Your trusted source for community news
Local News Matters. We report on the meetings, neighborhoods, businesses and people shaping Farmers Branch, Addison and Carrollton. Subscribe to our free newsletter to stay informed or become a member to help keep this reporting independent.
The Farmers Branch City Council unanimously rejected a request Tuesday night to remove the 55-and-older restriction from the unfinished Medical Parkway apartment development after residents packed City Hall and council members raised questions about the developer’s financing, proposed density and an existing development agreement.
The 5-0 vote leaves the age restriction in place on the approximately 6.1-acre property at 1, 2 and 3 North Medical Parkway, formerly addressed as 12150 Medical Parkway.
City Council Member Elizabeth Villafranca made the motion to deny Ordinance No. 4003, and City Council Member Lupe Gonzalez seconded it.
The vote followed the Planning and Zoning Commission’s 5-2 recommendation Aug. 10 to deny the request.
What initially appeared to be a relatively straightforward request to remove an age restriction became more complicated during the lengthy public hearing as residents and council members questioned what else approval of the ordinance would authorize.
City Attorney David Berman told the council the ordinance before them included a conceptual site plan showing 301 units on the northern portion of the property, rather than the 250 units approved under the existing site plan.
“If the council were to approve this ordinance with the conceptual site plan attached to it, it kind of locks it in at 301,” Berman said, adding that it would become difficult for the city to later reduce the development back to 250 units.
That distinction became one of the central issues of the evening.
Developer Jamal Varani told the council he believed the request before them was solely to remove the age restriction.
“I do think that we came here purely to get the 55-and-up age restriction lifted, not to approve 301 units,” Varani said.
Berman disagreed with that characterization because of the conceptual site plan attached to the ordinance.
Mayor Terry Lynne also said he believed removing the age restriction should have been considered separately from any changes to the site plan.
“I believe that if you are asking for the rescinding of the age restriction, that should be on its own,” Lynne said. “Nothing else. No site plan, no conceptual site plan, no 301 or anything.”
The property was originally approved for a 55-and-older multifamily development as part of Planned Development District No. 18. Construction began under a previous developer before the project stalled and eventually entered bankruptcy, leaving a partially completed parking garage on the property.
Residents from the surrounding neighborhood turned out in force Tuesday, continuing months of opposition to removing the age restriction.
David Koch, who was given additional speaking time after several residents yielded their time to him, gave the council a detailed history of the project dating to 2019.
Koch argued that the original senior development was a negotiated compromise involving the city, Dallas Medical Center, the developer and nearby residents.
“The idea was to allow multifamily age-restricted so that, since the hospital already had services for seniors, it was a symbiotic relationship that would help the hospital and would be good for the neighborhood,” Koch said.
He also questioned why the current owner should receive a zoning change after purchasing property with existing restrictions.
“You bought the property knowing, or you should have known, about these restrictions,” Koch said. “If you didn't know about it, that is on you, and if you did know about it, then you need to develop it as is with these restrictions.”
Koch also focused heavily on the proposed increase from 250 to 301 units and the development agreement between the city and the current developer.
He argued that adding 51 units within essentially the same building footprint would change the unit mix, parking demands and density beyond what residents agreed to when the original development was approved.
“Either way, what we ask you as your neighbors and as our neighbor is that you vote no on this application,” Koch said.
Other residents raised concerns about traffic, parking, public safety, infrastructure and the effect a conventional apartment development could have on the surrounding neighborhood.
Several also disputed the developer’s contention that financing a new 55-and-older development was no longer economically feasible.
Developer says financing doesn't work
Varani told the council his company knew the age restriction existed when it bought the property but believed it could make the development work.
“We knew the age restriction was there in place,” Varani said. “We would have liked to develop it as such, but today the economics have changed.”
Varani said lenders have declined to finance the project as a 55-and-older development and said the company has spent nearly a year seeking financing.
