Council rejects rezoning for 30 townhomes near Kenwood Drive after split votes

A proposal to rezone roughly 4.31 acres near Kenwood Drive to allow 30 townhomes was denied after the Rowlett City Council failed to reach the supermajority required for a zoning change that departs from the comprehensive plan.

The applicant, represented by Brian Boro of Quest Development Services, sought a plan‑development district to build 30 individually platted townhomes on a site that currently is zoned general commercial (C2). Planner Britney Musser said the property’s future‑land‑use designation did not match the requested multifamily change, which required a comp‑plan amendment before rezoning.

Musser said the site is approximately 4.31 acres; the conceptual plan showed a private street, two parking spaces per unit, and a proposed amenity area. The plan used floodplain edge and drainage easements to provide open space, she said, and included requested deviations from typical entryway landscaping and alley‑access standards. At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, commissioners unanimously recommended denial.

At council, developers argued the property’s constrained frontage on Kenwood and the drainage channel limited commercial options; they presented renderings and traffic estimates that, they said, showed lower trip generation for 30 townhomes than a large retail development. Neighbors raised concerns about privacy, noise and building height and asked the council to keep the area residential‑adjacent rather than add three‑story units facing existing backyards.

Council debated several motions. An initial motion to deny the rezoning failed 3–4. Councilmember David Reeves then moved to approve the rezoning, concept plan, landscaping and development standards with one amendment: limit the northernmost row of townhomes (the units nearest existing residences) to two stories while allowing the remainder to be built to the base zoning height. That motion required a supermajority (six affirmative votes of seven councilmembers) because the change departed from the future land‑use map; the motion failed 4–3, leaving the application without the required six‑vote approval and effectively denying the rezoning.

The proposal raised recurrent issues for the council: balancing neighborhood compatibility with the highest‑and‑best‑use of constrained infill parcels, floodplain and drainage coordination, and landscaping/entryway standards. Staff told the council that if the applicant were to pursue approval again, the developer would need to address landscaping the Kenwood frontage, provide the minimum groundcover, and coordinate floodplain/permitting steps with engineering and FEMA requirements.

Because the rezoning did not receive the supermajority required to change the comprehensive plan/future‑land‑use designation, the application will not move forward in its current form.