Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Horace council denies Suncrest rezone and plat after residents press transition concerns
Summary
After months of revisions and neighborhood meetings, Horace council denied the Suncrest First Edition rezone and corresponding plat July 21, citing inadequate buffering and community objections; developer representatives said they remain open to design compromises.
The Horace City Council voted July 21 to deny a request to rezone and plat the 47‑acre Suncrest First Edition, ending the developer’s immediate plan to move forward with mixed‑use and higher‑density lots adjacent to long‑established single‑family neighborhoods.
The decision followed a staff presentation and lengthy public testimony in which neighbors described the proposed plan as an abrupt transition from large estate lots to compact residential and mixed‑use parcels. Resident Lonnie Wong told the council the plan ‘‘does not comply with Title 4 land use code’’ and said neighbors collected petitions and submitted protest letters asking the council to back Planning & Zoning Commission’s prior recommendation to deny the rezone.
Developer Austin Morris of Enclave said the team had revised several elements — widening lots on the west edge, relocating the lift station and moving park dedication next to Lions Park — and argued the overall density (about 6.38 units per acre in their description) was well below multifamily benchmarks. Morris offered concessions, including a two‑story height cap on the northern mixed‑use edge, as a possible compromise. Residents and several council members remained unconvinced about traffic, scale and property‑value impacts.
After closing the public hearing, Council Member Sarah Veidt moved to deny the rezone request, citing Planning & Zoning’s findings and broad neighborhood opposition. The motion carried and the council then denied the plat on the basis that the rezone did not pass. The council’s action stops the current application; the developer may revise and reapply.
Why it matters: Planning staff and developers pointed to the comprehensive plan and prior staff meetings as the rationale for this proposal, but neighbors said the plan’s transitions and buffers were still inadequate. Because a rezone was protested by adjacent property owners, the rezone required a higher favorable vote under the city code; the council’s denial reflects those protest dynamics as well as civic concern about compatibility.
What’s next: The denial means the current Suncrest entitlement effort will not proceed as submitted. Staff and the developer indicated more neighborhood work has occurred over months; any future application would need to address the transition and buffering concerns identified by Planning & Zoning and neighbors. The council record closed the public hearing on both items at the meeting’s end.
