Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It is now 7.01 p.m. Welcome to tonight's Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of Monday, June 1st, 2026. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the public may participate in this public hearing. All participants will be able to speak when called upon. At this time, I am going to explain the procedures to be followed during the meeting. The commission has both a consent agenda and an agenda for consideration of individual items. Items listed on the consent agenda are considered to be routine and non-contested. Citizen comments provides the opportunity for members of the public to address the commission on items that are listed on the consent agenda. Each speaker will be limited to three minutes and the secretary will let you know when one minute is left. For all plots and plans conditionally approved or disapproved by the Commission, the applicant was provided a written statement of the conditions for the conditional approval or the reasons for disapproval. These conditions and reasons are not arbitrary. They are directly related to the requirements of Local Government Code Chapter 212 and include citations to the law that is the basis for the conditional approval or disapproval. For the reasons you all are here tonight, the next part really applies to you, mostly. For individual consideration items, I will call the applicant or his or her representative to present the case. The applicant will have up to five minutes to present the case, which includes all persons representing the application. Then those wishing to speak in favor and those wishing to speak in opposition will have up to five minutes each to present his or her comments. The applicant will have five minutes to answer questions or provide rebuttal if there is opposition. Prior to speaking please give your name and city of residence. Remember to speak directly into the microphone as the hearing is recorded for public record. Any handouts you wish to be you wish to provide should be given to staff. You could provide it to Gina at the end there. Applicants are not required to stay for the entire duration of the meeting, and you may leave once your item has been heard. The next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission will be Monday, July 6th. So we're proceeding now to the agenda items. April, has anyone signed up to speak on any consent agenda? No one signed up. Please proceed. Okay, thank you. Secretary Myrick, will you please read the consent agenda for approval?

Yes, there's two items. The first one is the approval of the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes of Monday, May 4, 2026, and Monday, May 18, 2026. Also, we have number seven that's on the agenda initially under disapproval. which is 2026151PL, Wildwood Business Center. It's located at 1201 South Wildwood.

Thank you. Thank you. I'll accept a motion.

So moved. Second.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. The consent agenda items for approval have been approved 9-0. Secretary Myrick, if you'll read the consent agenda for the disapproval items.

For disapproval, we have 202543PL, Hardesty Revised Addition, located at 103 East Pioneer Drive. The next one is 2025273PL, Pearl Landing Addition, located at 1101 West Royal Lane. The next one we have is 2026147PL Irving Heights Addition, located at 1303 South Irving Heights Drive. Also, 2026150PL Roberts at South Britton Road, located at 416 South Britton Road. Lastly, 2026152PL, Delaware Phase 3, Final Platte. It is located at 500 West 6th Street.

Thank you. I'll accept a motion.

So moved. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Please vote. And the consent agenda items for disapproval have been approved nine to zero. We're moving on to our first case, zoning case 2025-189-ZC. Ms. Robinson, this is your case. If you'd like to come down and speak, you have five minutes.

Good evening. So I'm asking for rezoning for this property.

I'm sorry, if you don't mind, your name and your city residence for the record.

