Planning and Zoning Meeting - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the city of farmers branch planning and zoning commission study session. It is presently 6 pm of Monday, May 11th, 2026. I'd like to open by thanking our commissioners for their service. And on our study session agenda up first agenda item A1, discuss regular agenda items, which takes us to item C1. Consider approval of the April 27th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes and take appropriate action. Commissioners, any typos, errors, emissions, corrections. All right, seeing none, we'll move on to consider the uh item C2. Consider the request for a detailed site plan approval for a multifamily residential development on approximately 5 acre property addressed as 4707 Alpha Road and located within PD107 zoning district and take appropriate action. Thank you, Brian.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, commissioners. Um Brian Campbell, planner with the planning department, here to present you tonight on the only case we have on the docket. Um if you have any questions um that you'd like me to address right up at the front, we can do that or we can wait till um the regular meeting. Um it's a fairly um straightforward request, although I know the staff report is a little bit um meteor um than you're accustomed to for requests such as this. Um, I'll get into this and I'll get into this a little bit more when I do my presentation, but um, given that we have the multif family development policy and we have those other properties entitled for multif family development, um, we sort of wanted to get into evaluating not only what's on the ground in the present, but also what's in the future because we as planners, you know, we have to do both even with our day-to-day development cases. So, we wanted to make sure we covered all of that.

Excellent. Thank you, Brian. questions for study session. Yeah. So, but yeah. Yeah. Normally there it's really clear when we look there's like an SUP that's needed. This is why they're there had to come through here because we had this specific items that were not in compliance. This one was a little more vague. Right. So, what what is it? Can you just summarize what it was that caused them? It's not an SUP, right? I mean is it's it's more it's more general, right? What is it that caused them to have to come before us? Can you summarize or is that better just to wait for the presentation?

No, I can do that. I'm happy to do that now. And yes, I know with detailed site plans it can be a little bit tricky because sometimes we have ones that have to come before both you and city council. Sometimes they just come before you and then sometimes they can be approved administratively. And so really it all boils down to the um particular ordinance that governs this PD. It just so happens in this situation, the ordinance that governs PD 107 requires that the applicant get approval of a detailed site plan from city council following the recommendation from you all prior to them pulling building permits and developing the site. So that's in the PD. It's just a requirement that they get that approval. Correct.

Okay. Further questions. All right. Thank you very much. We'll look forward to seeing that more in our regular meeting. Absolutely. Thank you, commissioners. Thank you. All right. That takes us to item A2. Discussion and feedback regarding regarding draft landscape amendments to the comprehensive zoning ordinance. Thanks so much, Tara.

Thank you. Good evening, commissioners, chair. I'm just right here real quick. The presentation. Okay. So this evening I'm going to walk you all through uh the draft landscape ordinance. This is a study session item. So I'm looking for feedback as well as we're moving forward through this process. So some of you have seen this version earlier in 2023 2024. This item is being brought back um forward with the feedback provided in previous city council meetings P&Z in with that incorporated information for you all to see that uh the feedback see what was incorporated. So my goal is just to give a clear overview so we can focus on the discussion and direction of this item. So, one of the questions is why are we updating the ordinance? Our current landscaping ordinance regulations are pretty outdated. Other cities and regions have pretty much stronger standards at this point right now. And since we adopted the comprehensive plan and our sustainability goals, we have identified several areas um where our regulations aren't keeping up. Best practices have also changed over the years as well too. So updating the ordinance will help us meet our own policy goals. Things like better storm water management, improve aesthetics, healthier tree canopy, overall support for long-term neighborhood character. And so that's some of the reasons why we're updating this this amendment and the purpose.

So with that also too, what is the amendment aims to do? In simple terms, the draft aims to modernize our landscaping requirements, improve pedestrian and vehicle safety, reduce storm water runoff, enhance wild life habitat, encourage drought tolerant and native planting, and strengthen buffers between different land uses, and update terminology to support um more tree diversity. These changes help bring our ordinance in line with a vision we have already adopted as a city which I stated earlier about our comprehensive plan, the sustainability goals as well. And so with this ordinance, how it is organized, there are several components and things like where the rules apply, what needs to be submitted, irrigation requirements, installation, maintenance standards, screening and buffers, and a set of updated plant lists that are recommended, not required, but recommended. And it has extended that plant list as well. So with this last meeting that you all had, a lot of it was that um residential was not a item that was pretty much touched on or wanted to be overburdened with landscaping. So with this this landscaping ordinance would propose that there are one shade tree per single family lot, one shade tree or ornamental tree per duplex unit and basic soil stabilization like usually turf grass to have within the lot as you can see with the example on the screen. Now we're not making existing lots non-conforming. This would really improve the neighborhood character um for new homes that are built in older homes that want to redevelop as well and

