Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board weighs trade-offs at Matthews Gateway: replant slope versus permanent wall
Summary
Officials debated whether to disturb a narrow managed buffer next to Fourmile Creek to grade and replant the slope, avoiding an 8-foot retaining wall for a grocery-anchored Matthews Gateway development. Staff says regrading and replanting could save money and improve long-term aesthetics; commissioners asked for environmental safeguards before approving any exception from the UDO.
Town and project staff updated the Matthews Board of Commissioners on the Matthews Gateway project on May 11 and asked for preliminary direction about a narrow proposal to grade and replant a managed buffer adjacent to Fourmile Creek rather than build an 8-foot concrete retaining wall.
Lehi Purser, project presenter, said permitting and geotechnical work indicate the wall would be visually prominent from the planned Selma Burke extension and would require ongoing maintenance; grading and replanting the managed area could eliminate the wall and, Purser said, produce a planted slope with trees and shrubs that would mature over years. Purser said the change could also free roughly $170,000 to put into contingency and reduce the long-term visual impact.
"I think long term it may be a more environmentally sound solution to not build the wall and to plant trees there," Mayor John Higdon said during the discussion. "Fifteen years from now I'd rather see 30-foot tall trees than a wall."
County versus town buffer rules
Staff and commissioners discussed overlap between county stream-buffer practice and the town—s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). County reviewers told project staff the county would permit managed-area disturbance with replanting; town staff noted the Matthews UDO places stronger limits on disturbance in the managed buffer to protect Fourmile Creek—s water quality and vegetation.
Several commissioners asked for technical and legal options, including whether a public-path exception or specifically engineered mitigation could allow the grading and replanting while protecting water quality and preventing a precedent that would weaken the UDO.
Next steps
The board did not take a vote that night but asked staff and the town attorney to quickly review legal options and mitigation requirements so the developer can return to the life-insurance lender with a clear plan in June. Purser said the project team remains optimistic that, if the town is open to a narrowly tailored exception with specific mitigation and monitoring measures, the life insurance company could approve breaking ground in late July or early August.