My name is Virginia Robinson and I live in Irving. So I'm coming before you to ask for approval for a rezoning case that will allow for a variance to finish the building of a second residence on a single lot. The first thing that I would like to address is whether or not this is just another ADU. I don't see it that way. The house, the primary structure is about 900 square feet. The detached garage in its original form was almost 900 square feet, so they're the same size. The detached garage was part of the original construction, so another foundation has not been added, nor has another roof. And there was an agreement with the co-tenant in 2021, sorry, 2022, to replat the property, divide it down the middle so that we could do this under ordinances of the city. I invested a lot of time and money into that, including a replat. The co-tenant unilaterally withdrew the permit or the rezone application, which ensued or ended in a breach of contract lawsuit. So this has been... a long time waiting to resolve this issue. Because of the order of disbursement, it is now not really practical to buy the property, and also it's expensive, so this creates undue hardship for me. The way it is right now, BECAUSE I HAD PERMITS AT THAT TIME TO BEGIN THE BUILDING AND THE IDEA WAS THAT IT WOULD BE REPLATTED, ALL THE PLUMBING GOES OUT TO THE STREET, THE UTILITIES ARE TO THE STREET, ALL THE SETBACKS, LIKE WE COMPLY WITH ALL THE SETBACKS, THERE'S NO ISSUE FOR PARKING, IT'S A TWO-ACRE PROPERTY. No one opposes it. The other properties in the area are either residential or agricultural. There are some other properties that have mobile homes on them, so it's not like this is going to disrupt the flow of the... of the neighborhood, but also this is an eyesore and it was an eyesore when I bought the property. So it was being used as a partially as a garage, but mostly as a storage unit and a workshop. Um, And so I'm just trying to really come to an end of this and see if I can finish this building. My intention is to not build two massive houses, but just keep two small homes on the property and use it either as a guest house or possibly a rental. So if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those.

The first question I got is, why didn't you just replat the properties, divide it?

Initially, that was the intention, but then the co-tenant decided that she didn't want to divide it after I had made a large investment and didn't ask but just withdrew the permits, which is why I had to go forward with the lawsuit because there was no coming to an agreement as to how to fix this or divide it a different way that would be fair. So the way the order disbursement works now, or the way that the court granted this, if I subplot it now, I lose a lot of property because of easements, because what she would be granted is at the back of the property, because of the way it's divided, it's according to investment and equity. And she hadn't made a very large investment in the property, and I had, because I had paid for it.

well the mortgage is in my name but also i had paid for the investment in the secondary structure any other questions for miss robinson um one question the staff mentioned that there might be the possibility of switching it over from a site plan two to a site plan one which would

I was asking for a site plan, too. I think that's what the case zoning is.

But I think the site plan, too, is what allows for not just the current plan, not just what your plan is. So if I understood correctly, there is a way to do it that would limit what could be done on the property to what you have in mind. Oh, I see. Okay. Yeah.

That's correct. You can request an SB1, which would be a detailed site plan, and that would lock in the building footprints.

Okay.

And what would she need to do in order to make that switch?

You could make it part of your recommendation if you wanted to as part of the commission's recommendation, and we could then ask the applicant to amend the plan prior to it being forwarded to the City Council for approval or for consideration.

Okay. Is that something you're open to?

Yes, because that was my point. Meaning I had no intention of changing what is presented.

So is your intention to have two homes on that property? Yes. Is that what I'm hearing? So the... The current structure that just has a sink and a toilet in it, you're going to make that a full bathroom, a kitchen, and everything.

Yeah, that would be the idea. And I can't really connect the two because they're too far apart. It's like 70 feet between, I think, between 50 and 70 feet. I'm not exactly sure, between the two houses. So it's not really practical. I mean...

Are you going to have both homes tied into the same infrastructure, sewer, water, electricity, or are you putting in sewer taps, water taps?

Yeah, all of that is already there because I had permits to do that when I was initially, because I was rezoning. I was intending to replant. So the plumbing for the secondary structure is already rough plumbed out to the street. so potentially that one day could become a second plat and it wouldn't yeah it's not tied to the to the house nor electrical i guess the electrical could be if need be but it that is not the intention commissioner skinner you're aware that we got multiple taps on one property um that's going to create some issues

Yeah, and I assume that was because originally the plan was to divide it into two properties?

Yes, but what are multiple taps? What do you mean?

Do what, ma'am?

What does it mean to say there are multiple taps on one property?

You got different sewer lines, different water lines, you know, et cetera, on the property.

To one property. Can you say something more about why it can't be easily... You can't just do the replatting now?

Well, it's an economic hardship. I invested in that and lost all that money. So that's number one. Number two is the way the order of disbursement works. The co-tenant was awarded a piece of property at the back with an easement. But if I subdivide, I have to grant a double amount of that easement. Because then it becomes my responsibility to replant the co-tenants.

So the court granted ownership to the back half of the property?

The back third.

