Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues contested RM 2147 rezoning hearing to Aug. 25 after residents object
Summary
Council heard a contested request to rezone a 5-acre tract on RM 2147 from R6 to C2; staff recommended approval with site-specific protections but nearby residents objected to traffic, stormwater and corridor‑character concerns; council unanimously continued the public hearing to Aug. 25 to allow the owner to appear in person.
The council opened a public hearing on Ordinance 2026‑21, a request to rezone approximately 5.003 acres at 1101 West RM 2147 from R6 (apartment/townhome/cottage) to C2 (general commercial). John Byram, the city’s development services director, summarized the application, noting the property’s prior C2 designation at incorporation, that the proposed concept includes two low‑intensity office buildings and a bank, and that staff had negotiated site‑specific zoning conditions including a 30‑foot landscape buffer and a 70‑foot setback along the residential boundary.
Nathan Fuller, the applicant’s representative, said the owner (MBM Land and Cattle / Brady Meyer) seeks to align zoning with corridor frontage and the city’s existing commercial parcels, and he emphasized written commitments — cross‑access, enhanced landscaping and a traffic study — that would be enforced in ordinance conditions and later through site‑plan review.
Nearby residents opposed the rezoning. Donna Thomas (speaker 22), whose home abuts the proposed retention pond, said she supports the 2021 council decision that rezoned the tract to residential; she raised concerns about stormwater run‑off management, upkeep of retention ponds and potential property‑value impacts. Becky Fechner (speaker 23) echoed traffic and corridor‑character concerns and cited the city’s recent land‑use survey, which showed residents generally do not want corridor commercial on FM 2147 except at a defined city center.
Council members discussed conflicting guidance: earlier staff materials identified the site as commercial on the current future land use map, while a draft comprehensive plan under development labeled it R6; planning and zoning had recommended denial unanimously. Because the property owner asked to be present for the council hearing, Councilmember Wetherby moved to continue the public hearing until the August 25 meeting to allow the owner to appear in person and avoid re‑hashing the entire record. The motion passed unanimously.
