Star council approves Tuscano Estates subdivision after neighbors press traffic and infrastructure concerns

The Star City Council voted unanimously on June 2 to approve the annexation, zoning (R‑3DA), development agreement and preliminary plat for Tuscano Estates, a 67.16‑acre development that will create 165 residential lots and 19 common lots south of State Highway 44.

The decision follows a public hearing in which neighbors pressed city staff and the developer on transportation, school capacity and timing of right‑of‑way improvements. Councilwoman Salmonson moved to approve the project with conditions including annexation into the Star Sewer and Water District, 7‑foot detached sidewalks on collector roads, transition lot sizing to match the preliminary plat, and a prohibition on speed bumps unless approved by the fire district. Councilman Wheelock seconded the motion and the roll call vote was recorded as Aye from Day, Wheelock, Salmonson, Nielsen and Mayor Chadwick.

Becky McKay of Engineering Solutions, the project presenter, described the layout, noting lot sizes ranging from about 7,330 to 24,873 square feet (average ~8,875 sq ft), two on‑site ponds and multi‑use pathways planned to link surrounding subdivisions. She told the council the project will pay mitigation fees to Highway District 4 and to the city for ITD mitigation, and that the plat is phased to be built over multiple years.

Several residents urged delay or stronger timing requirements for road and school improvements. "How are you going to get over 1,000 vehicles out of that little street?" said resident David Tepper, arguing Blessinger Road and intersections with Highway 44 could not yet handle the added traffic and that mitigation timing was unclear. Patrick Hamilton, a River Park Estates resident, also urged a pause: "I think it needs to wait," he said, citing emergency response and quality‑of‑life concerns.

Staff and the applicant responded that the application complies with the unified development code and the city's comprehensive plan, that mitigation fees and phasing are standard practice and that many larger intersection projects depend on ITD and highway‑district programming and funding. Sean, city staff, and Becky said the project would require the developer to annex into utility districts and contribute to offsite improvements where required.

Mayor Chadwick and several council members noted they had heard public concerns and urged continued communication, but concluded the application met code requirements. The council added a condition to document the likely future commercial/light‑industrial designation for property to the north in the record and to ensure the transitional lots on Blessinger matched the presented preliminary plat.

The council also directed staff to continue coordinating with ITD and Highway District 4 on intersection timing and with the fire district on traffic‑calming options. The public hearing and deliberations closed with the council approving the motion.