Midlothian City Council refuses three-storey multi-family residential SUP


Back to the drawing board

MIDLOTHIAN — It’s back to the drawing board for the plaintiff and architects who applied for an order granting a specific use permit (SUP) for a multi-family residential development at Tuesday night’s city council meeting. Planned development #146 is in the Westside Preserve area located at Highway 287 and Old Fort Worth Road on 17.35 acres.

This was not to approve the proposed multi-family development; it had already been approved, as Midlothian town attorney Joe Gorfida reminded council on Tuesday night. The original planned development was approved by a 4 to 1 vote at the December 14, 2021 City Council meeting.

According to the Planned Development Ordinance, the development of multi-family apartments is permitted on the subject property provided that a specific use permit is reviewed by the city council.

“There was some confusion about the area and how it had previously been approved,” Gorfida said. “This area has already been approved for multi-family with an SUP, so you have with the SUP or community trade in law. You have allowed multiple families here with an SUP, so get back to the basics of the SUP purpose. The purpose of a SUP is to control the side effects you have with the companies (like Drive-thrus). And we look at traffic, parking, side effects, and then we put conditions on that SUP to allow underlying zoning or we’ll put deviations. It is the goal to provide flexibility from this basic zoning. If you start with basic zoning, then you have SUP.

Council discussed height and parking concerns

The purpose of the SUP in this case was to allow for three stories versus two, which is currently in the ordinance, plus an additional 10 feet of height.

Apartment rendering

Currently, the ordinance also requires 264 attached, 132 detached, and 132 folded under garages. The applicant proposed 78 carport spaces, 78 detached garages with the remaining spaces being used for surface parking.

Planning and Zoning had voted 4 to 1 to approve the SUP, pending the applicant meeting parking requirements. Staff recommends approval of the proposed Specific Use Permit (SUP), consistent with staff comments.

1. Staff recommend that the applicant meet the parking requirement of 264 adjoining, 132
detached and 132 garage spaces under the garage for development.

I. The plaintiff requests to provide 375 overdrafts, 78 carports and
78 Individual Garages.

The reason the developer requested a waiver making the development three stories versus two, “to better approximate the site’s intended density and unit-to-acre ratio, while staying within the designated maximum 302 units for the CRMF18 site. , as well as to better coordinate with each other’s appearance and character
multi-family zoned site at Westside Preserve.

They also stated, “The design of a three-storey apartment also allows the proposed layout to retain more green/open space by designing vertically, compared to more expansive two-storey buildings, which would result in greater large waterproof cover on site. ”

Midlothian Mayor Richard Reno said he was having trouble with the building’s height change.

“In my opinion, you are talking about a difference of 100 units, which will affect the ratio,” Reno said.

Place 4 City Council member Clark Wickliffe said he didn’t like the idea presented because of the violation of the parking ordinance.

Pro Tem Mayor Justin Coffman said he agreed with both assessments.

“I can’t support it personally,” Pro-Tem Mayor Coffman said and added that he struggles with multifamily in general.

The official architect from Cross Architects representing the developer was present and stated that the original proposed renderings presented to staff and Planning & Zoning had met the original requirements.

“The staff wanted to see something different,” explained the architect. “We want to make sure that we bring something amazing to the city that takes into account the screening you talk about, the parking required and not taxing the school systems.”

The Council rejected the SUP unanimously. Now the question is which SUPs will be approved. Can the council continue to refuse any proposal and then the area will become commercial, which is also part of the development plan?


About Author

Comments are closed.