it's um not to be a burden on single family residential. So for proposed non-residential requirements right now our current ordinance is very low just 5% at this time. With this ordinance it will increase the requirement. So for the proposed update, it would be 20% for industrial, 15% for commercial, retail, and institutional, and 20% for multif family, and with the option of up to 40% of that to be hardcape amenities, and at least half of the required landscaping located in the front yard setbacks. And then one one tree every 25 feet along all frontage, which right now we do have that incorporated in our landscaping code, 25 ft of trees along all frontage. And so this would also help with overall appearance as well too with those different types of development. Also, one other thing that is brought up as well is parking lot landscaping and screening. at this time. Right now, we don't have that requirement within the code. And with that, that would um provide us with 7% of interior parking would need landscaping and islands with shade trees at the end of each row. So, that would enhance beautifification as well too because this is one of the goals that this landscaping or ordinance is striving to. Also too, there are um no requirements for lots with fewer with 15 or fewer spaces. Screening with shrubs, BMS or masonary walls when a parking lot is visible from a street as well too. And this will help to break up paved areas, improve it aesthetics and provide some much needed more shade within the within the area and also inserting more

trees into our tree profile as well canopy. And again, the updated plant list with specific diversity plan diverse plants will be also on there as well as sustainability design initiatives as well. And so with that um to encourage more sustainable approaches, the draft offers a 5% reduction in required lot coverage if a project includes at least two qualifying um design elements within that sustainability component. And so this would include preserving 30 30 in 30 30inch caliper trees of existing trees, using native grasses, incorporating 30% permeable paving, installing green or cool roofs, adding public art, and providing publicly usable open space as well. And so this also gives the developer flexibility as well um without with adding incorporating some sustainability outcomes. So with that, after tonight's discussion, we plan to take your feedback as well to city council for our study session as well. Um, and incorporate any items that you may have tonight that you would like to see within this landscaping ordinance as well. And so whatever you all are comfortable with tonight providing to me, I will take it in feedback and adjust as needed. So that concludes my presentation. Thank you so much. Uh, commissioners, questions, feedback, things to offer.

I do have a few.

Sure. Um so one thing I noticed um is it's a little bit complicated here but so on page two where it talks about the objectives it's really talking about landscaping u it's about landscaping because that's that's what this ordinance is but if you jump to page four let's see um page five where it has some of the you can see it mentioned you could have two out of four of these items that can help that can potentially get a reduction in your landscaping requirement and one of those is just inclusion of public art which is visible and I just there seems like like that's a complete disconnect from the idea of landscaping like it's just you know the word aesthetics is mentioned earlier but there's nothing about art. And so I just made wondered if that should be more appropriately inclusion of public art which incorporates landscaping or is green oriented or something about it that kind of makes it make sense in a landscaping ordinance. You you know what I'm saying?

Yeah. No, I I totally I understand what you're saying instead of the focus just being on just art in general, but yeah, being art somehow related to greening space or landscape. Okay. Um the I know it mentioned a couple times in there that whenever there's a a wall, it always mentions masonry walls. Is that is that a is that a generic term or is I mean can there be other materials? Does it have to be masonry for these walls? And yeah, there could be uh and sorry I'm drawing a blank on the name of the type of fencing, but uh iron rod iron.

I'm just wondering if if the term masonry should be replaced with something a little more generic. Um other cities I've seen it they have done iron wall with a row of shrubs that usually can grow up to six feet. That's something that we could Yeah. So something that just doesn't like limit it. Um, I thought I saw the word tree topping in here somewhere. I don't know that I did. That was a definition that that at the beginning of the definitions. I didn't know if that was something that uh in whether that's something we wanted to look at preventing. You know, it certainly has come up before in um in this code that it's defined as that way. Um,

and I'm just going to go to the definitions real quick. which in from my discussions this was something that they it's defined but it's something that not encouraged okay in in this aspect but in this one we right now we don't have the preservation portion of this which would come later okay which this would really speak to that as well more about installation okay um let's see and I know we mentioned the P&Z subcommittee that helped to develop That is that still active? It is not at this time. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

Further questions on our landscaping ordinance feedback. I Yeah, go ahead. The um multifamily, it says 20% needs to be landscaped. What what is the current 5%. 5%. Is it do we have rep do you have examples where of locations within the city that would meet 20%? Is that going to put you know complete halt on development or is that

it not necessarily complete um halt on it but that's included with hardscape amenities as well. So that 20% will incorporate that. Um I the purpose also too is to prevent runoff as well too. So those elements working together could get you to the 20%. But there is also two uh other provisions in here that will allow if they're not able to meet that they can go through a certain pro not a process through city council but through administratively or some to that. So it wouldn't come to planning and zoning or city council. They would have a