He said senior housing costs more to develop and takes longer to reach stabilized occupancy than conventional multifamily housing.
“The bottom line on a senior living facility is less because of the layout, the design, the amenities,” Varani said. “They cost more in every aspect, which does not help when you're trying to get financing on this.”
He also pushed back against criticism that the company was threatening the city by saying the unfinished development could remain in its current state if the restriction stayed in place.
“If we cannot develop this land as a senior living age-restricted multifamily complex because we don't get financing, well, there's nothing more we can do at this time,” Varani said. “We cannot develop it with hopes and dreams. We need cash to actually develop this.”
Varani said the company could maintain the landscaping, fencing and security around the unfinished property while it remained undeveloped.
He said the company's proposed conventional multifamily project would include 469 parking spaces, approximately 35,000 square feet of landscaped open space, a courtyard, dog park, fitness center, clubhouse, coworking space and staffed front desk.
Council questions what it would be approving
Council members repeatedly returned to the distinction between simply removing the age restriction and approving the 301-unit conceptual plan.
Berman told the council that if the ordinance were approved, later review of a detailed site plan would give the city less discretion as long as the developer met the applicable requirements.
If the council denied the ordinance, he said, the previously approved site plan allowing 250 units would remain in place.
That concerned City Council Member David Reid.
“If this automatically skips all that because of the ordinance that's out there, it kind of ties our hands as far as what future options we have,” Reid said.
Reid also cautioned against treating concerns about apartments themselves as the central question.
The property is already approved for multifamily development, he noted, regardless of Tuesday's decision.
“Whether it's 55-plus or not, it's going to be an apartment complex,” Reid said.
Gonzalez said the developer's decision to purchase the property despite the restriction was a major concern for her.
“You bought this knowing there was a restriction,” Gonzalez said. “That's a big red flag for me.”
She also rejected the argument that conventional apartments would uniquely bring customers to nearby businesses.
“Our seniors can do the same,” Gonzalez said. “They still need to eat. They still have to shop. They still need to do their business around our area.”
City Council Member Tina Bennett-Burton said she lived in the neighborhood when the original senior development was negotiated.
“I lived in that neighborhood, so these are my people,” Bennett-Burton said. “I was there during the time that this was being negotiated for the 55-plus.”
Bennett-Burton also questioned whether the developer had exhausted financing alternatives and raised concerns about the potential combined density of the developer's property and the remaining property along the Interstate 635 frontage road.
Villafranca said the combination of the development agreement, the change from 250 to 301 units and financial provisions in the agreement left her uncomfortable.
“We were sold a bill that it was just to change the age restriction, and that is not the case,” Villafranca said. “It's much more tangled than this.”
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Roger Neal told Varani the developer knowingly purchased property with the restriction already in place.
“It's not our fault that you bought the property with the restriction,” Neal said. “It wasn't our business decision to buy the property. You should have maybe done a little bit better research.”
Varani rejected the characterization that the company was asking the city to rescue it from a bad investment.
“I'm not asking for a bailout,” he said. “I'm asking to get something done here.”
Lynne said the senior component was the reason he supported the original development while serving on the City Council.
He said the original proposal created a connection between the senior development and Dallas Medical Center, which was expected to benefit from having older residents living nearby.
He suggested the developer talk directly with Farmers Branch seniors and surrounding residents to determine whether there is enough demand and what kind of project the neighborhood could support.
“Find out what they want,” Lynne said. “Find out what would be workable in their mind and take that into consideration and then noodle on it and then come back with something that would be more acceptable to the neighborhood, to the community and more appropriate for Farmers Branch.”
“None of us want any business to come here and fail,” he added, “but I think it's going to require more work than what has already been done.”
After hours of public comments and council discussion, Villafranca moved to deny the ordinance with Gonzalez seconding the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
The vote leaves the existing 55-and-older restriction and previously approved 250-unit site plan in place.
Local News Matters.
