Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the City of Farmers Branch Planning and Zoning Commission study session meeting. It is presently 6:30 p.m. Monday, January 12th, 2026. We'll begin this evening uh in study session with a uh also actually first thanking the commissioners for their service. uh with uh discussion of regular agenda items. Item A1 uh which takes us to item C1, consider approval of the December 8th, 2025 planning and zoning commission meeting minutes and take appropriate action. Commissioners, any notes?

I do. I'm I'm listed as both present and not present. I feel a bit like Schroinger's cat. So, I was not present.

Okay. I feel as though we can uh correct that for the record. Thank you for clarifying. All right. Any other omissions, errors, typos, items to discuss? All right. Then that will take us to item D1, a public hearing to consider the request for a detailed site plan approval for the installation of fencing, including a variance request to allow said fencing within the front yard on approximately 2.1 acre property located at 13710 Hutton Drive and located within PD22 zoning district and take appropriate action. Thank you, Brian.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, commissioners. Brian Campbell, planner with the planning department. Um, so staff will actually be pulling this agenda item from tonight's agenda and we'll be bringing it back for you um at the next meeting on January 26th. And so we had a conversation today with our city attorneys um and we were informed that city council does not have the power to grant variances. Um that's solely um with lies with the zoning board of adjustments. Um so after talking things through with um Sam, we have determined that we can move forward as a detailed site plan with a zoning amendment. um to allow the fencing within the front yard. So, that's what we'll be that's what we'll be bringing before you um at the next meeting, but if you have any questions now, happy to take them.

Any questions for staff that they can maybe address by next meeting? Yeah, I was going to say I actually had a whole bunch of questions on this one, but it would be better to wait until we review it officially in two weeks. That um Yeah, that's fine. We we can wait. Okay. All right. Thank you for that, Brian. And then that takes us to item uh D2. Conduct a public hearing. Consider the request for a specific use permit for a restaurant on approximately 0.27 acre property located at 2243 Valwood Park Parkway and located within PD22 zoning district and take appropriate action. Thank you, Brian.

Hi, it's me again. Thank you, Madam Chair and commissioners. Um once again, Brian Campbell, planner with the planning department. Um if you have any questions over this request now we can go over those or otherwise we can save them um for the public hearing. Um it's fairly straightforward request and specific use permit um for a restaurant um for the subject property. I guess I am not sure now or later this should be to the applicant but I know the number of parking spaces meets the requirement. I think it's six or nine or whatever the number was. It's five that are required and they have eight. In the floor plan, there are 22 tables.

So, I'm just I'm trying to I'm trying to get a sense for how you do that many tables with that few and there's nothing else around there except for the So, I'm just curious where that Yeah, I know. It's a bit of an interesting situation. So, with the comprehensive zoning ordinance, um parking requirements for restaurants are based off of the square footage of the building and not necessarily seating. So that's where that discrepancy is likely coming into play.

Is it I mean if you if we if you see it as a I mean it could be a problem, right? I mean how can you I mean this doesn't seem like enough parking is there can we enforce can we can we push back or I mean is there is it just up to them to decide that's enough and there's really nothing we do about it just seems it just seems like a mismatch to me. Right. I would say um it's pretty much going to be up to them. I can't say if it if it does help. They are proposing to repave the northern tract of the property immediately to the east 2245 outwood Parkway in order to provide additional parking. So is that in the first round or is that for the second round in the with the My understanding that's part of the scope of work with this round right now.

Okay. So there will be that that parking will be a available eventually. Yes. Not not at the same time. Not when it's open. I would um I would um defer that to the applicant, but it's my understanding that it will be. Okay. Thank you. Absolutely. Further questions for staff. What was in there before? It was an office building. Okay.

And the tenant moved out. Uh there was a note in the uh I had the same concern about parking but they said a replant is required for future development to accommodate required parking and so my my question was if it's required why isn't that plat part of this? Because usually we see, you know, the the proposed legislation, we see the plaque completed. And in this one, it seems like we're getting part of it, but not the complete picture because if that additional parking is required, it it's not here on the plat.

Right? So, I can clarify that. So, um, and as I'm going to discuss during my presentation, so currently, even though this is one contiguous property, they're currently platted as two separate properties. And so, if the applicant proposes if the applicant should move forward with development of the second restaurant and in addition to amending the SP ordinance, if it gets approved, they'll have to replplat the property. And the reason they'll have to do that is so these parking spaces right here are currently um within this existing easement. And so, um, if the applicant were to just develop this building into a restaurant and just leave that alone, um, that would be fine. But if they want to come in and develop the second restaurant, then they're going to have to, like I said, replat the property. And part of that is we'll be moving these parking spaces down here so they're out of that easement. You can see why I'm confused.

