Summary

4211 Newton is zoned MF-2 under PD-193, which limits buildings to 45 feet.

The developer is requesting a ~240-foot tower, which requires a substantial zoning change — not something allowed by right.

For comparison:

• The Herschel and The Novel were built by right because their parcels were already zoned O-2, which permits tower-scale height without needing a zoning change.
• The Clearwater (Anthology) required a zoning change only to permit a senior living use — its height was already allowed under O-2 zoning.

This distinction matters: those towers followed the zoning that was already in place. 4211 Newton does not.

Supporting Facts

• MF-2 limits height to 45 ft
• The request is a ~195-ft jump — a 433% height increase
• MF-2 and PD-193 are intended for low-/mid-scale multifamily
• All nearby towers sit on O-2 parcels created for tower-scale development

Why This Matters

MF-2 zoning exists so neighborhoods know what to expect.

Allowing a 240-ft tower on a 45-ft site makes zoning optional — and would ripple across MF-2 neighborhoods citywide.

Sample Quote

“Nearby towers like The Herschel, The Novel, and Anthology followed zoning that already allowed height. A ~240-foot tower on an MF-2 site is a dramatic step up allowed not by-right.”

Summary

MF-2 zoning was created to be reliable. Homeowners, renters, and small developers all rely on it when choosing to live or invest here. A dramatic upzoning at 4211 Newton would set a new precedent that other MF-2 parcels could point to.

‍
Supporting Facts‍

• Zoning exists so residents know what can be built next door.
  MF-2 provides stability — apartments, townhomes, and condos that fit the neighborhood.
• A 240-foot tower requires an exception far beyond MF-2 standards.
• Nearest MF‑2 height variance: Carlisle on the Creek (Uptown), in a distinctly different urban context
• Approving this project would give future MF-2 applicants evidence to request the same.
• Precedent affects not just SOHIP, but all MF-2 neighborhoods across Dallas.

Why This Matters
If this one MF-2 parcel jumps from 45 ft to ~240 ft, every MF-2 neighborhood loses zoning protection. Once the precedent is set, it’s difficult for the city to justify denying the next one.

‍
Sample Quote
“MF-2 is supposed to be predictable. Approving a tower-scale exception here would open the door for other MF-2 sites to ask for the same.”

Summary

The proposed tower is a luxury rental project with rents starting around $5,000–$20,000+. Nothing about this aligns with the scale or intent of MF-2 zoning, which was written to support neighborhood-level housing.

Supporting Facts

• MF-2 provides moderate-scale homes accessible to many types of residents.
• A luxury tower introduces big-city scale into a small neighborhood block.
• The economics of high-rise construction require massing and density MF-2 was never designed to support.
• MF-2 zoning is not intended for uptown-style development.

Why This Matters

This isn’t an argument against development — it’s that this type of development simply does not match the zoning, scale, or purpose of an MF-2 neighborhood.

Sample Quote

“This project looks and functions like a uptown luxury tower, not something meant for a 45-foot MF-2 block.”

Summary

SOHIP has a few tall buildings, but they were built where height was already allowed.

• The Herschel → O-2 zoning (high-rise tower allowed by right)
• The Novel → O-2 zoning (240 ft tower allowed by right)
• The Clearwater (Anthology) → required a zoning change only to allow a senior living use, not height

4211 Newton doesn’t match that pattern — it places a tower on an MF-2 site surrounded by 2 to 3-story homes.

Supporting Facts

• MF-2 areas were designed for low-/mid-scale multifamily
• The requested height is out of scale with surrounding homes
• By-right development around SOHIP has historically respected zoning transitions
• Second‑floor pool deck open on multiple sides may result in elevated noise levels.
• Rear setback aligns more with single‑family patterns than high‑rise form.

Why This Matters

This case is not about the towers already in SOHIP— it’s about putting towers where zoning doesn't allow it.

Sample Quote

“Oak Lawn has always supported growth that respects zoning. The Herschel and The Novel followed O-2 height rules; this project asks to rewrite MF-2.”

Summary
Oak Lawn & Newton and Avondale & Throckmorton already struggle with limited visibility, narrow lanes, and fast-moving cut-through traffic. Adding the daily volume from a 266-space garage onto MF-2 streets will intensify these safety issues.
‍‍

Supporting Facts‍

• The developer proposes a 266-space garage emptying directly onto MF-2 streets not designed for tower-scale traffic, nor the service, delivery, and daily traffic load of a 240-ft tower.
• Oak Lawn & Newton and Avondale & Throckmorton are already high-risk intersections with repeated collisions and near-misses, lacking pedestrian crosswalks.
• Partially visible street-level parking is out of character for this area. In Oak Lawn, projects of this scale typically place parking fully underground. Street-level parking and limited pickup/drop-off zones risk pushing delivery vans, rideshare cars, and service vehicles onto Newton, worsening congestion on an already narrow street.

‍Why This Matters
Even small increases in daily trips can worsen already unsafe intersections. A tower of this size concentrates hundreds of cars, deliveries, ride-share trips, and service vehicles onto streets never designed for that intensity. That makes everyday movement—walking pets, crossing Newton, or driving through Avondale & Throckmorton—more dangerous for everyone.
‍‍

Sample Quote
“Our streets already struggle with traffic and safety issues—especially at Oak Lawn & Newton and Avondale & Throckmorton. Adding tower-level traffic and above-grade parking will only make these problems worse.”

Summary

SB 840 updated multifamily rules across Dallas, but it did not convert MF-2 neighborhoods into tower districts. The law preserved MF-2 as a residential scale category, and this proposal goes far beyond what SB 840 ever intended.

Supporting Facts

• ‍‍SB 840 left MF-2 essentially intact, aside from increasing the height cap to 45 ft and adjusting density—confirming that MF-2 neighborhoods were meant to remain protected low-/mid-scale areas.
• The applicant mentioned ~200 units with ~5% micro-units (~10 units) described as “affordable,” which does not trigger any height entitlement under SB 840.
• SB 840 emphasized commercial corridors and mixed-income development opportunities—this MF-2 interior block is neither.
• Allowing a 240-ft tower on an MF-2 site would contradict SB 840’s intent and create a citywide precedent for tower-scale up-zoning in residential MF-2 areas.
• The City already offers a defined path for height increases—the Mixed Income Housing Development Bonus (MIHDB)—which provides added height, FAR, and density without requiring the Oak Lawn Committee and without rewriting MF-2.

Why This Matters

SB 840 provides a clear, predictable framework for adding housing—including affordable units—without breaking neighborhood scale. Upholding MF-2 ensures the law works as intended and prevents tower zoning by exception in residential districts.

Sample Quote

“SB 840 didn’t turn MF-2 neighborhoods into tower zones. A 45-ft district shouldn’t become 240 ft by exception.”