Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff briefs commission on removal of planned collector and 301-unit multifamily site plan tied to Gateway master-plan area
Summary
City of Grand Prairie planning staff on June 23 presented a companion thoroughfare plan amendment and a specific‑use permit/site plan for a 301‑unit multifamily project in PD 217, saying a traffic study found negligible overall impacts from removing a planned two‑lane collector roadway.
City of Grand Prairie planning staff on June 23 presented two companion items: a proposed comprehensive plan amendment to remove a planned two‑lane collector roadway from the thoroughfare map and a related specific‑use permit and site plan for a 301‑unit multifamily development in Planned Development District 217.
Staff said the developer is not proposing to construct the collector as part of the development and has requested the roadway be removed so the site can be developed as depicted on the submitted plan. The traffic impact analysis assumed 3% annual traffic growth and compared a 10‑year build scenario with a no‑build scenario; staff reported the study showed a slight increase in delay in some locations but concluded the effects were negligible. Staff noted the developer proposes shared access between the subject parcel and an adjacent property and an emergency‑access only connection off Tarrant to discourage school‑related cut‑through traffic. Staff recommended approval of the thoroughfare amendment and summarized DRC recommendations for the SUP/site plan.
On the multifamily project, staff described a proposed seven‑building development totaling 301 units. The applicant requests several variances: the percentage of one‑bedroom units would be 74.4% (the Unified Development Code caps one‑bedroom units at 60%); an eastern setback adjacent to residential zoning would range from about 51.5 feet to 100 feet while PD 217's formula would require about 102 feet for the tallest building; the applicant proposes 77 site trees where 203 are required under the applicable standards; and the applicant proposes a wrought‑iron fence along the single‑family boundary rather than a masonry screening wall. Staff noted written opposition from a single‑family property at 801 Walter Hill Drive and said the gateway master plan (a city policy adopted in 2017) envisions mixed uses for the corridor and is used as a reference but does not automatically change underlying zoning.
Staff recommended approval of the SUP/site plan with conditions including that the project meet minimum site‑tree requirements and that the applicant provide a tree survey and mitigation plan with the final plat application. Commissioners asked about the cumulative effect of moving the collector and multiple variances; staff said topography constrained building placement and the variances were common in similar multifamily proposals. No action was taken during the briefing; the items will be heard in public hearing and, if recommended, forwarded to City Council.