Yeah, I'm I'm trying to orient myself to where the 2200 block is. I was going to say, can I can I try to explain it? So, the the parking that they're proposing to be built is on the wrong plat for this particular case. So, they're saying that this is 2243. They're going to build the parking on 2245, but because it's on 2245, it doesn't count towards the parking on 2243. They want to replplat as a single lot so that then they have enough parking on a single plat to meet the requirements for the parking,

right? Because then they'll capture Yeah. all of this, all of this, and that up there that they're proposing to repave. That'll be one contiguous lot. So, why is it coming before us in such a peacemeal fashion instead of giving getting it all at once? Um, I would defer that to the applicant, but my understanding right now they're just interested in developing the restaurant just for this building only right now. Okay. Thank you.

So, this may help as well is that the required parking for what they want to open up tomorrow, that lot meets the parking for the existing building. So in the future when they come in and develop the property to the north that northern building that's when the replat's going to be triggered because if it's not then the parking that they're showing which is you can't see it but this kind of dotted area here

now comes into play. So that required parking is for this building and not the existing building. So, in order for it to be on property on on subject site, they'll replplat these two lots into one and now all the parking will accommodate all three buildings. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Can I ask a followup to help? Sure. Kind of in the same vein. The required parking as it is right now, which is I think what five spaces for the proposed restaurant. Yes. That's what's currently on 2243. Correct. What's currently on 2245? It's so currently it's an office building which requires nine spaces and that side has nine spaces. Okay. And they share a single drive.

Correct. Okay. So that I mean you could end up potentially with 14 spaces as opposed to five. Restaurant with 88 seats. I mean I hear you

further further questions for staff. I have a general question. Sure. Um is restaurant currently allowed within industrial and if so what why would it not be? Because in my mind you know people who work in warehouses they need places to eat. So, so currently this property is zoned to plan development district number 22. So, it's a bit of a unique situation. You're right. Normally, um, zoning district PDS that have light industrial as the base zoning allow restaurants by way. It's PD22 is a little bit unique in that it doesn't. Any type of restaurant requires approval of an SUP. Any further questions?

All right. Thank you. And then Oh, good. brings to mind another one. Sure. So, the the case before us this evening is allowing a restaurant at that specific location or for all of PD22? No, it's only it's a specific use permit and only for this building. Well, thank you. Yeah, no problem. All right. So, with that, we will move to item D3. uh conduct public hearing and consider request for a specific use permit for a gasoline service station and convenience store on approximately 1.48 acres located at 13600 Midway Road within planned development district number 64 and take appropriate action. Thank you, Brett.

Thank you, Chairy, members of the zoning commission. Brett Mangum, lead planner with the planning department. Uh this case is actually like uh the first case we looked at. Uh the applicant is going to request to table this one as well. Let me see if I can pull it up. Um we are open to questions if anybody would like to um discuss this, but the plan is for the applicant to request to table it until the next PNZ meeting on January 26th. Uh there was an oversight with this particular case. There's actually two components to it. They only applied for one, which is the SUP for the gas station. They didn't realize that the alcohol overlay is a separate application. So, they have submitted that to us, but we weren't able to get it on this agenda. So, we're going to wait and bring the cases uh to run concurrently.

Thank Thank you for that. Questions for Is this the same? Is there any difference this application from last April when this first came through? I didn't notice any differences. It's essentially the same request. Um and I believe everybody was on the commission at that time. So u this will be very familiar to you. Um they they have passed their sixmonth period. This was denied at council. So they've

and that's my follow on question. Does what it's been past us and gone to the city council already. And have you gotten feedback from the city council that they want this to come back through or is this literally starting over uh you know like nothing has ever like nothing's happened because there was it went to us and then there were some schools that sent letters in protest and then those were one or both of those were pulled back and the shifted and it was you know not approved to city council and then there was I'm just wondering about the back and forth like is this do you know have you got any feedback from city council that yes We look we now like this or is it just

we haven't directly received any correspondence from city council or any questions at this point in time. Um I don't want to speculate as to why the applicant has decided to bring this back at this time. So I'll defer to them. They'll be here tonight to answer any questions if you do have any. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for staff during study session? And on this item uh for the table for both items, we would request that you call up a vote and announce the date for January 26th. We can do that. All right. Thank you, chair.