I believe um like someone who's not elected by the city to approve it internally on this one. So I'm looking at like the interior parking with approval from the city manager designate rear areas for loading may be exempt. So it could be in that process. I guess I I guess I'm just confused because we're creating a way for developers to go around kind of the public process to get what they want, but we're creating

No. Yeah, I it so in this essence maybe I misspoke, but the 20% should be there, but if you comb combine that together, it'll get you to your 20% on there. The question that I the earlier question is will the developer be able to do it right the 20%. where I'm trying to see if there is a workar around with that. But if not, if it's not blatant, then it would need to be come with a special exceptions through the pro through the through the boards and commission the sorry through the boards basically. And that's something I can follow up make sure that it's in here. That's something a feedback that you're providing to me that you want to make sure it's incorporated in the code.

Yes.

Okay. I I will say that the 20% is in alignment with our multifamily policy. The difference is that's a policy as opposed to an ordinance. So this changes it from being uh a strong recommendation to able to be enforcable or as you mentioned having to go through some exception process if it's not able to meet those. But what you have noticed in the multif family that's come before us most recently is generally they've met or exceeded um what we've asked for in that multif family policy. So that leads me to believe that it's not um impossible for our developers to reach this. Um and in fact it seems to be in alignment with the type of amenities they're hoping to provide for their residents that makes them an appealing property. So it this just further cottifies that and creates a better mechanism for for encouraging and enforcing that sort of uh greenery and greening of those spaces.

Great. At least as I understand it. Awesome. Thank you. a question related to that. Could you go back to the page where it where it shows the 5% and then increasing to 20% on your presentation on the presentation

because because it's a really it's a fine the wording it's like not an apples to apples. So it's 5% of the lot not covered by structures versus 20% of the whole lot. Right? It's it's not an increase from five to 20, right? It's a different standard. So I it made me wonder like what is the actual increase? You know what I mean? Because it because is there a is there a factor that I could that you understand what I'm saying? That's a because I I can't really tell how much we're increasing it because because there these are different measures of

I think that's a shortcut. I think it does still mean lot not covered by structures. So 20% of the lot not covered by structures, they are both the same. So looking at this example here on the lot coverage, 20% and 27%. If you just look at the green spaces area there, that kind of shows like it's a little bit more so to speak than what we've seen on other uh developments. Since I've been in this position, I've seen like 7% within lots and um the 5%, but it's showing a little bit more green space in this area, especially around the the property and internal to the site.

So, I would just request and recommend that that you need to use we need to use the same if those are in fact the same. if they're both not the lot not covered by structures. It needs to say that because it's very different and and that's on page five that you're Yeah. Yeah. with this page that you're on right now. It's just I think u I think your team I just I just want to make sure in the um landscape ordinance that we have.

Yeah. So non-residential in this case right here where we're we're talking about it says 5% of the lot not covered by structures and then it only says 20% of the lot that below. So it's those are two if that's was literally true those would be very different measures but I think what the chair is suggesting that they it may be that it should read 20% of the lot not covered by structures. I think that represents what's actually written in the ordinance. Okay. So that's good. Let's just make sure we get it in there. Just ensuring yeah that that's at least as I read it.

So if you do the math and I'm going by doing site plan review. So you have a lot that's 1 acre 40,000 square feet. The 5% uh it's like if I'm doing my math wrong correct me. um it is about 2% square foot that square footage that you would need within the site. If you do 24 20 the 43% of 20% then you're going to get 8%. 8 sorry 8,000 square feet of area. That's green space.

That's my example I can give you. Thank you. Yeah, very helpful. Any other questions, comments, concerns, feedback?

It's just a lot of terminology for me. Um, what you're saying is the multif family is 20%, industrial is 20%. But commercial, institutional, retail are 15%. So, what does what are we saying about the 5%? I I think I'm a little confused. 5% was is the current code requirement. Okay. Okay. And so with if this is adopted then it would go to 20%. Okay. Instead of the 5%. Okay. And so we feel like um increasing it would just make the city look better or would it be is it sustainable a sustainability?

It's a lot of those components that would factor into it. So it would be sustainability, preserving our introducing new planting materials into our portfolio, aesthetically pleasing, also better like quality of life for people residents and such that do live in those areas. So it's kind of a list that goes hand in hand that would make it better. But yes, aesthetics is one, sustainability is another. uh also for the developer it would make it more appealing and retain people as well too. Okay. Um I like that idea because on my Alexa I get a lot of alerts that the air quality is bad in farmers branch. So

um another thing um that I thought about if we're increasing like landscaping when that would require more water. Yes. So

well so within this code there is a requirement when they're proposing to water. So when they were developing this code they thought about those things because we're trying to reduce our usage of water. So for example like um page five it talks about irrigation at um irrigating 12:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. in the evening. So that would help um with the water being able to seep through and then it wouldn't go as long, but also to encouraging different materials besides just watering grass that to be able to be used utilize for planting of trees or just creating different habitats that are native to Texas.