Back third of the property.

Partition law is very interesting. I mean, I guess people are awarded according to equity when you ask for a partition in kind, which is what I was asking. And we don't have to go into all those details, but it's fun.

How will the co-tenant access the back of the property?

The order of disbursement asks for an easement. So there is an easement granted should the co-tenant decide to replat the piece of property that was granted to her. But to complicate it, I have now a lien on that because I won the breach of contract case. So it just becomes, that's if that ever happens. But the easement is on the other side, and it wouldn't affect the setbacks for what I'm trying to do.

Isn't the back flood zone?

To me, that was news. When I purchased the property, I knew that it was in, I think, a 100-year flood zone, a portion of it maybe. Yeah. Yeah.

And you said they ordered the partition in kind.

Yes.

They didn't order you to sell the property and divide the profit?

No, the way it works in Texas is you can request a partition in kind or a partition by sale, and I requested a partition in kind.

If both parties agree.

to ask for the partition in kind? Correct. No, you sue for partition in order to not have to continue to co-own property if you don't want to. So the right to partition is absolute in Texas. So if one party requests partition or sues for partition, partition is granted, whether it be for sale or in kind. And when there's a piece of property that can be divided to where each person could be granted their share in equity or their equitable share, then Texas favors that.

Thank you, Ms. Robinson. We're going to see if there's any other people who would like to speak in public about the item. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor? Thank you. Okay, anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the item? All right, I will close the item to the floor and return it to the Commission for discussion or a motion.

Chairwoman, if I may, should the commission be inclined to request an SP1 site plan case, my recommendation would be to postpone this. You've already heard kind of a variety of potential issues related to easements, and since that is a detailed site plan, which would be completely tied to it, we don't want the applicant to have to come back again should more issues be discovered. This case is currently scheduled for city council next week. So just to give both the applicant a fair chance and staff time to review, that would be my recommendation as far as if you are inclined to request that SP1. If you're okay with the SP2 or wish to vote to deny, certainly you're free to do all of that as well.

Does everyone understand?

I guess the question would be, is the applicant willing to postpone?

Yeah, are you willing to postpone ma'am?

The next meeting is on July 6th I'll make a motion to postpone Zoning case 20 there. Did you go do? Yeah? Okay. Sorry.

Well, I just offering some comments. I think this situation is I think this is a pretty good illustration where not every challenging situation has what feels like an adequate solution or remedy. And I think what's before us is the question of whether or not this lot should have two separate houses on a single lot, or what we typically see is to have it subdivided, which we've heard some explanation of why that, at least for this applicant, that's a challenge. I'm not persuaded that we should be going to the extraordinary step of Allowing for two houses on a single lot so At least for me, I would be inclined to recommend disapproval If there's no further comments do I get to make my motion I

Are you gonna say something? I want to make a motion before you make yours. Okay. There's no further comments I'd like to move zoning case 2025 dash 189 dash ZC to the City Council for denial second We have a motion in a second, please vote

So, Ms. Robinson, your motion has been denied 9-1. Excuse me, 8-1. This is not the last step, obviously. Your case will be heard by City Council on June 11th. They make the final decision. So I would recommend you go to City Council on June 11th for their meeting. And if you have any questions beforehand, staff is available to you. Thank you.

Can she still request the change to an SP1?

If City Council chooses to do that, then they would need to postpone, and we would probably need to bring it back through you, through P&Z, because it would now be a different recommendation. Okay.

Okay, moving on to the next case, which is Conditional Use Permit 2025-256-CUP. Is the applicant available? Thank you, sir. If you'll give your name and city of residence.

Hi, my name is Ali Khan. I'm from Salt Lake, Texas.

Ali Khan from Salt Lake, Texas.