All right. Well, with that, that uh takes us back to item A2, review the 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting dates. Thank you for sending out the calendar. Me again. I'm Brian Camp. Hi, once again, Brian Campbell, planner with the planning department. Don't have a formal presentation, but happy to answer any questions you might have over the calendar. I did um put this together for you all. So, I'm sorry, I did not see it if it was sent out to us. Um can you is it the same schedule as last year? It is. Okay. Yeah. and and I would say so

just to clarify, you can find it in your packet like on the legisar when you go there. It will be under item A2. Okay. Thank you. Do we have an agenda for the city council bus tour? Uh not at this time. We will be um sending that out as soon as it's available. Okay. Um and then this isn't really for planning and zoning, but do you know if the state of the city is going to be broadcast on the YouTube channel? the say again, I'm sorry, the state of the city. Uh, that's a good question. I can find out and let you all know. Okay. Thank you. Absolutely.

All right. And with that, that brings us to item A3, discuss agenda items for future planning and zoning commission consideration. Commissioners, any items of interest? Do we have a use for data center in our use table? Very good question. We can Do you want to put that on the agenda for next discussion after some review or do you have a question about our use table? if we have a a definition and a use uh for data centers.

That is one one of many amendments that we'll be bringing forward to you with our with our kind of overhaul of the uh land use matrix and definitions. Uh we've got uh several other uses that exist today and of course they change with with market conditions but at least to bring them up to current uh uh definitions and also to add some additional uses. One of them h happens to be a data center.

Thank you. All right. If there are no other uh potential future agenda items, that brings us to a close of our study session at 6:46. We will uh meet back at 700 p.m. for our regular meeting. Thank you all.

Good evening and welcome to the City of Farmers Branch Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. It is presently 700 p.m. Monday, January 12th, 2026. This evening, I'd first like to begin by thanking the commissioners for their service. And then up first on our agenda is item B, citizen comments. This agenda item provides an opportunity for citizens to address the planning and zoning commission on any matter that is not posted on the agenda. Anyone wishing to address the commission should complete a citizen comments registration form and submit it to the chair prior to the start of the meeting. There is a threeminut time limit for each citizen to speak with a reasonable limitation on speakers on any one topic or item with a maximum of 15 total minutes on the same topic item. Anyone wishing to speak shall be courteous and cordial. The planning and zoning commission is not permitted to take action on any subject raised by a speaker during citizen comments. When called, please approach the podium and state your name and address prior to beginning your comment. And please direct all comments to the commission and not to the audience. This evening, we have no one signed up for citizen comments. So, we'll move into our regular agenda items, beginning with item C1, consider approval of the December 8th, 2025 planning and zoning commission meeting minutes and take appropriate action. Commissioners,

I move to approve the minutes with the caveat of the correction that Marcus pointed out in the study session. Thank you. Second.

Any further discussion on the item? Seeing none, we'll move to a vote. All those in favor to approve the minutes with the correction and any abstensions. Thank you. Now we'll move to our public hearings. Up first item D1. conduct a public hearing and consider the request for a detailed site plan approval for the installation of fencing, including a variance request to allow said fencing within the front yard on an approximately 2.1 acre property located at 13710 Hutton Drive and located within PD22 zoning district and take appropriate action. Thank you, Brian.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, commissioners. So staff will be um pulling this agenda item this evening and we will be bringing this back for you at your January 26th meeting as a detailed site plan with the zoning amendment to PD22. Thank you for that, Brian. So with that information, uh then we'll uh hold a vote for withdrawal of this uh item and moving it to the 26th of January meeting. Uh yeah. Are we tableabling it? Is that what would that be? Official. So is this are we tableabling this? Is that the So officially staff is withdrawing. So do from this agenda?

So do we even have to vote on it? I I think we would still vote on the withdrawal to ensure that it's then I recommend uh approving the withdrawal. Thank you. I'll second and seconded. Any further discussion on the item? Seeing none, we'll move to a vote. All those in favor of withdrawing under the staff recommendation. All right. And with that, we will hear this on the 26th of January. Thank you again, Brian. Of course.

Up next, item D2, conduct a public hearing and consider the request for a specific use permit for a restaurant on approximately 0.27 27 acre property located at 2243 Valwood Parkway and located within the plan development district number 22 zoning district and take appropriate action. Thanks again, Brian.

