Council OKs Bluebonnet Hills zoning plan after narrowing scope; multifamily portion deferred

The Midlothian City Council on March 25 approved a rezoning for the Bluebonnet Hills master plan area while removing the proposed multifamily/mixed-use parcel from the ordinance pending a separate review. Council members said they wanted to proceed on the single-family and open-space plan now but keep the multifamily concept separate for later detailed review.

The project, described to council by staff and the applicant, proposes approximately 1,071 single-family lots on roughly 414 net acres (314 acres net of floodplain). The proposal includes a 200-foot-wide green corridor (formerly a 50-foot corridor in earlier drafts), expanded passive recreational areas, a trail network, three amenity centers (including a pool and pickleball courts) and a future mixed-use tract on the western edge of the property that would be subject to a later site-plan review and special-exception/permitting as appropriate.

During the meeting council directed staff to remove the CR-MR-25 (multifamily/mixed-use) tract from the zoning map amendment now under consideration and to amend the exhibit maps accordingly; the council approved the rezoning for the remainder of the plan. As council and staff discussed, Planned Development 49 (the earlier PD that covers much of the Lakesong/Padera Lake area) still contains provisions that allow multifamily up to aggregated caps established in that older district. Several council members and staff noted the need to coordinate access and trail connections with adjacent Lakesong (a neighboring master plan community). Casey Stevenson of Lakesong said the company supports a high-quality connection and asked that access be protected so rights of way are available if the mixed-use tract advances.

Staff and the applicant said they will finalize a development agreement and the formal exhibits prior to final ordinance implementation. The council voted to approve the zoning amendment with the removal of the multifamily tract; that motion passed 5 to 2. Council members emphasized the need for additional site-plan detail, traffic mitigation for the proposed new thoroughfare to Highway 67 and a clear plan for park/trail head parking and connectivity before multifamily uses would be considered.