Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks PDD for 387 acres on Highway 281 North; commissioners table application for more information
Summary
TriMark Developments and partners asked the commission to approve a planned development district (PDD) for about 387 acres along Highway 281 North. The applicant narrowed code modification requests but commissioners voted to table the PDD and asked for detailed water, tree and engineering materials before sending a recommendation to council.
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
TriMark Developments LP and 1 Stop Group LP requested establishment of a planned development district (PDD) covering roughly 387 acres along U.S. Highway 281 North (the Macquarie Ranch proposal). The applicant sought a mix of R‑2 single family, R‑5 multifamily and C‑2 commercial zoning with a set of narrowly drawn code modifications for the single‑family portion; staff said the applicant withdrew many earlier modification requests and limited most remaining variances to specific lots.
Applicant representative Ken Brown told the commission the team reduced the list of modification requests from 29 to 9 and cut the number of proposed single‑family lots from 234 to 229, saying "We are now proposing 229." Brown said the modifications were targeted to specific lots and that 84% of trees and habitat on the site would be preserved. He also described proposed water infrastructure: a water storage facility and booster station intended to be owned and maintained by the public water system and a mix of options for retail water service, including potential CCN holders or other retail providers.
Neighbors and public commenters pressed the commission on water availability, tree mitigation and vague language in the application. Linden Sisk raised the CCN issue and asked when proof of water service is required; Ryan Tucker and other residents urged denial or stricter conditions, calling parts of the application "vague" and warning that unspecified items could amount to a "blank check". Commissioners ultimately voted to table the PDD and asked the applicant to provide a superimposed arborist inventory showing trees that would be removed by grading areas, a road/centerline engineering analysis to confirm fire access, a conceptual fire plan, and clarified ordinance language (including removal of provisions authorizing tree removal in riparian buffers and deletion of certain references to existing wells).

