· Context
Council passes four residential rezonings and a Town Square alcohol-use change on first reading
The same evening the council passed on first reading Ordinances No. 8272 (51.94 acres, 308 homes near Moon River Rd.), 8274 (17.78 acres, next phase of Heritage Hills), 8275 (9.07 acres, Tradewind Square) and 8276 (24.81 acres, 130 homes near Eastern St. and S.E. 29th Ave.), and Ordinance No. 8273 changing alcohol-use rules in part of Town Square, which passed 3-2. With Ordinance No. 8277, the five acreage rezonings total 459.00 acres.[1][2][3]
Cole StanleyDavid PrescottLes Simpson
What the sources say
- ✓ Verified
The five acreage rezonings passed on first reading on October 13, 2026 total 459.00 acres: 51.94 (Ord. 8272, Agricultural to Moderate Density District 1, 308 single-family homes), 17.78 (Ord. 8274, next phase of Heritage Hills), 9.07 (Ord. 8275, Residential District 3 to Moderate Density District 1, Tradewind Square), 24.81 (Ord. 8276, Residential District 1 to Residential District 3, 130 single-family homes) and 355.40 (Ord. 8277, Agricultural to Light Industrial). The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended each 7-0. [1][2]
- Total acres
- 459
- ⚠ Sources differ
The acreage of the Moon River Road rezoning (Ord. 8272) differs between the written agenda and the meeting presentation.
- ✓ Verified
Ordinance No. 8273 (Town Square, Planned Development 373A to 373E) passed on first reading 3-2; on the City's recording the mayor identified the no votes as Place 3 and Place 4 (held by David Prescott and Les Simpson) and the yes votes as the mayor and Places 1 and 2. Staff said the change keeps a limit of four bars within the boundary but removes the one-per-building limit and adds on-premise incidental alcohol sales by non-restaurants. No reason for the no votes was stated in the vote; one councilmember had raised concern about the proximity of residences. [3][2]
- ✓ Verified
Ordinances No. 8272, 8274, 8275 and 8276 each passed on first reading by voice vote after public hearings; the only speaker was a representative of the developer of the 8272 tract, whom the council did not question. The vote on 8274 was announced as 5-0. [3]