Your trusted source for community news
After months of neighborhood opposition and three Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, Farmers Branch commissioners voted 5-2 Monday night to recommend denial of a request to remove the senior-living restriction from a proposed Medical Parkway apartment development.
Commissioners David Moore, Breeanna Banks, Scott Noris, Marcus Miller and Alden Sultzbaugh voted to recommend denial. Chair Amber Raley and Commissioner Colin Kirby opposed the denial. Pat Trapp was absent.
Moore made the motion to recommend denial of the request to amend Planned Development District No. 18, and Banks seconded it. The request is expected to go before the Farmers Branch City Council on Aug. 18.
The vote followed another lengthy public hearing in which about 20 residents and community members spoke in opposition to removing the age restriction. No members of the public spoke in support, a point Noris raised before the vote.
"My only thought is there has not been any one up here speaking in a positive way about this project," Noris said. "Just about everybody has said no, and you would think that if it were that good a project that there would be some yeses in there."
Several residents ceded their speaking time to David Koch, who was allotted 20 minutes to present a detailed argument against the zoning change. One resident ceded his time to Lucy Gore, giving her six minutes.
The approximately 6.1-acre property, formerly addressed as 12150 Medical Parkway and now listed as 1, 2 and 3 North Medical Parkway, is part of PD-18. The applicant, Elie Hajj of Cive Inc., requested an amendment that would remove the age restriction for multifamily housing in Subdistrict B.
Under the existing zoning, Subdistrict B allows up to 306 independent senior-living multifamily units. A detailed site plan approved in 2020 called for a 250-unit independent-living building and four single-family lots. A parking structure was built in 2022, but no additional construction was completed.
The commission first considered the zoning change June 22 but tabled it until July 27 while requesting more information about the feasibility of developing the property with the senior restriction. On July 27, commissioners again postponed the case, this time at the applicant's request, to allow an Aug. 3 meeting between the developer and residents.
Public opposition has grown throughout the process. The city mailed 94 notices to surrounding property owners and school districts and posted a zoning notification sign at the property. By the Aug. 10 meeting, the city reported receiving 106 responses in opposition.
The Farmers Branch 2045 Comprehensive Plan designates the site "Regional Commercial," which calls for uses including large-footprint commercial developments, shopping centers and high-intensity office and service uses. City staff said both the existing senior development and the proposed unrestricted development are inconsistent with that designation, although the proposal maintains the development framework previously established under PD-18.
Planning Manager Tara Bradley emphasized that the question before commissioners was narrower than many of the issues raised during public comments.
The zoning amendment would remove the age restriction. Issues including final density, traffic circulation, building design and other development details would be reviewed later through the detailed site plan process. If the zoning amendment were approved, that site plan would return to both the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.
The proposed ordinance defines multifamily dwelling units as housing "for occupants without restriction as to age."
Jamal Varani, representing the property owner, said removing the restriction would make it possible to build a higher-quality conventional multifamily development.
Varani said the company has experience developing multifamily, senior-living, retail, office and other commercial projects and intends to retain and operate the Medical Parkway development.
Asked what would happen if the age restriction remained, Varani said the company would "wait and sit on it for as long as I can," leaving the existing parking garage in place.
Varani also said the developer had obtained letters from two banks indicating lenders did not consider the age-restricted project feasible. Bradley said the city had not received the letters because financing was not part of the land-use review.
City Attorney Chris Metcalf reinforced that point during commission deliberations.
Staff "hadn't received it because it's not something that's really relevant to the land use and the zoning itself," Metcalf said. "In making the consideration, we are considering ... the land use and not any kind of financial status."
Varani said that following discussions with residents, the developer had added a gate to prevent normal apartment traffic from entering Myra Lane and the residential neighborhood. He said removing the restriction would not prohibit seniors from living there but would allow working residents and families, including employees of the nearby hospital.
Residents countered with concerns about traffic, crime, density, neighborhood compatibility and what they described as a previous compromise that allowed multifamily development in exchange for restricting it to senior housing.
Koch used his extended speaking time to walk commissioners through a binder of documents he prepared.
"Our ask is very simple that P&Z recommend denial of the zoning change application," Koch said.
Koch argued the 2019 zoning represented an agreement reached after extensive discussions involving residents, the hospital, developer and city. He also challenged the proposed project's relationship to the conceptual site plan adopted with Ordinance No. 3556, arguing that the applicant's proposed unit distribution and density differed from what the earlier plan contemplated.
City staff and Metcalf repeatedly clarified that commissioners were not being asked Monday to approve a density increase.
"We're just considering the age restriction requirement," Metcalf said, adding that density requirements would be addressed during detailed site plan review.
Lucy Gore focused her comments on the developer's contention that financing an age-restricted project was difficult.
"I respectfully oppose removing the 55 plus age restriction from this development," Gore said.
She said the developer purchased the property knowing its existing entitlements and argued that demographic growth among older Americans creates continued demand for senior housing.
"The age restriction was not a surprise," Gore said. "It was part of the property's value proposition."
Other speakers said they had accepted multifamily housing on the property specifically because it would be senior housing. They also raised concerns about traffic on Myra Lane, emergency access, crime, noise and the potential effect of conventional apartments on nearby single-family neighborhoods.
Several said they would rather continue looking at the unfinished parking garage than approve a permanent zoning change they believed could negatively affect the neighborhood.
After the public hearing closed, commissioners focused on separating the zoning question from details of the proposed development.
Miller noted that the existing zoning refers not simply to people 55 and older but to "independent senior-living." He questioned how that use differs from conventional multifamily housing and whether regulating residents by age could blur the distinction between regulating land use and regulating users. Metcalf cautioned commissioners to focus on land use.
Miller also raised questions about Subdistrict B because property within it is owned by more than one owner. Bradley said removing the age restriction from Subdistrict B would affect both owners and that property owners received notice of the proposed change.
Sultzbaugh asked whether the city had received any written support for the proposal. Bradley said she recalled only opposition.
Moore said he came into the meeting inclined to support removing the restriction but changed his mind after hearing the applicant's presentation.
"I'm pro-development, and I voted for this multifamily in 2019 with the age restriction," Moore said. "I actually came thinking I was going to agree with removing the 55 restriction."
But Moore said the developer had not persuaded him there was a reason to undo the previous decision.
"I don't really see a reason to change a decision that was made six years ago because I'm just not convinced," he said.
Sultzbaugh reached a similar conclusion, saying the applicant's presentation focused largely on financing rather than explaining the land-use difference between senior housing and unrestricted multifamily housing.
Moments later, Moore moved to recommend denial.
Five hands went up.
The final decision now rests with the Farmers Branch City Council.
Local News Matters.
