Commission approves rezoning for Row Loop cottage‑court plan despite one dissent

The Pflugerville Planning and Zoning Commission on an evening vote approved rezoning about 5 acres on Row Loop from Agricultural Development Reserve to Single‑Family Mixed Use, a zoning category the applicant said is the minimum needed to build a proposed cottage‑court project when combined with an adjacent parcel.

Staff told the commission the request was consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan and recommended approval. "Staff has found that this request is consistent with the comprehensive plan and recommends approval of the rezoning from agricultural development reserve to single family mixed use," said Kristen, a city planning staff member.

The rezoning drew questions from neighbors and commissioners about whether the SFMU district could open the door to small commercial uses, and about how deep into the subdivision such uses should be allowed. Sam Fedwick, identifying himself as a representative of Rolane Development and the project’s developer, described the plan and why SFMU was chosen: "Our hope is to combine 2125 Row Loop with 1741 Row Loop ... to develop a 10‑acre, 49‑unit, single family, cottage court project." Fedwick said the team intends alley‑access garages, a 2.3‑acre courtyard and substantial landscaping to encourage walkability and neighborhood interaction.

A resident who said she met with the developer, Beverly Darlek of 1948 Row Loop, said she trusts the developer’s quality but was surprised by the SFMU label. "The multiuse kind of makes me a little concerned that if you change it to multi use then the options are way different than this beautiful, what is presented," Darlek said.

Commission discussion focused on the distinction between SFMU and SFR zoning. Staff and commissioners explained that many commercial or retail uses listed in the SFMU category would be permitted with conditions and, because the parcel is not at the intersection of two collector‑level streets, those conditional uses would not meet the location requirements and therefore would not be allowed without a separate review. One commissioner noted that a previous SFMU request had been denied by the commission and later approved by the City Council, stressing the commission’s limited role and the possibility of council action.

Sam Fedwick and staff also said the proposed cottage‑court layout likely could not be achieved under the SFR (Single‑Family Residential) district because of development‑regulation differences such as minimum lot sizes and impervious‑cover rules. "Our understanding was ... that SF MU was kind of the ... least ... that would allow us to achieve the cottage court plan," Fedwick said.

After discussion the commission voted to approve the rezoning. The motion passed with one opposing vote.

The developer and staff said the rezoning acts as zoning entitlement only; any specific commercial uses or site details would be handled later through required permits and, where applicable, a specific use permit or site‑plan review. The commission and staff also urged clearer code language and outreach to make the conditions for conditional commercial uses easier to understand in future cases.