Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies rezoning request for 2901 W. Warrior Trail without prejudice after neighbor concerns
Summary
Council denied a proposal to reclassify a 7.5-acre site at 2901 West Warrior Trail from office/warehouse to light industrial, voting 8-0 to deny without prejudice and inviting the applicant to return with a plan focused on retail uses or a PD that specifies permitted uses.
The Grand Prairie City Council voted 8-0 to deny without prejudice a requested comprehensive-plan amendment and rezoning for property at 2901 West Warrior Trail.
Staff told council the applicant sought to change the future land use designation from commercial/retail/office to light industrial and to rezone the roughly 7.5-acre parcel from Planned Development (PD) that limits uses to office and warehouse to a straight Light Industrial district. Planning and Zoning had recommended denial by a 7-0 vote; the applicant appealed to council.
Attorney Walter Nelson, representing the owner, said the property has been in the same ownership for more than 30 years and that the existing PD (PD 58) is restrictive, limiting commercial uses to office and warehouse and not allowing retail. Nelson said the site is not deep enough to support large semi-truck courts and that the owner's intent is to allow small-scale light industrial/warehouse and to add the possibility of retail components for e-commerce or small business operations.
Neighbors and one resident speaker said the area already has numerous warehousing and industrial uses and expressed concern that a light-industrial designation would further change the neighborhood character near schools.
The council discussed whether the applicant could instead return with a site-specific PD or a rezoning that would explicitly allow retail and exclude heavy truck uses. Several council members and staff said a PD that specifies uses would be a more narrowly tailored approach and recommended that, if council denied the current application, it do so without prejudice to allow the applicant to reapply.
Council Member Hedden moved to deny the comprehensive-plan amendment and rezoning without prejudice to allow the applicant to return with a revised application (for example, a PD specifying retail/limited industrial uses). The motion passed unanimously.
Attorney Angelo Chalkas and project representatives told council that prospective users would likely seek special-use permits (SUPs) and that the applicant is willing to include conditions limiting truck traffic. Staff noted that the future-land-use map would need to match the rezoning if council adopted a new zoning district; changing only the zoning in the current application would require a corresponding future-land-use change.
By denying without prejudice, the council left the door open for a revised application with more restrictive and clearly described uses.
