Van Alstyne planning commission recommends rezoning of 69‑acre tract with limits on apartments and new drainage assurances

The Van Alstyne Planning & Zoning Commission on Monday recommended that city council approve rezoning a 69‑acre tract at the US 75/FM 121 interchange to a planned development that would allow big‑box retail, pad retail and a multifamily area, after the developer agreed to tighter limits on apartments and engineers presented plans to control stormwater.

The vote was unanimous after a lengthy, section‑by‑section review of the PD and more than half an hour of public comment from residents who said the creek behind the White Oak subdivision has deepened and that new development could accelerate erosion and flood nearby yards.

Why it matters: the tract sits near existing residential lots and an interchange that will be modified by TxDOT; residents said they fear increased runoff and a repetition of past erosion. The commission attached conditions intended to reduce the project’s local impacts — including tighter materials and design standards for commercial buildings, limits on outdoor seasonal sales, gated and contained outdoor storage areas, and new buffering and setback requirements where multifamily would abut houses.

Residents’ complaints and the developer’s response Residents urged the commission to require detailed engineering that shows downstream impacts. “This amount of increased watershed will lead to expedited soil erosion along the banks of the creek that borders 13 properties,” said Ryan Love of White Creek Road, calling for copies of any watershed or ecological surveys. Other neighbors described a low‑water bridge that already becomes impassable in heavy rain and reported increased silt deposits and deeper channels in recent years.

The developer and its engineer said the project includes on‑site detention ponds designed to prevent any increase in downstream flow. Kevin Weir of Spires Engineering said the basin’s current 100‑year (1% annual) flow into the White Oak subdivision is about 741 cubic feet per second (CFS) and that approximately 470 CFS (about 65%) originates east of US 75. “By state law, we can’t increase flows on downstream properties,” Weir said, and the design aims to detain and reduce post‑development flows below that benchmark.

Developer commitments and PD edits Jackie Wolpert of United Commercial Development said the applicant removed higher density requests and proposed caps and design changes in response to prior hearings: multifamily height was limited to 45 feet and the applicant initially capped units at 300; the subarea adjacent to residences will include an 8‑foot masonry screening wall plus landscaping; tree preservation is required along the floodway; and construction traffic will be limited to US 75 during construction. Wolpert said the developer will provide two detention ponds and that civil engineers will be available to review technical exhibits.

Design, signage and commercial operations Commissioners spent significant time on big‑box façades, “trade dress” (corporate color areas), and signage. Staff and the developer reported late‑arriving elevations from an anchor tenant showing trade dress near 5.6%, and commissioners directed that trade dress and signage be handled through elevation review so that colors and large background panels are avoided if they conflict with masonry standards. The commission approved a PD position that trade dress remains subject to elevation approval rather than leaving it unrestricted.

Seasonal outdoor sales and parking Commissioners and staff negotiated limits on outdoor seasonal sales and storage after concerns that broad allowances could consume large amounts of parking during peak sales periods. The commission required that outdoor storage be gated and contained by masonry columns where it occurs, prohibited storage within 15 feet of store entrances, and limited a garden‑center or home‑improvement seasonal area to two 2,700‑square‑foot periods (total 5,400 sq ft) per year rather than an indefinite number of 3‑month windows. They also discussed parking dimensions and confirmed city code standards apply (standard stalls of 20×9 feet with specific overhang allowances in some locations).

Multifamily scale, setbacks and parking minimums After staff and commissioners discussed neighborhood impacts, the commission reduced the applicant’s multifamily cap to 250 units (from the applicant’s 300 cap in the packet), increased the proposed minimum parking for one‑bedroom units to 1.5 spaces, and required a larger buffer between any structure over one story and adjoining residential property lines. The commission added a minimum 75‑foot setback from residential property lines for structures over one story or an equivalent landscaped buffer, and asked that engineers meet adjoining homeowners before the council hearing to address neighbors’ concerns.

Next steps The Planning & Zoning Commission’s recommendation, including the set of conditions read into the record, will go to the Van Alstyne City Council for final action. Commissioners said staff and the applicant will continue elevation negotiations with the understanding that the commission will retain elevation approval authority on pad sites and that the city manager/staff may finalize certain negotiated details prior to council if appropriate.

Representative quotes “The amount of increased watershed will lead to expedited soil erosion along the banks of the creek,” resident Ryan Love said during public comment.

“By state law, we can’t increase flows on downstream properties,” engineer Kevin Weir said, summarizing the detention approach and naming the existing baseline 100‑year flow of about 741 CFS.

“We capped the number of units at 300” in the applicant’s revision, Jackie Wolpert said; commissioners later reduced that cap to 250 in their recommendation.

What the commission decided: at the end of the meeting Commissioner (S8) moved — and Commissioner (S3) seconded — a recommendation that city council approve the PD with the conditions read into the record; the motion carried unanimously. The council will consider the recommendation, the supplemental engineering exhibits and any further negotiations on building elevations and trade‑dress limits.