Forney planning commission denies rezoning request for 44-unit Park Creek townhome project

The Forney Planning and Zoning Commission on an undisclosed vote denied a rezoning request to amend Plan Development District Ordinance 10 72 to allow up to 44 single-family attached townhomes on about 9.308 acres east of Coffin Street and Park Creek Avenue.

The request, presented by Dan Hatten of Ashlar Development, proposed townhomes with a maximum height of 40 feet (three stories), minimum front yard of 20 feet, side-yard minimum of 15 feet where lots abut a side street, rear-yard minimums of 15 feet adjacent to Park Creek Estates and 10 feet elsewhere, a minimum lot area of 2,000 square feet (with most lots proposed at 2,500 square feet), minimum lot depth of 80 feet (typically 100 feet), minimum lot width of 25 feet, a minimum dwelling size of 1,200 square feet and a maximum lot coverage of 70 percent. The plan included two enclosed parking spaces per unit (front-entry garages) and an estimated 25–30 additional guest parking spaces around the perimeter of the development.

Why it matters: Neighbors said the development would increase traffic and safety risks on already narrow, aging streets in one of the city’s older neighborhoods, and questioned whether local infrastructure and drainage can handle higher density housing. Commissioners cited those concerns when they moved to deny the rezoning.

Hatten, the applicant representative, told the commission his company is a small Dallas-based developer and said the proposal is consistent with Forney’s 2023 comprehensive plan designation for the parcel as “dynamic residential,” which lists townhomes among intended uses. He said the developer revised earlier plans to reduce density, increase lot widths to about 25 feet and increase minimum lot sizes; he estimated development fees of $350,000–$400,000 and recurring annual property tax revenue of about $55,000–$60,000 (estimates subject to change).

Several residents who live adjacent to the site in Park Creek Estates and nearby blocks spoke in opposition during the public hearing. Janelle Miller of 710 Park Creek Avenue said drivers ‘‘fly down through there. They they drive 60 miles an hour down the service road,’’ and asked whether an entrance from Mesquite Street or direct access from U.S. 80 had been considered. David Shannon of 703 Park Creek said the neighborhood already sees high speeds and predicted construction and post‑occupancy traffic would worsen safety risks for children. Wanda Banning of 715 Central and William Richards of 709 Park Creek raised similar concerns about traffic, street damage from construction vehicles and the mismatch between three‑story townhomes and adjacent single‑story homes.

Rhonda Mills, who said she lives ‘‘directly next to the proposed development,’’ told the commission, ‘‘I am here to speak in firm opposition to this rezoning request,’’ and raised infrastructure, drainage and road‑condition concerns. Several speakers said they were worried about floodplain risks and asked whether buyers would be informed that the parcel is in a floodplain.

Staff summarized the proposed development standards and noted the plan includes a 6‑foot masonry wall along Kaufman Street and 6‑foot wood privacy fences at rear lot lines. Staff also reported that of eight written/phone responses received from adjacent property owners earlier the same day, one was in favor and seven opposed; the oppositions most commonly raised crime and traffic as concerns. Staff said alleys were not proposed and recommended that, if approved, the commission could state alleys be prohibited.

Commissioners asked about guest parking, traffic assumptions in the applicant’s study and whether alternate access points (including an emergency‑only connection) had been considered. Hatten said the traffic figures were based on national averages comparing attached versus detached single‑family units and that an emergency access on Park Creek to the north received an unfavorable response from emergency services. He described measures such as HOA maintenance and perimeter guest parking intended to reduce negative impacts.

After the public hearing and commissioner questions, a motion to deny the rezoning passed. The meeting record includes the chair calling for ‘‘ayes’’ and an expression of ‘‘no’’ from the opposing side; no roll‑call tally with member names appears in the transcript.

The denial means the property will remain under its existing zoning, which allows single‑family detached development. The developer or property owner may return with a revised plan or pursue development consistent with the current zoning.

Details omitted or not specified in the public record include the exact vote tally by named commissioners, any written traffic study submitted to the city (staff referenced a national‑average comparison but did not submit a site‑specific traffic memorandum into the transcript), and whether buyer disclosures for floodplain risk would be required as part of any future platting or sales process.

The commission moved on after the vote to a series of plat and site‑plan items.