Flower Mound’s Town Council voted unanimously to approve a master-plan amendment and a zoning planned development (ZPD) for the Monarch project, a roughly 200‑acre mixed‑use proposal along I‑35W and Denton Creek Boulevard that would create a large commercial center and up to 278 townhomes.

The change shifts about 42.73 acres from campus‑commercial to high‑density residential on the town’s master plan and establishes a PD that would allow roughly 157 acres of campus commercial, more than 472,000 square feet of nonresidential buildings shown in the concept plan and 278 townhome units (the PD caps townhomes at 290). The council added conditions tying the release of the first tranche of townhome occupancy to the commercial project reaching specified construction milestones.

The applicant, Eric Schmitz, represented by planner Randy Rivera of McAdams, described multiple ongoing retailer negotiations and said three potential commercial users had executed pre‑closing agreements contingent on zoning and site access. Schmitz urged council to approve the PD to keep momentum and to encourage TxDOT and other partners to accelerate frontage‑road work that retailers require.

Council members and staff discussed many PD details during a long public hearing and deliberation. Town planner Lehi Murphy reviewed the PD standards, noting that the proposal adds permitted campus‑commercial uses (including pharmacies, accessory gasoline sales, health clubs and large retail tenants up to and over 100,000 square feet), modifies setback and parking language carried forward from older PD standards, and proposes special accessory uses such as an indoor storage/fulfillment area limited to 25% of a building’s square footage.

Key technical provisions and clarifications included:
- Acreage and mix: approximately 200 acres total; about 157 acres proposed as campus commercial and 42.73 acres amended to high‑density residential within the master‑plan change.
- Residential: 278 townhomes are shown on the concept plan (PD limit: not to exceed 290). Proposed residential dimensional standards include minimum lot areas of 1,800 sq ft for attached units and 3,000 sq ft for detached units, minimum widths of 22 ft (attached) and 30 ft (detached), 10‑foot front setbacks (with rear‑entry garages), and maximum lot coverage of 80% for attached and 65% for detached units as shown in the PD (town code typically allows lower coverages for some product types).
- Commercial program: the concept shows four large retail “big‑box” buildings plus inline retail and restaurants, totaling an applicant‑estimated more than 472,000 sq ft in the initial exhibits and a broader commercial program the applicant described as roughly 800,000 sq ft across the PD footprint.
- Access and infrastructure: the project’s viability depends on TxDOT frontage‑road and overpass work for Cleveland‑Gibbs and Denton Creek (the council and applicant discussed the potential for a TxDOT “breakout” that could open portions of frontage road earlier). The applicant and staff said some retail users want visible, direct access from frontage roads before committing to final tenant build‑outs.
- Park and open space: the PD includes roughly 24 acres of PD open space and a proposed town park dedication of 9.86 acres (town park development fees were estimated in staff materials at $402,520 less any applicable credits). The PD also calls for pollinator planting zones and Monarch waystation registration.
- Design and special standards: front setbacks and parking arrangements were adjusted from older campus‑commercial rules (staff noted the proposed standards largely track current town standards); the PD also limits the total number of gas stations inside the PD to two and restricts outdoor seasonal sales and outdoor storage to identified concept‑plan areas, with screening requirements for outdoor storage.

Council asked several times how to bind commercial and residential outcomes so townhomes would not be built in isolation before the commercial center that drives sales tax and service‑road traffic demand. After deliberation the council added a binding, measurable condition: the first 150 townhome units shall not be eligible for building final (occupancy) until 150,000 square feet of commercial development in the PD has reached wall‑exterior inspection (a standard the council and staff identified as a meaningful, hard construction milestone). The remaining residential units shall not be eligible for building final until a total of 300,000 square feet of commercial development has reached wall‑exterior inspection. The motion said final wording would be subject to the town attorney’s review.

Developer and staff comments
Developer Eric Schmitz told the council the project is market‑driven and described ongoing negotiations with major retail users who want visibility and frontage‑road access. “We’ve tried to trim our sails,” Schmitz said, and added that three purchase and sale agreements were in escrow and contingent on PD approval. Planner Randy Rivera summarized coordination with TxDOT and other jurisdictions and said the developer had removed multifamily apartments previously discussed and rebalanced the site to favor commercial frontage and townhomes.

Town staff noted technical corrections and recommended an ordinance update to reconcile outdated campus‑commercial setback language. Staff also recommended conditions discussed in a staff memo: locating outdoor seasonal sales and limited outdoor storage only where shown on the concept plan, specifying 100‑foot on‑center placement for lighted bollards on the trail, and limiting parking‑lot lighting to 3,000 kelvins or less to meet dark‑sky recommendations.

What the council approved and what remains
The council approved the master‑plan amendment (K1) and the PD zoning package (K2) by unanimous votes, with the K2 approval including the staff‑requested edits, the lighting and bollard specifications, flexibility in the pocket‑park amenity (playground or a “comparable amenity” such as a putting green), and the commercial‑linked residential release language described above. Council members and the developer agreed to work on timing and phasing with TxDOT and other regional partners.

Next steps include finalizing PD ordinance language with town attorney review, subsequent platting and site‑plan submittals, and coordination with TxDOT for frontage‑road and bridge construction schedules. The council and applicant repeatedly emphasized that the project’s timeline depends on TxDOT’s ability to deliver frontage access and on the pace at which major retail tenants execute their build‑to‑suit agreements.