Thank you once again, Madam Chair, and thank you commissioners. It's a privilege and a pleasure to be presenting before you this evening. Once again, I'm Brian Campbell, planner with the planning department. Now, presenting to you on the specific use permit for 2243 Vwood Parkway. And so this is the subject property. Um, it is zoned plan development district number 22. And this is a specific use permit request for a restaurant. And so the applicant is Chris Sitler with Sitler Architecture. He is requesting approval of a specific use permit um to develop the existing office building located at 2243 um Bowwood into a restaurant. Um, as noted on your site plan, the scope of work does also include um the construction of outdoor seating along the southern facade um as well as the redevelopment of the northern tract of the property immediately east which is addressed as 2245 Elwood Parkway um for additional parking. Um, as noted in your staff report, the applicant and on the site plan, the applicant is proposing a second restaurant potentially for the northern tract of 2243 Valwood Parkway. Um, and so as I noted in my staff report, should the applicant decide to move forward with this proposal, it will require an amendment to this SU ordinance pending its approval by council um, as well as a replat of this property in order to um, incorporate all the parking that will be required. Um, and I did want to make a minor correction to my staff report. So, I noted um in the staff report that the applicant was proposing to develop um repave the southern side of 22 245 Alwood Parkway for additional parking, that should have read the north side. So, just wanted to make that correction.

And so, um, while tonight's request is focused solely on developing the this existing building at 2243 Vwood for the restaurant, um, since the applicant noted the potential second restaurant on their site plan, I felt it would be conducive to to discuss, um, both developments. So, with regarding parking, um, currently, um, the comprehensive zoning ordinance requires one space per 400 square ft of gross floor area for restaurants. So in this situation a total of five parking spaces are required. Um currently there are eight spaces at the 23 2243 Valwood site. Um should the applicant move forward with developing the second restaurant um between the two restaurants and the existing office building at 2245 Valwood which will remain a total of 22 parking spaces will be required. Um and so if the applicant does propose to redevelop the property as proposed um they will be providing a total of 28 parking spaces. So in both situations they are exceeding that requirement. And then with regards to landscaping um the um PD22 does require any subject property to dedicate at least 5% of the property not being used for the driveway or something similar um as landscape open space. And so in this situation we have 6.4 4% of this property being landscape open space. Um and should the applicant move forward with um developing that second restaurant, they are proposing additional landscaping which will bring that total to 11%. And so in either scenario um they are exceeding that requirement. And then with regards to street trees, um currently PD22 does require um one street one street tree per 30 ft of lineal street frontage, which in this situation requires the planting of at least five street trees. We do have five such trees currently on site and the

applicant does propose to maintain these. And so the existing building at 2243 Valwood will be developed on the inside and the outside per the included elevations and the floor plan. Um the applicant is proposing a one sign along the southern facade as well as the installation of a grease trap to the rear of the building. Turning to the recommendations of the Farmers Branch 2045 plan. So the farmers branch 2045 plan does designate the subject property in the surrounding area as industrial. With this land use designation, the plan recommends a series of single-use industrial uses focused on business, employment, and industry. And so with that, those recommended land uses are office, research, industrial, warehousing, and distribution. And so given that um the applicant's proposal is not consistent with the farmer's branch 2045 plan, however um their proposal does have the potential to bring about additional economic vitality to this area through dollars spent at the restaurant. And so on December 30th, um staff did mail 17 notification letters to all affected property owners within 300 ft of the subject property as we now require in addition to mailing letters to both the Carolton Farmers Branch and Dallas Independent School Districts. And a zoning notification sign was placed on the property the same day. As of this evening, we have not received any correspondence on this request. And so that concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to take those. And we do have the applicant here with us as well should you have any questions for them. Otherwise, I thank you for your time this evening. Thank you all very much.

Thank you. So, any questions for staff? All right. And any questions for the applicant? We have any questions? Yeah. Okay. Great. So, if the applicant wouldn't mind to step forward and just state your name and address for the record, please. Good evening. My name is Chris Sitler. I'm an architect. Um I live uh in Arlington at 3505 Saltil Lane. And once again, it is a a privilege and an honor to be able to speak here before you tonight. I'd just like to give a brief explanation of of what and why we're doing this project. Um Mr. Koshi is is my client. He came to me about 6 months ago. Um he had purchased the property a year earlier. There's two small buildings on the site. They're office spaces currently and they sat on the market after he purchased them for a year and he couldn't rent out either building. Um so he wants to open his own restaurant and he came to me with the idea could I possibly put a restaurant in one of the buildings. Um the the current current uses allowed our office, but it it even says that a cafeteria is in allowed use in an office. And he's the concept is to do a counterstyle barbecue. Kind of funny. Mr. Royce from Mishia, I think it's from India. Uh I think it's a fantastic um idea. He wants to do a Texas style barbecue restaurant um that he personally owns and runs himself. And it's similar to cafeteria, technically a restaurant, but we're adding parking. We're adding public seating out front, which I think will actually help the area. And it it should be a nice project and I think it's a great idea.

