Council approves Bullet Multi Sports Complex phase with landscaping warrants, after debate over gravel and screening

Rowlett City Council unanimously approved a development plan and related warrants Tuesday for the second phase of the Bullet Multi Sports Complex, a multi-sport facility proposed for 8700 Princeton Road, after staff and the applicant debated landscaping near synthetic turf fields and alternatives to required street trees.

The project — a phase of a larger master plan that includes turf athletic fields, a warm-up area adjacent to a neighboring church and a proposed 76-space parking lot — seeks three deviations from the 2024 regulating plan and the city’s form-based urban-village code covering perimeter landscaping, interior parking landscaping and plant materials.

City planning staff presented the proposal and noted the applicant is requesting omission of trees and certain ground cover near the turf fields because of maintenance and root concerns; the application proposes shrubs and native washed gravel in place of the regulating-plan requirement for crape myrtles and evergreen ground cover. Staff said the form-based code prohibits gravel and requires an evergreen ground cover, and that the proposed shrubs might not fully screen an eight-foot chain-link fence at the time of planting because of spacing and maturation concerns.

The applicant told council the chosen gravel would be heavier, not light aggregate, and would be contained by edging where necessary to prevent washout. Council members asked for more specificity about the type and size of the “native washed gravel” — for example, decomposed granite or a larger aggregate that compacts — and whether edging or containment would be provided to keep material off sidewalks and into the street. The applicant said the design would aim to contain the gravel and that heavier material was intended to avoid erosion.

The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the request on July 22. For the three warrants, the commission: recommended approval for the interior-parking-landscaping warrant unanimously; recommended approval for the plant-material warrant by a 3–2 vote; and did not recommend approval of the perimeter-landscaping warrant (the motion to approve that particular warrant failed at P&Z). Staff recommended approval of the warrants, noting that the requested deviations meet the general intent of the form‑based code and would allow the athletic fields and ancillary facilities to be constructed in a manner consistent with the urban‑neighborhood district.

No members of the public spoke during the council’s public hearing on the item. Councilmember Shoop moved to accept the plan and warrants "as presented;" Councilmember Reeves seconded the motion. After additional council discussion and comments directed at balancing maintenance concerns with streetscape objectives, the council voted unanimously to approve the development plan and the requested warrants.

Council discussion preserved the record that if the council approves the warrants, any specific material substitutions that the city will permit should be reflected in the final site plan or in conditions attached to the council’s approval, and several members asked staff to return with tighter specifications or conditions where necessary to prevent erosion or other maintenance issues.