So I was calling. I own this property from 2007. I own this property from 2016, and we're trying to open a family event center. It can be used for a wedding event, a party for the kids, and for multiple... Can you hear me? Yeah, so it's for the multiple, you know, event center. So I just want to confirm, like, you know, that we've been vacant from last one year, and we tried to process this, you know, for lease the space or, you know, open the, you know, as an event center. So most of the tenants are requesting to open an event center, and that's what, you know, we don't want to open any liquor store. Anybody who was coming for any other stores type. So we want to be, like, a family-oriented place businesses over there. So I can take any questions if you have.

Any questions for Mr. Kahn? Well, it was very hard to hear you. I don't know if it's because as you start talking, you lift your head up and you're not in the mic.

Okay.

So if you can repeat what you said or at least do a summary.

It's basically for the family event center, you know, for wedding, for, you know, for the birthday parties and everything. And, you know, as I own this property from 2016 and we have multiple different tenants came and we're trying to be like family oriented business to be there. And, you know, a lot of people approach to open a liquor store, other stuff, and everything. We don't want to lease those people. And this is something I want to keep it, like, family-oriented. So that's what I was requesting for, to instead of 2,000, like, we can up to 5,000 square foot to be having event center over there.

Any other questions? Okay, Mr. Khan, just give us a moment. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of this item? Okay, is there anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the item? Okay, we'll close it to the floor. Thank you, sir. Close it to the floor and return it to the Commission for further discussion or a vote.

Just my comments, so the applicant knows why my vote. I just feel the location is too close to residential neighborhood, and it's just not compatible with the area. If no further comments, I'd like to make a motion for conditional use permit 2025256CUP for a recommendation of disapproval.

I'll second. I'll second.

We have a motion and a second for disapproval. Please vote. Mr. Kahn, your motion has failed 9-0. Again, as I mentioned earlier, this is not the last stop. Your case will be heard by the city council on June 25th, so we recommend you go there where they'll make a final determination. Thank you all. We have now a special offense plan case 2026-56-SFP. Is the applicant here? I thought that might be you. New babies. Don't be just get your name and city and then if you'd like were you at the work session earlier where we discussed your case No, okay, so then you might want to tell us about the fence and any particulars that are of interest

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS REBECCA. I'M HERE FOR THE FENCE. I DID COME AND ASK FOR PERMISSION AND EVERYTHING, BUT I MADE IT FIVE FEET TOWARDS THE SIDEWALK, AND THEY TOLD ME THAT WASN'T GOOD. THAT WASN'T FOR THE PERMIT, AND THEN IT'S A LITTLE BIT TOO TALL. And then, as you guys can see, I got my canes. And I always keep them in a little bubble. That's the only thing. Can I please keep my fence? And then I just had my baby two months ago. So financially, it's going to be a little financial burden for me. Because since I didn't have insurance when I gave birth to the baby, so I have to pay Las Colinas Medical City. I have to pay them for the delivery, and I had a C-section. So that's going to be a little hard for now. But, yeah, that's mainly it. If I can please, pretty please. Any questions?

I got two questions. One question is, is that on your permit, when you pulled your permit, it specifically stated 15 feet.

I know.

So that would have been the point of discussion as far as if you put it back It looks like the fence was originally five feet. How long have you owned the property?

In August. We barely bought the house in August. So it's recent. And then I was pregnant then, so... What was the reasoning for...

when you pulled the permit for ignoring the 15 feet?

I didn't, I mean, I didn't ignore it like a hundred percent. I mean, I had pregnancy brain, but, um, when I told the contractor, he did it five feet because I don't know if he was looking at the other, um, properties. Cause my neighbor from, so I live in the corner, the stop sign. And then my neighbor from this side is like literally inches from the sidewalk. So I'm pretty sure that's what he was basing off. But it was my fault because I did say five feet.

Who pulled the permit, your contractor or you?

Me. So I am going to say that it was my fault.

And you provided the city with the drawing? Yes. Was your drawing at 15 feet?

Yeah, I think so. To be honest, I don't remember.

Or was it at five feet? Because you have to provide a drawing in order to show them where you're putting the fence. So did your drawing show 15 feet at that time?

I don't remember. I think so.

Okay.

I think so, yeah. So, I mean.

Okay.

