Council fails to approve planned-unit development at 5011 Cunningham after residents press flooding and access concerns

KILLEEN, Texas — The Killeen City Council on Tuesday declined to approve a planned-unit development (PUD) that would have rezoned about 22.91 acres at 5011 Cunningham Road for build-to-rent townhomes and single-family units after an extended public hearing and debate.

Staff recommended approval, arguing the PUD would add housing diversity and include open space, walking trails and perimeter screening. Planning staff noted the proposal offered a pattern of development that could provide “missing middle” housing within the city’s future land-use guidance. The Planning and Zoning Commission, however, recommended disapproval earlier in the year.

At the council meeting, the applicant’s engineer, representing the developer, offered three conditions the team said they would accept: (1) that post-development stormwater peak flows be no greater than pre-development flows for the 100-year storm (in addition to the city’s 25-year standard); (2) that Love Spur be improved to an emergency-apparatus access standard and its roadside ditches be upgraded to control runoff; and (3) that any gated emergency access to Love Spur be located and designed so it does not impede current residents’ access or pedestrian safety. The engineer said the developer would also provide private streets, increased landscaping along Cunningham and detention ponds to manage runoff.

Dozens of nearby residents opposed the rezoning during public comment. Speakers described repeated local flooding, questioned whether the proposed detention would reduce downstream impacts, and expressed concern about pedestrian and vehicle safety on Love Spur. Several raised constitutional and property-right concerns, and some asked whether sewer and drainage connections were finalized. Staff answered that sanitary sewer and water are available at Cunningham and that the developer must demonstrate — in engineering plans stamped by a licensed civil engineer — that post-development flows will not increase runoff to adjacent properties.

Council discussion focused on two themes: the technical question of whether the proposed detention and design could be guaranteed to prevent additional downstream flooding; and the broader land-use question of whether higher-density development is appropriate where most existing lots are large, single-family parcels. Council members also discussed the legal limits of conditions that can be imposed on rezoning approvals.

A motion to approve the PUD with the engineer’s three proposed conditions failed to reach the required three-quarter majority for a PUD; the motion did not win the six votes necessary under the city code and therefore failed. The developer may return with changes or pursue a different zoning path.

Councilmembers asked staff to ensure the developer supply stamped engineering plans showing detention sizing and to keep neighbors informed of any new submissions or revised designs.