A first reading and public discussion of Ordinance O‑20‑25 and Planned Development 33 (PD‑33) drew detailed presentation and questions about traffic, buffering and timing for vertical construction.

City planning director Parviz Porzisian told the council the zoning request covers about 42.32 acres on the west side of Southwest Moreland Road and shows three districts: townhome/patio homes, multifamily and commercial. He described proposed deviations from base zoning, including reduced lot sizes and narrower lot widths in the townhome district and larger setbacks adjacent to the subdivision to the north: “we are asking them to provide 70 [feet], and again, this is to the subdivision to the north.”

The nut graf: The council focused on design controls and infrastructure conditions tied to the proposed development — in particular traffic signalization at Westmoreland and Westbury Creek, roadway turn lanes, and whether the multifamily portion should be gated. The applicant and staff said the multifamily and commercial components are unlikely to be built until Loop 9 and other infrastructure are in place; the developer proposed a two‑year delay on vertical permits for those portions following approval.

The developer, Farooq Hazem, told the council the applicant is prepared to do horizontal work but “we will not come and seek a permit to build vertical construction for 2 years after you approve it,” and said the team expects Loop 9 construction to determine feasibility for larger commercial or multifamily investment. Hazem also said he has a buyer interested in the multifamily portion and that the developer may return later if the buyer seeks changes.

Council and staff emphasized traffic and access requirements. Porzisian said the project’s traffic impact analysis (TIA) assumes Loop 9 and states the Westmoreland–Westbury Creek intersection will need to be signalized; the developer must also provide a left‑turn lane and deceleration lane at the main Westmoreland driveway. Porzisian warned the intersection currently shows poor level‑of‑service ratings in the TIA and that improvements are needed before higher‑intensity development.

Council members pressed on screening and fencing between uses. Porzisian described a mix of an 8‑foot masonry wall between the northern subdivision and townhomes, masonry walls behind apartments and wrought‑iron or landscaped partitions elsewhere; he said the multifamily area could be “partially gated” depending on future access and design. Several council members expressed a clear preference that the entire multifamily area be gated; council direction was to reflect that preference in the PD language so any future change would require council approval.

Porzisian provided unit sizing used for the PD: a studio at roughly 500 sq ft, one‑bedroom 800 sq ft, two‑bedroom 950 sq ft and three‑bedroom 1,100 sq ft, and said multifamily would be limited to three stories and a maximum of approximately 360 units. He said setbacks would include 40 feet from Westmoreland right‑of‑way and a 70‑foot buffer to the future subdivision north of the site.

The council and applicant discussed phasing. Staff and the developer said patio homes (two‑story, small single‑family units) were likely to come first; the multifamily and commercial would be contingent on Loop 9, financing and market demand. Councilmembers noted the city retains authority to require the developer to return for any future changes to the PD.

Ending: This item was presented as a first reading; council did not vote on final adoption. Staff will prepare a revised PD ordinance incorporating council direction (including language on gated multifamily) for a future meeting.