Technically, I did tell him it was five feet. And then, but yeah, once again, probably he was basing off the neighbors and everybody else. And I know we're not supposed to, you know, pick and choose, right? But, yeah, because my neighbor and the friends, like, literally, like, right near the sidewalk, so. Yeah, but that's mainly it.

Didn't someone from the city went to your house to mark where the fence line should be at? Because my understanding is that they have to go there to make sure that you're not breaking, putting the poles and breaking any lines on the ground.

No, even though, nobody went. Nobody went. I just received the notice that I had to have inspection. And that's when they're like, ooh, I think you don't have it, you know, what the city requires. And then, but even if you, like, if you go to the house, there's, like, these metal things to where the previous fence was. And it's, like, literally, like, right next to the sidewalk. So, I don't know. So, probably, I don't know.

But... So before you put up your fence, you could still see what the old fence line was?

Yeah. Yeah, and it was right next to the sidewalk. It was literally right next to the sidewalk. And I think I... I mean, obviously, I can't show you pictures, right? But I submitted the pictures to where that... It's like a... ¿Cómo se dice? Like a... You know Spanish? Like right there, like in the very corner of the house of like the property, there's like where the previous fence was. It's like metal. But yeah, no, we still did it five feet apart.

Have you talked with your neighbor behind you about the new fence?

Yeah, they're not mad. They said that the fence looked really nice. That's the only thing. I mean, it does look pretty. But no, nobody complained. They even told me who the contractor was because it was really, it looks really, I mean, I'm not going to lie, it looks really pretty. But other than that, nobody complained or anything. And, like, even if you're, like, in my living room, you can still see the neighbors from behind, like, walking in, walking out, their kids from the windows at 3 a.m.

So when you bought the house in August, was it just that front piece of the fence, and then you all...

No, there was no fence.

There was no fence.

I think there was already a survey for it, according to what the person that sold me the house told me, that I needed to do the fence. But once again, I don't know. I did tell him it was five feet, so I'm going to take the blame for that.

Question for you. Did your contractor move it five feet from there to accommodate the sliding gate?

No.

Okay. What's the intention of the sliding gate?

To get the trucks in, like the cars, our cars. It's like a little gate because we have dogs too. So I just open and then we go out for walks and like that. And then the trucks, we put them inside. Because the garage is only for like one.

Store vehicles?

Yeah.

Is it all concrete back there?

Yeah, just a little bit. But the garage is only for one car. And we don't even put cars in there because it's so small. And then we're in the backyard day and night, especially now with the heat. The last thing I want is somebody creeping, looking at my kids.

Any additional questions? Okay, thank you, Ms. Menez. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of this item?

Appreciate your time.

Thank you. Anyone else who would like to speak in opposition to the item? Okay. Seeing none, I will close the item to the floor and return it to the Commission for discussion or a motion.

If there's no further... Go ahead.

I was going to make a comment. I think probably there are others on the commission that share my view that we generally appreciate when people come forward before things are built, and it's tough to listen to cases where things have been built after the fact, and we have to consider whether or not to approve them. It puts us in a tough position. I'll say for myself, this strikes me as an exception. I think if we had seen this case before it was built and we saw the fences in the area that were right close to the sidewalk, I think I would have been inclined to grant it. So I'm in favor of approving this request, but others might not share my view. But I think this is a rare exception.

I would have to disagree with Daniel I'm more along the lines of not supporting this and it's not because if they would have brought it to us Requesting a five-foot variance. I probably would have agreed to that But the problem with it is is that in order to pull a fence permit you have to draw your lines you have to show them where it's going you have to show what you're doing and And that was a step that was avoided to avoid them coming before us to get that done. I just can't support doing something totally different and then turning around and then asking for forgiveness.

Actually, a question for staff. They did pull the permit to build this before building it, right?

Yes, I understand the permit was pulled at the required 15-foot mark.

And question for applicant, please, if you don't mind. Why did you build the fence?

Well, mainly because of privacy. Why did I build the fence?

Yeah, why you had it built.

