Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Multifamily Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors and staff raise safety, grading and access concerns over proposed Harris Highland apartments
Summary
At a consultation for a proposed 118–130 unit, three-building apartment project at Harris Highland Drive, staff flagged steep grades, missing grading plans, constrained emergency access and buffering requirements. Dozens of nearby residents raised worries about traffic, privacy, noise and snow removal; commissioners urged reduced unit count and detailed engineering before a formal application.
City planning staff presented a conceptual apartment project for a vacant 4.9-acre parcel off Harris Highland Drive that would contain roughly 120 units across three multi-story buildings. Staff said the concept lacks a grading plan and raised multiple technical issues: steep site grades, the placement of stormwater ponds on slopes, an emergency secondary access that is only 20 feet wide and does not meet typical setback buffering, and rear-yard setbacks that appear to be narrower than zoning would require when multifamily abuts single-family homes.
During a long public-comment period, multiple neighbors expressed concerns about building height, loss of privacy with three-story buildings on a hill, increased traffic on a narrow village-maintained road that is not plowed to city standards, school pickups, and safety for children playing near proposed ponds. Resident Jenna Weingard summarized the neighborhood sentiment: “My wife and I bought our house because it was on a cul de sac and because of the backyard, the privacy.”
Staff also read two written comments into the record outlining traffic-safety and parking questions and urging broader neighborhood outreach. The transcript includes an inconsistency in unit counts: staff initially summarized materials as up to 120 units, then at one point read 130; commissioners and staff asked the developer to clarify unit counts and to provide grading sections, revised access plans and alternatives such as lowering some buildings to two stories and reducing unit density.
Commissioners emphasized that the submission appears to require a PUD (planned unit development) if the density is maintained, and several recommended reducing unit count, adding pedestrian access, and securing a more reliable emergency-access arrangement (potentially via easement through adjacent property) before formal approval. Because this was consultation only, no votes were taken.
