Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council directs staff to seek public hearing on SUP and 1,000‑foot spacing for liquor stores
Summary
City staff proposed defining 'liquor store' and creating a special‑use permit requirement with a 1,000‑foot minimum separation to prevent clustering; council signaled support to send text amendments to the Planning & Zoning Commission and for public outreach to businesses and residents.
Rowlett City staff presented proposed amendments to the Rowlett development code and form‑based code to treat liquor stores as a distinct land use and to require a special‑use permit (SUP) for that use in specified zoning districts.
"The purpose of an SUP is to provide public engagement, an opportunity to to seek public engagement," staff planner Manal said while describing the draft definition and the process that would take any ordinance to the Planning & Zoning Commission for public hearing before returning to council. Manal told the council the amendment would also let staff consider neighborhood‑compatibility standards — hours, lighting, parking — and whether a use is compatible with surrounding properties.
Council members focused on two central implementation questions: (1) whether the ordinance would be retroactive and how it would affect existing stores, and (2) how the city should measure any proposed separation requirement. Staff said existing liquor stores would become legally nonconforming but would not automatically be removed; any store that expands beyond 50% or applies for a new certificate of occupancy after adoption could be subject to the SUP. Staff also offered two measurement approaches for the recommended 1,000‑foot minimum separation — sidewalk (door‑to‑door) or shortest property‑line to property‑line — and said the code language could specify the preferred method.
Several council members said they supported adding ownership‑change triggers so a new owner would need to follow the SUP process. One council member also asked staff to consider restrictions on co‑located uses that they described as undesirable, for example a liquor store colocated with a vape shop; staff noted that the SUP process allows criteria that could be used to deny permits for configurations the council deems incompatible.
The council did not adopt an ordinance at the meeting. Staff said it would prepare the two related text amendments and the draft definition, post educational information for businesses and the public, and place the item on the Planning & Zoning Commission agenda for public hearing and recommendation back to council.
