A City of Lewisville public hearing on May 19 was continued to the June 2 council meeting after residents from the Reserve neighborhood and city officials pressed the developer and staff for more details about a concept‑plan amendment in the Castle Hills realm.

The hearing centered on a proposed amendment to an existing planned‑development concept plan that would replace an illustrated multi‑pad retail concept for about 3.459 acres south of the Essex Boulevard–Parker Road (FM 544) intersection with a single mixed‑use building footprint and revised site circulation. City Manager Powell said staff’s recommendation changed during the meeting: "My recommendation would actually I'm now recommending that we continue the public hearing to the June 2 city council meeting." The motion to continue passed 6‑0.

Why it matters: Neighbors said the proposal — which residents say was previously shown as multiple small retail pads — would place a multi‑story structure near existing single‑family yards, raising concerns about privacy, traffic, drainage and soil stability. Staff and the applicant said the request as presented is limited to a major modification of the concept plan (site circulation and building footprints) and not a rezoning; the project remains in the GB‑2 base district and continues to be governed by the PD (planned development) standards adopted at annexation.

Staff and applicant said several technical points need further checking before council acts. Planning Director Richard Lukey summarized the application and the governing rules for the realm, noting that the PD requires a concept plan and distinguishes between minor and major modifications. He told council that a warrant study for a traffic signal at Parker Road has been submitted by the developer but that the full traffic‑impact analysis (TIA) for the broader Castle Hills area remains under preparation and is not yet complete. Developer representative Marissa Brewer said the applicant has identified the signal need and that the developer has agreed to install the signal: "The applicant has agreed to bear the cost of that traffic signal," Lukey confirmed when asked how that obligation would be enforced.

Residents pressed other technical and neighborhood concerns. Several speakers described prior soil failures and slope collapses near the site and asked whether the ground is suitable for a tall building. Resident Thomas Roche, who said he lived about 400 feet from the proposed footprint, summarized past slope failures and urged the council to reject a tall structure on unstable soil: "Given this history of failures, the idea of a 5‑story building on this soil should be out of the question." Other residents described having had no direct mailed notice and said they learned about the proposal only when a sign was put up on Parker Road. Multiple speakers from the Reserve neighborhood registered written opposition on the record.

Lukey and staff explained the notification method required under the PD: major modifications require two public hearings and mailed notices to property owners within the applicable subarea and a 200‑foot buffer around it; for this southern subarea staff said about 600 notices were mailed to addresses identified in the municipal parcel map, and the reserve HOA was also sent a notice. City Manager Powell and Lukey told council they would tighten notice language and confirm the HOA mailing address after the meeting at residents’ request.

Other technical clarifications included: the site contains an 80‑to‑120‑foot electric‑utility easement that constrains building placement; the proposed amendment shows a single roughly 14,000‑square‑foot building footprint moved closer to Parker Road; permitted uses and most dimensional standards (setbacks, height caveats) remain governed by the GB‑2 base district and the PD; and any developer commitments (for example, to pay for a signal) would be attached to the ordinance and enforced during engineering/site‑plan review.

Council discussion and next steps: City Manager Powell and Lukey said staff needs time to review the developer’s submitted warrant study and to tighten the proposed ordinance language — including the mechanism to ensure the developer is financially responsible for the traffic signal — before council acts. Council voted to continue the public hearing to June 2 so staff can review the traffic materials, refine exhibit language and allow the applicant an opportunity to meet directly with impacted residents.

What remains unresolved: the applicant’s final proposed uses and building height are not before council under this concept‑plan amendment (those fall under the base GB‑2 rules and PD when applicable), the full Castle Hills TIA remains under preparation, and neighbors continue to seek more direct outreach from the developer and clearer enforceable commitments in the ordinance.

The council’s action ends with a procedural continuation; no approvals were granted on May 19.