Historic board tables Rockwall Community Playhouse rezoning, demolition and new construction plan after residents raise concerns

The Rockwall Historic Preservation Advisory Board on Tuesday voted to table a request from the Rockwall Community Playhouse that would rezone a cluster of lots in the Old Town Rockwall Historic District, allow demolition of two medium-contributing structures and permit construction of a new performance center and separate practice hall.

The item, filed as case H2025-013 by Jonathan Brown, AIA of JHP Architecture and Urban Design on behalf of the playhouse, asked the board to approve three linked actions: (1) a planned development (PD) zoning that retains Single-Family 7 underlying zoning while adding "community theater" as a permitted use; (2) demolition of two medium-contributing structures and (3) construction of a new theater building with a separate practice hall on a roughly 1.0061-acre tract that includes multiple lots in the B.F. Boydston Addition.

Jonathan Brown, the project architect, said the playhouse began in 1995 and currently operates an roughly 80-seat facility at the site. Brown described a design strategy intended to "feel like a collection of buildings on a site, a campus of buildings," using gables, lap and board-and-batten siding, brick and standing-seam metal roofing. Brown said the new main theater would include a higher central volume but that the design avoids full fly-space for stage rigging because of height constraints: "To do a true fly space for a performance hall like this, it's massive ... 80 feet ... it's just an untenable amount of height," he said, adding the project would use projected backdrops rather than full fly rigs.

Staff said the proposed theater building would reach a maximum height of about 55 feet (midpoint c.44 feet noted) and the practice building about 29.5 feet (midpoint c.24 feet). The site plan places parking mostly behind the theater; staff noted the applicant requests some setback reductions and a wood fence with screening in lieu of a masonry wall. Notices were mailed to 34 owners and occupants within 200 feet on June 4, 2025; the staff memo recorded one written opposition received after the memo was published.

Several neighbors who live immediately adjacent to the playhouse urged the board to deny rezoning or to require a different design. Christy Gates of 104 North Clark Street said she supports the playhouse but fears the proposed project will lead to additional commercial encroachment in the single-family neighborhood: "100% don't want any residential property to be turned into commercial," Gates said, citing long-term preservation of nearby houses built in the early 1900s. Robert McDonald of 206 North Clark Street and Greg Smith of 610 East Rusk Street expressed similar concerns about traffic congestion, parking overflow and the scale of the new building.

Residents questioned parking capacity relative to seating. The applicant said the proposed site plan provides about 52 on‑site spaces (staff cited a base-code requirement of one space per three seats, which would require 54 spaces for a 160-seat design). Brown and staff said uses are often scheduled to avoid simultaneous peak demand between the theater and practice hall and that the plan also adds sidewalks on Kaufman and Rusk streets.

On financing and schedule, Brown said two contractors provided cost estimates in the $5 million to $6 million range and that the playhouse expects to begin construction in January if approvals are obtained, with a buildout of about 10 months.

Board members repeatedly flagged two issues: (1) the rezoning component, which would make the community-theater use permitted in a district currently zoned Single-Family 7 and (2) whether the architecture and scale are compatible with the historic overlay and surrounding single-family homes. Staff clarified that the existing playhouse is a legally nonconforming use that can continue to operate, but that new construction would require rezoning to conform; the staff memo also explained that a COA for demolition can only be postponed for up to 60 days under the UDC, after which demolition could proceed if the owner chooses.

After extended public comment and discussion, a board member moved to table the item to the next monthly meeting to allow the applicant to return with additional options addressing scale, height and the zoning concerns. The motion to table carried. Staff and the applicant agreed to present revised materials at the July 17 meeting.