Excellent. Anything else further? I I just wanted to comment and say thank you that I'm so excited to see this before us again because I know that many many people have spent a lot of effort and time and work uh your team and also members of this commission and previous commissions and so um I feel as though all the efforts that have been made to incorporate the feedback have given us a a really solid ordinance going forward and I hope that city council sees it the same way. So, thank you. Thank

and I thank you all for your feedback as well. And um after we go to city council for their study session, hope we'll bring this back in probably July as well. Great. Thank you.

All right. Up next then, uh item A4, uh oh, sorry, item A3, seek direction on revisions to the comprehensive zone, including article 2.4 for permitted uses and use table and article 7 definitions. Thanks again, Tara. Thank you. Excuse me one second. It's okay. Allergies are bad.

I love the trees except the allergies. Okay, thank you again commissioners and chair as well too. So this is another item that I'm bringing forward um that has been in the works as well too um with our consultant Kira and previous staff as well. Uh it is on was mentioned on the December 2025 of your work plan that you had. So, we're going to bring it here, but essentially this will be for a review to tell us what type of review you would like us to do on the table of allowed uses. So, you'll have options to kind of determine what um use you would like what review you would like us to do. So just to provide you a little background, the C CZO was originally updated in 1965 1969 and there haven't been major revisions to it but just uh when the need arises then we would change it. So, this would be a overhaul just to make sure that we're including things that are trending or um a lot of inquiries that we receive are being captured and also defining our uses as well because currently in our code we don't have exactly all our uses defined. So, that may put uh sometimes developers and ourselves in a little bit of a bind to actually figure out what it is that is being proposed. So with this there are about three possible scopes that we're looking at here for this update and I'll walk you through these options that we have here. So the first one that we're showing here on the screen would be a basic review. Um this is the lightest lift. It would

be uh defining the undefined terms and then also grouping by categories um and similar uses just to make it easier and probably pulling out some of the uses that are no longer uh in our vernacular you should say right at this time right now. With that with our second one would be another moderate review taking on the basic review as well too but updating outdated definitions like servant guest quarters. Combining similar uses when appropriate such as floor floor shop with general retail. Adding new uses where we currently have gaps like warehouse um solar energy systems or other emerging use types. And this would eliminate some unnecessary uses and fill in some of the most noticeable holes while keeping the process manageable. Now to do a comprehensive review that would be a little bit more indepth robust and this would include both the basic and moderate review and consolidate similar uses even when it reduces the number of land use districts where a use is permitted but only if the use doesn't actually exist in those districts at this time. um add new uses to address modern needs and that's like example flex office warehouse and potentially data centers adds or revised uses standards were appropriate and this option would um adjust permissions across the district and it would require more detail analysis and legal awareness to avoid unintended uses. So that completes the options that we have there. Um again this is for you all to provide feedback to me to

tell me which review you think you all would like us to move forward with. And again this also too will be going to um city council as well too for a study session uh and your feedback will be incorporated as well too. Great. Thank you for that. Commissioners comments thoughts. Um, I mean, initial thought is obviously this looks like a a pretty large undertaking, but I think considering the fact that it hasn't been addressed since, you know, 1969,

it behooves us to do a comprehensive review of all of our uses and be as forwardlooking as possible because, you know, the obvious one is data center that we need to address. um is probably the most talked about usage that um we don't have. But um yeah, I think beyond that, I would even go so far as to say we probably need to establish some kind of schedule maybe once every 10 years to do a review again, you know, and that's probably where the more basic or moderate level of review comes in. But as far as updating the use table from 1969, we probably need to go as far as we can.

Yeah. Other thoughts, considerations folks want to add? Yes. So, I'm just wondering if could this be reframed instead of or just reframe it as phases, right? So, do maybe some of the lowhanging fruit first, phase one, get that done, work your way through because it, you understand what I'm saying? Mhm. See work so um within this when you're and just so I can get clarity on um fre phasing of this the table

like right now it says the first one is basic well maybe instead of basic it's just phase one whatever you could really tackle quickly might give us the most bang for the buck phase two digs a little deeper things that logically go together and then phase three would be sort of the final things that might be more difficult, you know, and and that would would you that envision that like when we do phase one, bring it for a study session and then yeah, adopt it and then come back for phase two.

That is something we can look at. I um just since 1969, we've kind of been putting peace milling as they come along. So just trying to uh make sure that we get things organized so we're capturing things at this moment now as well too or also projecting in the future. So those could probably be like in that phasing. Um just something to consider. Yeah. But I mean comprehensive makes sense. I mean it seems like it needs to be done, right? So it seemed like everything you list there needs to be done.

