Planning commission rejects city-imposed mixed-use planned development for I‑20 corridor after debate

The Terrell Planning and Zoning Commission voted against a city-imposed zone change (Ordinance No. 31‑54, PD 25‑3154) on Oct. 23, 2025, after extended discussion about preemptive rezoning, developer expectations and control of future land-use decisions. The motion failed by a 3–4 count.

Staff planner Raelyn presented a proposed PD overlay covering several large parcels near Interstate 20 (including land commonly referenced as the Baylor property and parcels adjacent to Buc-ee’s). The draft PD would convert existing commercial and agricultural zoning to a Planned Development — mixed use covering approximately 390.07 acres (Kaufman County CAD property IDs listed in the packet). Key elements described by staff included permitted nonresidential uses, a cap of 900 multifamily units across the entire PD, minimum phase sizes (10 acres), master-signage and buffering standards between nonresidential and residential uses, and a mechanism for minor percentage adjustments (up to 20%) with major amendments returning to council.

Raelyn said the overlay was intended to give developers clear expectations and to reduce the number of ad-hoc, disparate rezoning requests across both sides of I‑20. "We wanted to be able to make sure that we had maximums on the unit numbers," she said, and staff emphasized the PD was intended as guidance tied to the future land-use map and thoroughfare plan rather than a final development plan.

Public testimony included Robert Nicklaus (attorney) who said he represents purchasers of part of the property and commended staff for working toward a plan that fits the future land-use map. Opposing testimony again came from nearby property owner Marshall Johnson, who said the rezoning would bring more litter and traffic near his wetlands and ponds and that he opposed additional development.

Commissioners asked whether the city was rezoning in advance of specific buyers and whether property owners had been consulted. Staff said property owners and potential buyers had been contacted and that several groups were in varying stages of due diligence; staff also said doing a PD overlay was a proactive measure to set expectations for large parcels that could otherwise be sold in smaller pieces.

Several commissioners expressed concern about pre-approving standards and limits before developers present specific plans, and about the practical effect of a city-imposed PD on private sale negotiations. Commissioners and public speakers debated whether the PD would advantage certain buyers or lock in ceilings that could later be challenged. Staff noted the PD would not prevent developers from seeking higher densities — any developer could still apply for a zone change — but that the overlay was intended to reduce uncertainty and expedite projects that conform to the standards.

After discussion and public testimony, a motion to approve PD25‑3154 (Ordinance 31‑54) failed, recorded in the meeting as three in favor and four opposed. Commissioners noted that stakeholders and staff would continue outreach and that developers could still submit project-specific proposals to Planning & Zoning and City Council in the future.