Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects Alta Landing zoning change after neighborhood concerns about enforcement and trust
Summary
The Kennedale City Council voted 2–3 to deny a proposed Planned Development zoning change for Alta Landing at 3100 Joplin Road after neighborhood representatives said prior city promises were unfulfilled and questioned enforcement of conditions in writing.
The Kennedale City Council on the evening reconvened and debated a proposed Planned Development (PD) zoning change for Alta Landing, a roughly 10‑acre multifamily proposal at 3100 Joplin Road. After extended questioning of neighborhood representatives and developer representatives, a motion to approve the zoning change (zoning case 2410) failed 2–3.
Jonathan Cheffron, introduced for the record as a representative of the neighborhood association, told council that "the trust is so eroded" between residents, the city and developers. Cheffron said neighbors have repeatedly raised issues — lighting, retaining walls and code enforcement — and that past city promises to address problems were not fulfilled. "We do not believe honoring this zoning change will fix the trust problem," he said, and urged the council to require fixable items to be completed before rezoning.
City Attorney Calv[in] (as addressed during the meeting) reviewed Section 9.1 of the Unified Development Code and advised the council that the proposed ordinance would meet the legal requirements of that section. Developer representatives said they would commit in writing to an ambitious timeline for the improvements and noted they had engaged third‑party consultants and equity investors to support the project.
Council members focused on enforceability. Staff outlined mechanisms the city would use — time‑limited obligations in the PD, scheduled meetings with the neighborhood homeowners association and a zoning verification letter that a future buyer would need to obtain before closing. Councilmembers asked whether penalties and follow‑up were sufficient to prevent a future owner from selling the property and failing to perform.
A motion by a councilmember to amend the Unified Development Code as described in zoning case 2410 and to rezone the property to multifamily PD was made, seconded and put to a vote; the motion failed with two votes in favor and three opposed. The council then moved on to the consent agenda.
The council did not adopt the rezoning; no alternative timetable was set during the discussion. The matter may be brought back if the applicant or staff proposes different terms or if the neighborhood and applicant reach further agreement.
