Rowlett planning commission denies rezoning for 30-townhome development near Kenwood Drive

The Rowlett Planning and Zoning Commission denied a developer’s request to rezone a roughly 4.31‑acre tract for 30 townhomes in a 6‑0 vote Tuesday, May 13.

The request, filed by Brian Boro on behalf of property owner KMS Real Retail Huntsville LP, sought to rezone the site from General Commercial (C) to a Planned Development (PD) allowing multifamily attached residential townhomes, to approve a concept plan for 30 townhomes and to amend the city’s comprehensive plan and official zoning map.

Commissioner Pollard moved to deny the rezoning request; Commissioner Hernandez seconded and the commission voted 6‑0 to deny. "I'm gonna go back to the old format, and I'm gonna make a motion to deny the request," Commissioner Pollard said before making the motion.

Commissioners and public speakers focused on traffic, site design and land‑use compatibility. Commissioner Pollard questioned the applicant's trip‑generation assumptions after staff presented a traffic estimate that indicated about 31 units would generate 17 vehicle trips during the weekday morning peak. "I just— that's unconceivable to me," Pollard said while questioning how the model accounted for vehicles entering and exiting during peak hours.

Commissioner Hernandez and others said the proposal would convert commercially zoned land that currently serves nearby businesses to residential use. "They're in a commercial zone, not a residential zone area," Hernandez said, arguing the city should retain commercial zoning for that parcel while nearby commercial parcels remain under review.

Residents who spoke during the public hearing said they were concerned about traffic congestion and safety. Jeff Burrows, a Cypress Drive resident, said he was "fearful of traffic" increasing near a park and that existing bottlenecks at nearby intersections would worsen if the project were built.

Commissioners also cited outstanding site issues raised by staff: noncompliant primary entrance dimensions, landscaping shortfalls and flood‑way constraints near the proposed northern entry. The applicant acknowledged narrow access and site constraints related to a floodway but said they had been working with staff and the fire marshal on adjustments.

Commissioners emphasized procedural sequencing with a nearby proposed drone‑delivery hub; staff noted neither application had final approval and that whichever item clears council first would determine potential conflicts. "If the drone delivery gets approved first ... it would make the Zipline nonconforming," staff said during the discussion.

With the denial, the applicant must either revise the proposal and refile or pursue other avenues; no new direction to staff or conditions were voted. The commission record shows a 6‑0 vote to deny and the item will not move to city council as recommended approval.