Done. Yeah. and and I understand with the phasing just want to make sure that we're up to we get up to date other other considerations thoughts to add yeah I think uh I agree 50 years or more is is kind of time for a new comprehensive review it you said there's a currently 104 items that do not fit within our our undefined like so we do we have like 104 for uh items, but they're not defined. Some of them are not defined. So that they're currently operating in the city, but they don't fit in a box.

They fit in a box, but they don't have a definition. So say for example, and this may not be the right, but florist shop, we all kind of can guess what the floor shop is, but then we may not have a definition to say, okay, well, this may be a floor shop that wants to have a coffee shop with it. So how do we define that? And and of the three options, the comprehensive review would be the one that would help define that as opposed to the other two options.

It yes, they will they all will have a level of definition, but the comprehensive would probably go in a lot more re review and then also u move forward to kind of projecting what would be in a couple of years we would be looking at. And could you provide additional clarity on on the timeline for each all both all three like is do you have an estimate? Is the first one like the first one six months the second one is not an estimate but I know if we did the comprehensive it would take a little bit more than a year.

I mean we could phase it in six. I don't want to technically give you a time frame because um I just know with the comprehensive review it does take a little bit more effort more time than it would if we did like a basic or we did the moderate one as well too. I mean I guess going back to the phasing is there a benefit to doing a basic one quick to get some things improved upon while we are working towards the comprehensive or is it better to just put everything into the comprehensive and wait for that time and then is there an estimate on cost for the three options? like is there a reason that we should maybe not do it comprehensive because it's more cost-effective and we don't need all of that detail. Maybe we'd be better off with the second option. That is kind of the middle ground between the two.

That's a potential. I would need to provide that information back to you about cost on that one. I mean it we it is a consultant that we do have that's here that works on these items. So they would be performing this task. So it may not be a essential um new cost that we would incur, but that's something I would need to double check to make sure that um it's not a new cost that we have to receive.

I I'm just uh sorry uh curiosity or wondering too on this phased approach. it it strikes me that one of the kind of uh person costs if you will is just in the time of even presenting and bringing it forward. So I would say the the one potential if you're talking about these pros and cons to these different approaches, one potential con to the phasing approach would be the time out to do the presentation and kind of move it through. uh because that takes it that's its own energy and takes its own time versus you know diligently working and then presenting one more finished product. Um again not to say that's end of the world but it occurs to me that that's a that creates a time cost in your in your trajectory as it as it stands.

Um again could still be a viable option depending but having to consider that in I think everyone's kind of on board with the comprehensive. I mean, it it's been over 50 years. We've got a lot of change in those 50 years. I was more of a discussion.

Yeah. Yeah. Likewise, I'm just presenting pros and cons as I imagine them. Um but I will concur with my colleagues that it seems a worthwhile pursuit to do a comprehensive plan if it is feasible. Um and we have the resources to do so. Um especially given the time that it's been since we've thoroughly addressed it and I think it will do us well moving into kind of next phase. As we know farmers ranch is mostly built out. We've got infill development, but some really exciting redevelopment opportunities we've talked about in our downtown district and on our east side. And we want to ensure that we're set up for success to uh potentially appropriately capitalize on new waves of development and trends while ensuring that we retain our city's character. So um again to my mind that comprehensive look gives us the best opportunity to maximize on our what opportunities are ahead of us. I have I have a couple more. Um you forward looking as this process comes to its conclusion and you have added or removed or consolidated uses, how do those then become approved uses? Do the do those come back to us? because I'm just thinking the last time there was a case for adding a use uh to the city, it was pretty controversial. Um so I'm curious about the process for adding uses. Um is there the risk that anything currently standing becomes non-conforming because its use gets removed or consolidated? Um and then I have a third question, but it's not really related to those two.

Okay. um for the first use. So if you're saying that we uh adopt this comprehensive plan and then we have a use that's not in our uh updated table, how would we uh remedy how would we bring that forward or how would that use be approved if somebody wants to add it? Is is that the question? I guess as you're investigating uses and adding uses that you think could be useful in the future, do those come to us for review or are those approved um you know in their entirety or are they approved on an individual basis?

So with if there's a use that's not in our table of allow uses right now, we still have in there where we can bring it forward to either the city manager or PNZ for interpretation, okay, of a use. So that will most likely stay within uh the ta the updated table. So if there is a use that needs to be added that is not in that updated table, there's those provisions that would allow for us to bring it to PNZ for interpretation and then move it through that. And then also if we wanted to add and add a use and it would be we would do uh adoption as well to go through the process of planning and zoning recommendation and city council adoption as well too. Okay. So

um

and then the the third question I had was have we at all looked into um I think this came up during the gas station uh discussion. There was a mention of the ability to tie a permit to a secondary use on a property that was associated with its primary use. If I have that correct, somebody can jump in. Um, which essentially allowed us to like grant an alcohol permit to a property provided it remained within a certain use or ownership. Is that a structure that we can look into? because I'm just thinking it would give us a bit more flexibility um if we could tie uses together for an individual operator.

