Developers of a 15.601-acre mixed-use project asked the Rockwall City Planning and Zoning Commission to withdraw their rezoning request after commissioners questioned whether the plan’s mix of retail, office/medical and light-industrial buildings would fit the city’s vision.

Henry, a city planner, summarized the application as a planned development with two subdistricts: retail-fronting buildings along South Goliad and smaller commercial/office uses, and four masonry buildings in the rear that could contain light-industrial or service tenants. Henry said the applicant agreed to meet overlay standards at site plan and had proposed a dog park amenity and three-tier landscaping along residential adjacency.

Developer Bart Gardner told the commission the rear buildings were intended for uses such as sports and athletics studios, small medical or office tenants and “very light duty” service vehicles, and said the central courtyard was designed to accommodate any service-vehicle parking. “What we anticipate going into those buildings is gonna be…a cheerleading and gymnastics studio,” Gardner said, noting his other Metroplex developments use a similar model.

Commissioners repeatedly pressed the team for specifics on tenant types, the limits on outside storage, the amount of usable green space and how the plan would avoid a strip‑center appearance. Commissioner Brown and others said they were uneasy granting broad light-industrial rights for rear buildings without known tenants. Commissioner Brown said the mix “doesn’t really fit with our comprehensive plan” unless further detail and stronger pedestrian amenities are provided.

Commissioner Roth singled out three principal concerns in his remarks: uncertainty about tenants for the rear buildings, persistence of strip-commercial forms despite reductions, and marginal pedestrian/green-space design. Commissioners asked the applicants to return with revised plans and clarified that allowing outside storage for service vehicles can lead to overnight parking patterns that change a site’s character.

After discussion the applicant asked to withdraw the request to rework the plan with staff. The commission voted to accept the withdrawal (motion to accept withdrawal made by Commissioner Brock and seconded by Commissioner Bentley); the withdrawal passed per the record. Developers said they preferred to revise and return rather than risk a denial without prejudice.

What’s next: The applicants may work with staff on a revised concept addressing the commission’s concerns about tenant restrictions, buffering and pedestrian design and resubmit at a later deadline.