Thank you for that. Uh staff, I'm sorry, commissioners, any questions for our applicant? Yeah. So just to get a clarification on the parking. So officially for that building that you're developing, there are eight spaces and then there's is it a hospice? Is there was there is there is anything in the in the is that building adjacent is currently empty currently because he wasn't able to lease it. He actually uses it as his personal office. Okay. He has. Yeah.

Um it I mean it's available but he's currently using it for his own office. The an interesting thing I've done retail um development for quite a while. Most cities and even most developers increase parking for restaurants over an office. Um like you restaurants get busy and they need you know um your code actually tells us we need less parking spaces

to put a restaurant there. Um uh which I find um is interesting. Um but either way to run a successful restaurant you need to have plenty of spaces um when you get busy. So, um, the idea is we're developing, um, uh, we're adding additional parking so we don't we don't get traffic issues and concerns and people can get in there. And the future spot, it's not like we have anything planned back there. You can't really put a successful restaurant in the back hidden behind the other buildings, but the the we might as well show our long-term plans for the site and if it's possible to to do something with that back spot at the time, we went ahead and wanted to include it in the proposal and add whatever we needed to to the site. now um to uh take care of that possibility.

So the the parking that you're talking about building is that in the the green space on the north east? It's in it's behind the buildings and that's happening at the same time. So that'll be that that will be available when you open the restaurant. Correct. The idea is that if the whoever's in the the office building will park behind the office building so that the front parking because that's where people come into the restaurant are going to park anyway. Um so um if you have the office people park in the back then that keeps the front open um for parking and also once again I think um restaurants with outdoor seating especially in front um is kind of a nice neighborhood amenity puts people on the street and that was one of the things we're doing um and I think having more parking in the back and less out front um helps that concept.

Yeah. So it's good. So just in because looking at the floor plan there are 22 tables and there are only eight spots like in front of the building. So that was just the concern about the as you say the where all the where everybody's going to park. We're we're like technically we're providing double the required parking. So I I get what you're saying. Um but we're we're way over what's required. Um and we we put on there as much as we reasonably could. They they won't put 22 um tables in that restaurant. It was just kind of showing um the maximum the maximum you could do. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. You bet. Further further questions for our applicant.

All right. Thank you so much for your time. Uh so with that, it is a public hearing. I don't believe we have anyone indicating to speak during the public hearing and I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Thank you for that. Second. Any further discussion on the item to close the public hearing? Seeing none, we'll move to a vote. All those in favor to close the public hearing. All right. With the public hearing closed, we'll now hear action on the item. I'll make a motion to approve as presented. Thank you. A recommendation for approval. I'll second.

And a second. And any further discussion on the item. All right. Seeing none, we'll move to a vote. All those in favor to recommend approval as presented. All right. And uh this will go to city council February 17th. February 17th. Thank you, Brian. You're welcome.

All right. And with that, we will move to item D3 to conduct a public hearing and consider the request for a specific use permit for a gasoline service station and convenience store on approximately 1.4 48 acres located at 13601 Midway Road within plan development district number 64 and take appropriate action. Thank you, Brett. All right. Thank you, Chairy. Uh Brett Mangum, lead planner with the planning department here at Farmers Branch. All right. And this is an item uh 25SU-10. Uh this item is going to be requested to be tabled uh per the applicant's request. Um we won't be opening the public hearing tonight if that motion does approve. So all we need is just a vote to table this and then announce the date. Um basically just to recap what we talked about in study session. There are two components to this application. Uh one of the applications was not filed in tandem with this one. So, when we were looking over the M materials, we realized there was a missing application which was for the alcohol overlay. So, that has been submitted, but we weren't able to get it on tonight's agenda. So, we're holding this case so that the two cases can combine and move in tandem.

Thank you for that explanation. All right, commissioners. So, we have uh a uh applicant request to table for the 26th of January meeting. And we do have the applicant here just in case there are any questions. Okay. I move to table the agenda item for two weeks. Okay. Second. Seconded. And any further discussion on the item? Seeing none, we'll move to a vote. all those uh who vote to approve tableabling until the 26th of January meeting. All right. So with that we will hear this on the 26th of January. Thank you again Brett.

Thank you all. All right. And with that we will adjourn for the evening. It is presently 7:17 p.m. Thank you all.