Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Haslet board debates future land‑use near new parkway as staff urges measured approach to attract restaurants and retail
Summary
Haslet planning staff reviewed master land‑use options and concept schematics showing commercial, mixed‑use and industrial scenarios for tracts near I‑35 and the proposed Haslet Parkway. Board members pressed on zoning, annexation limits and what the city can do to attract retailers and restaurants.
Haslet HCDC Type B board members spent the bulk of their March 26 meeting reviewing the city’s adopted master land‑use map and optional concept plans for large undeveloped tracts north of Haslet Parkway and adjacent to I‑35.
Mr. Swanky, who presented the land‑use materials, said the maps are intended as ideas rather than fixed plans and noted technical layers the board should consider, including floodplain boundaries and engineering constraints. “If McDonald’s locates there, it’ll trigger more things,” Mr. Swanky said, arguing that the first major commercial anchor can catalyze additional retail and services.
The discussion centered on tradeoffs between preserving industrial acreage and encouraging commercial uses that generate sales tax. Staff explained that much of the area remains zoned agricultural or industrial and that changing zoning can require formal applications or city‑initiated rezoning. The presentation cited Texas local government code sections that govern master plans and zoning, and staff recommended aligning zoning and the future land‑use map to avoid legal challenges.
Board members asked how to influence the market for restaurants and retail along the new Haslet Parkway and whether the city could rezone properties to encourage those uses. Staff cautioned that rezoning industrial land to commercial without a clear public process could expose the city to lawsuits and noted the practical constraints of market demand, “rooftops,” and roadway access.
Several participants urged a pragmatic approach: pursue targeted development agreements and incentives where appropriate, coordinate with major landowners (several large tracts are owned by regional developers), and use catalytic projects—such as a proposed medical campus—to attract complementary retail. The board agreed to keep refining the land‑use layers and to return with additional detail next month.
The board carried related action items—principally further study and public outreach—forward to another meeting rather than taking immediate land‑use votes.
