Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays vote on Higgley/Okati retail center after neighbors raise traffic, parking and design concerns
Summary
The council postponed a zoning request to reclassify a 16‑acre Higgley/Okati site to General Commercial to allow a ~128,000 sq ft anchor building (proposed Target) and two pad sites. Planning had recommended approval, but council asked the applicant and staff to return in two weeks with answers about parking counts, truck routing, buffer setbacks and other design details.
An applicant seeking to rezone a 16.14‑acre parcel at the southeast corner of Higgley Road and Okati (Okato) Road asked the Town Council on April 7 to change the site from Shopping Center zoning to General Commercial so it could host a single large anchor (about 128,000 square feet) plus two small pad sites.
Planning staff said the change was needed because the shopping‑center zone limits a single independent building to 75,000 square feet; the general‑commercial designation would allow the larger anchor. The planning commission voted to recommend approval and staff concurred, noting the applicant had proposed landscaping buffers and an eight‑foot screen wall along the southern property line.
Neighbors urged caution. They expressed concern about truck routes and deliveries, potential spillover parking into nearby residential streets, reduced parking on the site (the application reduces parking by 77 spaces in the concept plan), lighting and noise impacts and whether an anchor of that size fits the corridor. Several residents said the site sits close to existing homes and a nearby park and fire station, and that circulation and truck access to Wilson Way require clarification.
“Traffic is already near capacity in this area,” said long‑time resident Dwayne Sledge. Residents asked for clear routing for heavy trucks and for assurances that the town’s CIP (capital improvement) work and any developer‑funded road improvements would mitigate congestion.
The applicant’s representative, Reese Anderson, said the retailer and the owner had reviewed the location carefully and that retailers would only locate where the numbers supported it: "They would not locate here unless they thought this would be a successful store," he said, adding that the developer is prepared to coordinate funding and construction of off‑site roadway work as part of the entitlement process.
After extensive public comment, a motion to postpone the item for two weeks carried. Council members asked staff and the applicant to return with specific follow‑up materials, including a detailed parking study, the truck routing and loading plan (showing how large deliveries would access the site without using residential streets), confirmation of landscape and screening dimensions near adjacent homes, and confirmation of off‑site mitigation and timing tied to the town’s CIP upgrades. The applicant agreed to the postponement and to provide the requested materials.
Why it matters: the request to permit a single large anchor on a small parcel would change the intensity of allowed commercial use on that corner and has immediate implications for local traffic, truck operations and residential buffering. Council deferred the decision to allow staff and the applicant to address those implementation questions.
Quote
"They would not do something that's going to hurt their bottom line," Reese Anderson, representing the applicant, said of the retailer’s site selection process. Ending
Council set a two‑week return date for the application and asked staff to compile a list of the remaining technical and design questions to be answered before a final vote.
