Hampton Road character-code rezoning remanded to Planning and Zoning after PD owners raise concerns

Interim Director of Development Services Jacqueline Colton told the Planning and Zoning Commission that City Council remanded zoning case Z1514-24, the Hampton Road character-code rezoning, back to the commission for further consideration after owners of some planned developments (PDs) raised concerns they could lose existing deviations.

Colton said the staff and the former director reviewed options for the council, including (1) rezoning the entire reduced boundary as the commission originally recommended, including all PDs; (2) excluding all four PDs from the rezoning boundary; or (3) excluding some PDs, notably PD 170. Colton said staff provided information about existing deviations in the four PDs to the commission.

Commissioners discussed which PDs to exclude, outreach to property owners and the meaning of existing legal deviations. Colton and staff clarified that the PD parcels would be treated as legal nonconforming uses under the new character code and that nonconforming status would remain unless the use changes or another code trigger applies. Colton also said owners had been notified before the earlier meeting and that some PD owners subsequently contacted staff to ask for exclusion.

Commissioners identified the four PDs within the reduced boundary as PD 170 (identified in the discussion as DeSoto Marketplace, owner Monty Anderson), PD 58 (an insurance company and a Whataburger site), PD 42 and PD 73. Colton and Jordan Williams said staff had received letters or in-person contact from the owners of PD 58 and PD 170 expressing opposition; staff received no responses from the owners of PD 42 and PD 73.

Commissioner Dewberry and others pressed staff on the practical effect of inclusion: staff confirmed PDs would remain legal nonconforming uses and would have to comply with the character code only if and when they undertake actions that remove or alter the nonconforming status (for example, a sale that seeks new deviations or significant reconstruction). Several commissioners said they were concerned about creating a visual gap if some frontage parcels were excluded while others remained in the character code.

Colton said the matter is not an action item that night; staff sought guidance and said the next step was to prepare the public hearing. Commissioners signaled by voice that they preferred option 1 — leaving all PDs within the rezoning boundary — and staff scheduled the Planning and Zoning public hearing for the rezoning to be advertised for the commission’s June meeting. The chair and staff emphasized that a formal vote will occur at the advertised public hearing and that the council previously declined to adopt the commission recommendation without remanding the case for further consideration.

Council member Marx, the council liaison, told the commission the remand to P&Z arose after PD 170’s owner expressed concern about losing deviations and said the commission may need to do more outreach and education for some PD owners about how the character code affects deviations and legal nonconforming status.