And I'm going to I'm just need this as an example for myself to make sure I'm hearing you correctly. Uh having a primary use and we're kind of using like the alcohol portion and since you have that secondary that would be your secondary use to uh distribute or serve alcohol or believe that was correct. And that was in referring to like a a service station station as a secondary use because the concern I think was um you know you grant the alcohol permit to the property

and then in 20 30 years it's no longer a service station and it just becomes a package store. but it already has that permitting for the alcohol use despite the fact that the primary use has changed. So I guess is there a way to tie uses together? I can look into that. I don't know if that's something um that we do currently at this time like in general um for legally do do we allow that at this time right now? Um,

I mean, not that I know off the top of my head. I wouldn't see why we wouldn't be allowed to potentially do it. I mean, given that we are already doing it, um, but I think it's definitely something to at least look further into to just determine that. Okay. So, so a primary use, if that primary use has that secondary use, but that primary use evolves into something else, right? Being able to continue to keep that secondary use. Well, the ability to rescend the secondary, rescend a secondary. Um,

yeah, I think it it would just lend us some flexibility if we have all these uses and new uses potentially where we could combine them in a way that makes sense. Um, you know, like I said, just gives us more flexibility. Any further questions? Yeah,

I just finally just want to follow on with the commissioners who said I think going to the city council and even like now if you were to say there's the basic option and we think that will take three months. Here's the middle option we think that'll take nine months. It gives a it gives a better idea of which one they might go with because they might say, "Well, let's just go for that first one first and then we'll we might tackle it." But just having that sense of how long take and person power is is I think a critical just looking at it. I know the basic would probably take a little bit less time than your comprehensive.

That's the case and it's a no-brainer, right? All right. Any further questions? Well, again, it sounds like we're all uh excited to see the work that you do here and so uh hopefully we'll get some direction from city council as well and um can look forward to how we do our revisions to our CEO going forward. Uh I think everyone agrees definitely needed given the the time frame. So, thank you again and I thank you all for bringing up some of the questions that you all had too because that helps with as well too bringing it forward to city council as well. Thank you.

Excellent. All right. And that takes us to item A4. Discuss agenda items for future planning and zoning commission consideration. Any further questions, items? All right. Well, seeing none, that will conclude our study session meeting at 6:45 and we'll meet back at 700 p.m. for our regular meeting. Thank you all.

Good evening and welcome to the City of Farmers Ranch Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. It is presently 700 p.m. of Monday, May 11th, 2026. I'd like to begin this evening by thanking the commissioners for their service. Up first on our agenda item uh today will be our citizen comments. This is an 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's comment registration form and submit it to the chair prior to the start of the meeting. There is a three-minute time limit for each citizen to speak with a reasonable limitation on speakers on anyone 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. This evening, we have no one signed up for Citizen Comics, so we'll continue with our regular agenda items, beginning with item C1, consider approval of the April 27th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting minutes and take appropriate action. Commissioners,

I'll take a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Thank you. Second.

Any further discussion on the item? Seeing none, we'll move to a vote. All those in favor of approving the minutes. All right. Thank you all. And up next, next on our agenda, item C2, consider request for a detailed site plan approval for a multif family residential development on an approximately 5 acre property addressed as 4707 Alpha Road and located within PD107 zoning district and take appropriate action. Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Chairley, and thank you, commissioners. There we go. All right. Um, well, thank you all very much. It's a privilege and a pleasure as always to be presenting before you. I'm Brian Campbell, planner with the planning department, here to present you tonight on the detailed site plan for 4707 Alpha Road. And so, this is the subject property. It is an approximately 5 acre site located on the east side of the city at the northeast corner of Alpha Road and Welch Road. It is zoned plan development district number 107. And this is a detailed site plan request for a multif family residential development. And so the applicant is buyers engineering and survey. They are making this request on behalf of the developer um for this multif family residential development. Um, just to provide a little bit of background, um, PD 107 was created specifically for this multif family development via ordinance 3734 back in May of 2022. As part of the conditions for approval of the of this development, PD 107 requires that prior to development of the site that the applicant get approval of a detailed site plan from city council following a recommendation from

