Planning commission recommends approval of gas-station convenience store at DeSoto gateway site

The DeSoto Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-1 on Sept. 23 to recommend that the City Council approve a specific use permit (SUP) allowing a convenience store with gasoline sales on about 3.45 acres at 2115 North Hampton Road.

Staff told the commission the proposal is compatible with the city’s 2024 comprehensive plan and recommended forwarding the SUP application to council. Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant about driveway access, heavy-truck circulation and which agency controls Daniel Dale Road.

Cambria Jordan, the planning and zoning manager for the City of DeSoto, told the commission the request is for a specific use permit because the general retail zoning district requires an SUP for a convenience store that sells gasoline. Jordan said the site is approximately 3.45 acres, is currently zoned general retail and is designated “destination mixed use” on the future land-use map. “This request is compatible with the comprehensive plan,” Jordan said, and “staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the DeSoto City Council.”

Jordan reviewed the site plan shown to commissioners: a one-story development with building heights at about 28 feet, 24 feet and 20 feet; access proposed from both Daniel Dale Road and North Hampton Road; a landscape plan; and a plant schedule. She said the applicant had mailed 14 property-owner notices within the 400-foot notification radius, and staff had received one letter of support from an adjacent property owner and no letters of opposition.

Vice Chair Brooks questioned the notice map and asked whether properties outside DeSoto city limits had been notified; Jordan confirmed notices were sent only to properties within DeSoto’s limits. Brooks also raised safety and circulation concerns about driveway access on Daniel Dale Road, which is currently two lanes (one lane in each direction) in the portion near the site. “There’s not enough room to make that turn into the gas station with only one lane each direction,” Brooks said, citing concern about large trucks and tight turning radii.

City attorney Lantique Wiberks advised commissioners on the standards they should use to evaluate an SUP, referencing the zoning ordinance’s specific-use regulations. Wiberks said the commission may add conditions to an ordinance if it wants to restrict access or add other requirements, but that any such changes would need to be incorporated into the ordinance that goes to council.

Commissioner discussion included clarifying which jurisdiction controls the Daniel Dale right-of-way (DeSoto and the City of Dallas share control along different segments) and whether the SUP could limit access on the Daniel Dale side until the road is widened. Staff said the portion of the roadway adjacent to the site is within DeSoto limits and that Daniel Dale is the subject of multi-jurisdictional planning, but staff also said the project currently before the commission is not contingent on Daniel Dale widening.

Herbert Gears, who identified himself at the public hearing, spoke in favor of the project’s site design and landscaping and suggested the corner could serve as a welcoming gateway into DeSoto. “I think you have a wonderful opportunity to really put a very nice, convenient store that really would represent moving into DeSoto,” Gears said. An applicant representative said the plan includes substantial landscaping and that truck circulation would be routed to keep large vehicles out of public view.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to recommend approval of zoning case Z-153-25 (several transcribed references appear as Z-153-25 and Z1539-25); the motion to forward the SUP to council “as presented” passed by a 5-1 vote. The commission’s action is a recommendation; final approval requires DeSoto City Council action.

The commission’s staff presentation and the ordinance language will be submitted to City Council for consideration. The SUP application file and the draft ordinance were referenced during the hearing but the council hearing date for this item was not specified at the commission meeting.