Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves zoning change Z2025-008 for retail use on a portion of former agricultural tract
Summary
Rockwall City Council approved Z2025-008, changing a parcel from agricultural zoning to neighborhood services (general retail), after staff explained the item was on the action agenda because it previously failed to get unanimous council support; the vote passed despite concerns about floodplain on the property.
The Rockwall City Council voted April 7 to approve Z2025-008, an ordinance changing zoning on a parcel from agricultural to a neighborhood services district (general retail uses). The motion passed after discussion and a roll call vote.
City staff described Z2025-008 as a request by Saddle Star Land Development on behalf of Betty Thompson for a zoning change to allow general retail uses on the subject property. Staff told council the item was placed on the action agenda because it had not previously received a unanimous council vote; no specific development plan was presented at this meeting.
Pat Atkins, representing the applicant, told the council the rezoning would provide a starting zoning category to market the property to retail prospects. Council members asked whether any specific plans were pending; Atkins said there were not and that the rezoning is intended to assist in marketing.
Council discussion noted that much of the property lies within floodplain. As one councilmember stated, "Yes, sir. The very, very little is high and dry. At the corner, it's got a flood plain that traverses the property from the south west corner to the northeast corner." That condition figured in councillors' considerations.
Councilmember Lewis moved to approve Z2025-008; Councilmember Mueller seconded. The ordinance language was read into the record by staff. The recorded tally noted four votes in favor, two against and one absent; the motion passed as recorded.
The ordinance as described includes standard UDC amendment language and references to exhibits that legally describe the tract, and provides for penalties not to exceed $2,000 per offense. The record does not include a specific development plan, engineering approvals, or conditions beyond the zoning change itself.
Council members indicated their votes reflected the absence of a concrete plan rather than support for a particular future use. The item will take effect on the date set in the ordinance and any future development will be subject to applicable site-specific permitting and floodplain regulations.