the planning and zoning commission. So, here we are tonight. Um, so the applicant is proposing a 354 unit multif family residential development that they have dubbed Linux Alpha. These units will be split between two residential buildings. These buildings will be wrapped around a six-story parking garage um which will feature 572 spaces in total with an additional 10 spaces on the street for a grand total of 582 spaces. Um, regarding unit configuration, all units will be split between one and twobedroom units with 240 one-bedroom units and 114 two-bedroom units. Um, amenities will include a club and amenity space, a outdoor plaza with a seating area and art installation, and a dog park. And the one amenity that I did neglect to mention um on my slide is that each of the residential buildings will feature a pool with a courtyard area. Uh so now turning to landscaping. A 28% of the site will be landscaped with 24 of the 36 existing trees being preserved. Um as you see on the landscape plan. Um as I point out the locations of the various amenities. um each will have enhanced um landscaping as well as additional landscaping throughout the site. Um so I will point out the locations of those amenities. Um so here at the southwest corner we have the outdoor plaza with the seating area and the art installation as well as the club and amenity space to the interior. Uh we have our two pools with courtyards in the middle of each of the residential buildings and we have the dog park here at the northeast corner. Um in addition, the applicant is proposing um two trails, a

6 foot wide trail that will run adjacent to Welch Road and a 10-ft wide trail that will run adjacent to Alpha Road. Um, and I'll just quickly point out that that outdoor plaza area will measure 5,540 square ft. So, now turning to building design and articulation. Um so the um elevations for the residential buildings as well as the parking garage will feature a variety of materials as illustrated here on the screen including um brick, batten board and stucco. Um each facade of the residential buildings will feature a combination of these materials in order to enhance architectural aesthetics. Um, in addition, the buildings will be pulled up to the sidewalk to encourage walkability. Uh, at this time, this applicant is not proposing any signage. Um, any signage that is proposed will be required to meet any applicable standards of PD 107 as well as the code of ordinances and receive approval of proper permitting through our community services department. And so now turning to the discussion around our multif family development policy which was the meaty part um of the staff report which I'll briefly summarize here. Um so just to provide a little bit of context um our multif family development policy was created via ordinance number 3715 back in November of 2021. Um recognizing that multif family residential development was back then and continues to be a highly requested land use for development within our city, staff wanted to put together a series of recommendations that would help to ensure um quality multif family developments moving forward. Um, so the staff report associated with the case that led to the creation of PD 107 included a discussion around the

multif family development policy. And so staff wanted to do the same thing here with the detailed site plan. Um, as I discussed in my staff report, this took place after staff's review of the submittal as we were not going to require the applicant to revise their plans um, based on these recommendations because they are recommendations. Um and we did that because as I pointed out um with multif family development cases as well as any development case type uh the ordinance governing governing the corresponding zoning district as well as our farmer's branch 2045 plan will always take precedence during our actual review technical review. And so of the 15 relevant criteria evaluated um we found one where policy was being exceeded uh nine where policy was being met, four was where policy was being partially met and then one where the policy was not being met. And so to summarize as you can see with the criteria evaluated with the majority of them the policy was being met somehow which is exactly what we want to see. And so now turning to the recommendations of the farmers branch 2045 plan. The farmer's branch 2045 plan does designate the subject property and the surrounding area as mixed use. With this land use designation, the plan does recommend the creation of a series of districts, each fe featuring a healthy mix of the recommended land use types which do include medium to high density residential office, commercial, light industry, small manufacturing, civic parks and open space. And so given that the applicant is proposing a highdensity residential multif family development, it is his the proposal is consistent with these recommended uses. Therefore, it's also consistent with the plan. And I would I would also point out that we

do have several other properties within the vicinity of the subject property entitled for multif family development. Uh we haven't reviewed the detailed site plans associated with these developments yet, but there is the potential for them to come online at some point in the future when that does happen in addition to the one that we're looking at tonight. And so with the um density that will come about should these multif family developments all come online. There's also the potential for those um re compatible retail and commercial uses that might not be in the area now um but could be there um in the future. And so I say that all that to say is that you know while we planners do work in the present and evaluate what's on the ground at the given time, we're also forward thinking and we have to look to the future and evaluate um properties as well as larger areas of the city based on what we could see in the future as well even with our day-to-day development cases. And with that, that does conclude my presentation. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to take those. And we do have the applicant here with us as well tonight should you have any questions for them. But otherwise I thank you all for your time this evening. Thank you all so much.

Thank you. Uh questions for staff firstly. Any questions for staff? Do we have questions for the applicant? Yep. Okay. Applicant if you wouldn't mind just state your name and address for the record. We'll have some questions. Yeah. David Bond with Spires Engineering, 765 Kuster Road in Plano. Here on behalf of OD Partners, respectfully request your approval. And I do have a uh modification I'd like to make. Brian, I actually messed up the unit count for you. Oh, so it's actually 391 instead of 354. Okay. Everything else is still compliant. Okay.

