Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Merritt Crossing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission rejects Merritt Crossing regulating plan and comp‑plan amendment after heated public comment
Summary
Rowlett commissioners voted unanimously to block a proposal for 185 townhomes (Merritt Crossing) that would have amended the North Shore land‑use designation from employment center to medium‑density residential; opponents cited loss of employment‑center vision and rush‑hour traffic impacts.
The Rowlett Planning and Zoning Commission declined to recommend approval of the Merritt Crossing regulating plan and a companion comprehensive‑plan amendment on Oct. 28, rejecting a proposal by Bridgetower Homes to reclassify about 23.7 acres at 8500 Merritt Road from employment center to medium‑density residential and approve a regulating plan for 185 townhome units.
Planning staff presented the project and said the townhome‑2 product is allowed in the existing form‑based commercial center zoning but that the applicant sought the regulating plan and a minor access warrant to connect to Merritt Road. Shaivali Desai, director of entitlement for Bridgetower Homes, described the design and said the project would provide 185 attached units, meet form‑based code standards and add pedestrian and landscaping improvements.
Public comment was strongly mixed. Carol Hooks, an adjacent property owner, said the proposal would give three affected families a chance to move forward on long‑held parcels. Many other residents urged the commission to uphold the North Shore employment‑center vision and warned of traffic and parking impacts. “Build‑to‑rent communities make it more difficult for people to become homeowners,” resident Allison Felderhof told the commission, citing past complaints about similar rental projects in other cities.
Commissioners debated tradeoffs between the city’s comprehensive‑plan goals and the practicalities of a small site already surrounded by residential uses. After discussion, the motion to recommend approval failed on a show‑of‑hands vote (0–7), so the commission did not forward a recommendation supporting the regulating plan or the comprehensive‑plan amendment.
Because the commission did not recommend approval, the developer can revise the proposal, seek council consideration without commission support, or withdraw the application; any future resubmittal would return to the commission for further review.
