Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tie vote blocks amended site plan for Highway 166 bypass; proposal reverts to original approval
Summary
A proposal to amend a 54.23‑acre planned development on the Highway 166 bypass that would have preserved woodland and reduced commercial acreage failed on a 2–2 tie; the city attorney ruled the motion failed and the project reverts to the previously approved site plan.
A vote on Oct. 7 blocked a revised site‑plan for a 54.23‑acre planned development along the Highway 166 bypass after the Carrollton City Council was split 2–2. The amendment would have kept the previously approved 330 apartment units but reduced the commercial portion from about 20 acres to roughly 10 acres while shifting apartments to preserve a stream and wooded ridge.
Planning staff told council the planning commission recommended the amendment with conditions including added internal sidewalks and connectivity. Brian Hatcher of Kyra Engineering said geotechnical, topographic and environmental studies — notably a stream on the site — prompted the revised layout to avoid clearing sensitive areas and to place apartments on a ridge with common green space preserved.
Craig Power of Imperium Development, the apartment developer, told council, “We’re ready to move forward regardless if this site‑plan amendment gets approved or doesn’t get approved,” and argued the new layout “is a better plan” that would attract sit‑down restaurants and preserve green space. He and a retail representative said moving apartments improved interest from restaurants; they cited a pending lease wrap‑up and letters of intent tied to the revised configuration.
Council members pressed developers on the loss of commercial acreage and on whether sit‑down restaurants could have been accommodated under the original plan. Developers said grocers (Publix) and large anchors declined earlier, and that market constraints and grocery‑chain site selection were factors in the redesign.
After no public speakers registered in opposition, a motion to approve the amendment was made and seconded. The roll of voice votes produced two in favor and two opposed. City Attorney Smith advised the council that, under Robert’s Rules, the motion required an affirmative majority and that the tie constituted failure; as a result the site plan reverts to the original approval.
The decision leaves the previously approved development footprint and conditions in place; developers said they will proceed under whatever site plan remains effective. Council members repeatedly expressed a preference for more commercial development on the bypass, while developers said they believe the revised plan best balances retail recruitment and environmental constraints.
Next steps: the site will proceed under the original approved plan unless the developer submits a new amendment or requests administrative adjustments in engineering and permitting.