Um but I wanted to mention that as a I don't know if we can modify it here or if we need to modify the plan or how you wanted to handle, but I didn't want to go too far before we made a change. Sure. Oh, and I'll just um state for the record um we will be sure to incorporate that modification um before we go before um city council, but um we have it on the record now. So, thank you for that, David.

And that's my fault. So, Brian um quizzed me about it and I gave him the wrong number. So, anyways, um other than that error, um excited to have this before you tonight. We were uh here about four years ago with the zoning case as Brian mentioned. Happy to have this one moving forward. Um the our team from OT Partners is here as well if you have any questions for the developer. Otherwise, um excited to get this thing moving and would respectfully request your approval this evening.

Great. I think we do have some questions. Yeah, my main question was with the bigger equipment coming through with fire departments, um was were adjustments made because I know that this has been going on for some time, but uh did you make allowances for making sure that the entryways and and egress were were suitable for fire equipment to get in and out?

Oh yeah, that was that was ground level. um conversation for us. On the east side of the project, we have that long fire lane with the T-turn there at the northeast corner. And so that that tends to be one of the first things you discuss with staff is meeting with fire department and making sure that all that meets what they need as far as the um suppression. I think you guys have adopted something keeping um EV chargers out of garages that we've incorporated to this plan as well. So, um, yes, fireers reviewed and and had their say from the very beginning.

Yeah. My main point is that as the equipment is getting bigger, that uh you made allowances to make sure that there's enough room for for turning, especially when when the new fire trucks are are are purchased and you have to make sure you can make that tight turn and get through. Yeah. As far as any future equipment, um, we've not had that exact discussion with fire other than just that we we meet their regulations and requirements with what you have before you this even. Thank you. Further questions for our applicant?

Sure. So the mention of some other multif family around that area which isn't we're not talking about that tonight but do you kind of foresee this area as kind of developing out more multifamily and it sort of being redeveloped? Is that one of the reasons why you've chosen be there? Um I know that's part of it. I'm going to invite um Hal Beaver with OT Partners maybe to to speak to that one a little bit more uh educatedly um than I'm able to just from the engineering side. Thank you. And just I know the answer, but it carries more. Yeah, just state your name and address for the record. Yeah. Howell Beaver, 4232, San Carlos, Dallas.

Yes, absolutely. Um completely. We see this whole area becoming much more um residential, pedestrian, and retail e if that's a word. Um and we're hoping we can be a part of that uh draw for those retailers to come. Okay. and and and your target your target audience, target market. I mean, would you call these high-end apartment? It's kind of medium in terms of kind of where their pricing and the amenities.

Yeah, without a doubt. Class A. Um, we we always um all the power to them, but we don't do affordable stuff. We don't, you know, we're always really focused on being the best in the subm market. True class A. two pools, got a big co-work area for, you know, inspired by Wei Work, but it's a place for folks that work from home, that live in a 750 or 800 foot apartment. They don't have to work on top of themselves. They can go downstairs and have a nice area with refreshments and things. Um, so absolutely amenized to the nines and all the good things. Huge fitness center. Great. Thank you. Yep.

Uh, this may actually be a question more for staff, but I was just doing some quick math. He said the modified unit count was 391, correct? Um, and per PD 107 you have 1.6 spaces per dwelling unit are required. Mhm. I think 391 times 1.6 is something north of 600. So there is the potential I think that this may by that standard be underparked. So, I just want to bring that up um in the event that there needs to be like a variance or something. Clarify one thing. Sure.

I we've submitted a 391 unit building to be reviewed with a large with a garage adequate for 391 units. The the it was just a error in Okay, I just Yeah, I saw the 582 and I plugged the 391* 1.6 and it came out north of 582. So I just want to 582 is an old number. Okay. Okay. Do we can you pull it up just to we can tell them have on the record? Do you have I didn't I Okay. Yeah. I just don't want this to get to council and like we can certainly get shut down.

We can certainly deal with that between now and then. If you want we can make a couple phone calls real quick and clarify the parking count. Personally, it doesn't bother me. Okay, cool. I'm certain we're compliant. And that will all be clarified with Brian between now and council. Absolutely. Good, good catch though. Good catch. Any further questions, staff, applicant, etc. Thank you all. Thank you. All right, commissioners. Uh, do I hear a motion? any or is there any further discussion beforehand?

I don't It doesn't say it's a public hearing. It was a regular agenda item. Yeah. Um yeah, I'll go ahead and make a motion to recommend approval of 25 SP10 as presented. Thank you. All second. Seconded. Any further discussion on the item? All right. Seeing none, we'll move to the vote. All those to recommend approval. All right. And this goes to city council on I can confirm that date with me just a moment. It'll be the second meeting in June. Uh which looks like will be the 16th. Thank you kindly. You knew I was going to ask. Of course.

All right. And uh with that that brings us to our adjournment. Thank you all. It is 7:18 p.m. All right.