Rowlett panel approves reduced secondary landscaping for Big A Road subdivision

The Rowlett Planning and Zoning Commission on Nov. 11 recommended approval of an alternative landscape plan for development application 25‑000145 at 4401 Big A Road, voting 7‑0 to forward the project to city council.

Planning manager Jalen Porche summarized staff’s recommendation, saying the applicant seeks a reduction in secondary entry landscaping from 6,400 square feet to 3,884 square feet because an existing masonry wall in the public right‑of‑way and a required 6‑foot retaining wall make the buffer difficult to access and maintain. “The applicant is requesting to allow a reduction in the secondary entry rate requirements from 6,400 square feet to 3,884 square feet as a result of an existing masonry wall and a required 6‑foot retaining wall,” Porche said.

The property, a roughly 17.053‑acre parcel planned for 35 single‑family lots, is under construction, and the applicant’s final plat and civil plans were approved conditionally, Porche said. He also told commissioners staff had received no notices in favor, neutral or in opposition within the 200‑foot notice area as of the staff cutoff and none in the 500‑foot courtesy area.

Christopher Orr, representing the owner, said civil engineering requirements uncovered the need for a retaining wall that, together with the masonry wall owned by a nearby Target, would fully screen the planting area from view and make maintenance impractical. “That retaining wall is somebody’s backyard…you’ll have landscaping tracked between Target’s wall and somebody’s backyard. So nobody will see it. It’ll be difficult to get back there,” Orr said.

During discussion, Commissioner Pollard questioned whether the situation was “self‑created,” noting the masonry wall predated the applicant’s work and that the project’s evolution — including new engineering requirements — had changed site conditions. The city attorney advised the commission that all four statutory criteria for an alternative landscape plan under the Rowlett Development Code must be met for approval.

Commissioner White moved to adopt findings that the property’s characteristics are not self‑created, that the alternative plan meets the code’s minimums, and that approval would increase consistency and compatibility with nearby development; the motion carried 7‑0.

The commission’s recommendation advances the application to the City Council for final action.