Council approves rezoning and development agreement for 33.66-acre Oak Grove/El Dorado site after revisions and conditions

Little Elm Town Council on Tuesday approved Ordinance 18-08 to rezone about 33.664 acres at the Oak Grove Parkway and El Dorado Parkway intersection for commercial frontage and a mixed residential townhome area, and separately approved a development agreement that memorializes design and operational commitments.

The council voted to adopt the rezoning and placed conditions recommended by staff, including revised site plans, limits on approved density and a development-agreement requirement that binds the applicant to commitments on short-term-rental restrictions and timing for infrastructure connections.

The rezoning request covers nine parcels in the project area. Under the approved plan the property’s north frontage is designated straight commercial zoning (about 23 acres) and the southern portion — roughly 12.78 acres — is rezoned to permit townhome development. The applicant revised the proposal during the council review to reduce the maximum townhome count to 92 units (about 7.1 dwelling units per acre), down from an earlier submittal that proposed as many as 125 townhomes.

Why it mattered: council and staff said the changes brought the project more closely in line with the town’s West Side Study (2021) and the town’s 2022 comprehensive-plan amendment while preserving a larger buffer between the new units and existing single-family homes. Town staff also required the developer to delay building access ties into the El Dorado/Oak Grove intersection until roadway improvements are completed.

Key details from council discussion and staff presentation: - Density and layout: Staff reported the revised plan produces 7.1 units per acre for the townhome portion and that the developer reduced building lengths and unit counts to address neighbor concerns. - Buffers and walls: The developer agreed to widen the buffer adjacent to existing homes (the narrowest portions were revised from 20 feet to at least 30 feet in several locations) and to provide an 8-foot masonry wall along parts of the eastern boundary where the town code requires separation from adjacent residential lots. In other areas the applicant proposed wrought-iron fencing with masonry columns and emergency-access gates with Knox-boxes for fire-department use only. - Open space: The applicant proposed 5.99 acres of open space, exceeding the minimum required by the town for the proposed number of units. - Traffic and timing: Engineering staff said intersection improvements at El Dorado and Oak Grove — including added turn lanes to improve capacity — are under design and estimated to be complete in fall 2026. The applicant stated it does not plan to begin vertical construction of townhome buildings until roughly fall 2027, and engineering said the developer cannot tie driveway access into the intersection until the public improvements are finished.

Public comment: Four residents who live directly behind or near the site spoke in opposition, citing traffic volume on El Dorado (staff said the corridor carries roughly 61,000 vehicles per day in recent counts), concerns about sight distances at Highland Circle, worries about light and wildlife impacts from development, and requests for a solid masonry wall along the shared boundary rather than wrought-iron fencing. The applicant and staff responded that the revised plan increases separation, that existing trees and landscape requirements will be addressed through code-required mitigation or replacement, and that gates proposed for emergency access will remain closed to general traffic.

Council action and conditions: Council members moved and seconded approval after agreeing to staff-identified conditions. Staff asked for three conditions to be attached to the ordinance: (1) the applicant must submit revised plans to reflect the reduced unit count and updated buffers before permits proceed; (2) the town and applicant will finalize and execute a development agreement that includes short-term-rental limitations and the agreed façade/landscape commitments; and (3) the town will retain its standard substantial-development timelines (staff recommended keeping a requirement for meaningful site progress and limited extension authority rather than allowing a longer, open-ended vesting period). The development agreement was approved by separate motion later in the meeting and will be executed before permits move forward.

Council and staff cautioned that final site permits will still require traffic, stormwater and grading approvals. Engineering said the town will not allow connection to the improved intersection until the public-work contract and striping are complete.

Ending: With the conditions in place, the council approved Ordinance 18-08 and the related development agreement; the project will return to staff for plan revisions and will remain subject to the town’s standard permit and inspection processes.