Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves rezoning for 444 East Kennedale Parkway despite staff, planning commission recommendations
Summary
The Kennedale City Council voted 4–0 to rezone 444 East Kennedale Parkway from OT4 (Oldtown designation) to C2 (General Commercial) after a public hearing in which staff noted the request conflicts with the adopted future land use plan and the property owner urged approval to refurbish and expand his business.
After a public hearing and council discussion on March 17, the Kennedale City Council approved Ordinance 797 to rezone 444 East Kennedale Parkway from OT4 to C2, voting unanimously 4–0.
Staff presentation explained the technical basis for recommending denial: the property is located inside an area designated for transit‑oriented development in the city’s future land use plan, and staff said no specific zoning district for transit‑oriented uses has yet been adopted. Planning & Zoning Commission had unanimously recommended denial for the same technical conformance reason.
Property owner Reed Herdman, who said he has owned and operated the business at the site since 2001, told council that the plan is to clean up the frontage, add an enclosed shop for storage and operations, and improve the site’s appearance. Herdman said the proposed improvements would replace visible outdoor materials and add a privacy fence and façade updates to make the corridor more attractive rather than detract from long‑term plans.
Council deliberations turned on whether to prioritize strict adherence to the future land use map or to approve a site‑level change that would update and improve a long‑standing, nonconforming business. Planning staff noted prior approvals nearby (a 2023 special exception for a plastics facility that has not yet been constructed) but emphasized that the requested zoning does not match the land use category in the comprehensive plan.
Councilmember comments reflected that split: one member urged following the future land use map to preserve long‑term goals for transit‑oriented development; another said that improving a visibly deteriorated property and making it conforming would benefit the corridor. After discussion council made and seconded a motion to adopt Ordinance 797; the motion passed unanimously.
What happens next: the rezoning ordinance is effective per normal ordinance adoption rules; staff noted property owners can still pursue future development consistent with adopted zoning and that larger transit infrastructure proposals remain possible in the long term. Council did not receive written public comments for or against the request before the hearing.
