swan, representing the applicant, told the council, adding that the requirement could be met by multiple buildings rather than a single spec structure.
Council members asked whether locking in that employment floor and the 70/30 split now could restrict future economic development opportunities or unduly constrain marketing to prospective corporate users. One council member said the proposal ‘‘cleans up’’ the PD boundaries given new roads but voiced concern that a minimum employment square footage placed on the ground early could preclude other configurations that might better attract long‑term users.
Two nearby residents spoke during the public hearing. Catherine Galloway, whose family has held property on East Whitestone Boulevard for more than a century, urged careful stewardship and said she had no reason to oppose the request so long as buffering and design commitments are kept. Marvin Kelly, who lives adjacent to the site, asked that developers consider providing an additional emergency access for fire and police, citing a history of accidents on the existing access route.
Planning & Zoning unanimously recommended approval at its March hearing, and staff told the council they had no site plans before them tonight. The amendment is scheduled to return for further consideration at the council’s next meeting as a first reading; no final action was taken tonight.