Mainly because of privacy. You know, I have my kids. We like to be in the backyard. They're, like, all over the place, and especially during summertime, I have a little pool. And then I'm not supposed to bring this, and especially not in front of everybody, but, you know, when I was a kid, I had all this trauma and everything in home. So I don't want the same thing for my kids. I don't want, like, any weirdo over there looking at them. And especially, like, if you're looking, once again, if you're, like, in my living room, you can still see, like, the cars coming by and everything because it's, like, my neighbor in the back, he's, like, in a little hill. So you can still see from the inside. But I totally get what you're saying, and I understand. It is my fault because, once again, you did mention something that I was literally thinking about right now. I did do the drawing, and it did say 15 feet. However, that was my mistake. I told the contractor 5 feet.

Thank you. I don't know. Thank you.

At the end, I'll answer the question. Thank you. I went above and beyond. Sorry. Thank you.

If there's no further comment, there's no further comments from, or do you have another comment? I want to make a motion.

Go ahead and make your motion.

I make a motion for special offense project case number 202656FSP be forwarded to city council with a recommendation for denial.

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second for denial. Please vote. So we have, I'm going to say this.

Yeah, the motion for denial fails.

three to six so we can accept a new motion.

I'll make a motion for the special offense project plan 2026-56-SFP for recommendation of approval.

I second. We have a motion and a second for approval. Please vote.

It's going to take just a second.

Yeah. Okay, so this is great. Your application has been approved, six to three. It does go to city council for June 11th, so you should be there just in case the council has any questions for you. But it does go with a recommendation for approval. Thank you all. The next case is Comprehensive Plan 2026-112-CP. Abraham, is he here? So we can just proceed with him. Okay. I don't have to go through a public hearing.

Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Um, so does anybody on the commission, we've heard the application during the case notes during the work session. Does anybody have any further questions? No. Okay. Is there anyone who'd like to speak in favor of this item from the audience? No. Anyone who'd like to speak in opposition to the item? No. If there's no further discussion, I'll close the item to the floor and return it to the Commission for further discussion or a vote.

If there's no further discussion among the Commissioners, I'd like to move Comprehensive Plan Case 2026-112-CP to City Council for approval. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Motion carries 9 to 0. And then the zoning case companion with ordinance amendment. We have zoning case 2026-58-ZC and the ordinance amendment 2026-131-UDC. We heard this item in our work session as well. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the item? OK. Anyone in opposition? Okay, we'll close the item to the floor return it to the Commission for further discussion or of motion There's no further discussion.

I'd like for zoning case 2026 58 ZC for approval Sorry and ordinance amendment second We have a motion and a second just to be clear

Go ahead.

I was just I just saw it on the that I can it's ordinance amendment 2026 dash 131 dash UDC perfect We have a motion in a second then Please vote And the motion carries 9 to 0

Thank you all. Mr. Dewey, your case 2026-82-ZC.

Good evening, Chairman, members of the Commission. I'm Jim Dewey with JDJR Engineers, 2500 Texas Drive, Suite 100, Irving, Texas. I'm here tonight on behalf of the property owner that developed this property back in 2020 and was granted CN Zoning on this particular track. And CN Zoning's commercial neighborhood produces that kind of Maybe a little more compatible, but neighborhood serving uses. The use we're asking for is for a quick lube, Jiffy Lube. It's a national brand. One of the better ones, I think. And they're wanting to build a small facility here. And that use is allowed in the zoning. And I'm really bad about checking the overlay district. But it's not allowed in this overlay district, which is section 2C of the State Highway 161 overlay. And the exhibit I just handed out shows you in red the area that's in the overlay in our area. And the area in green is this lot that's on Beltline. I just realized the streets weren't labeled, but I think you can figure out where 161 is and where Beltline is. And we're a quarter of a mile from 161. You can't see this property from 161. I don't think whatever develops on this property will have any impact on future development along 161. And so one of my arguments is that maybe why this is okay is that this property really shouldn't have been in the State Highway 161 overlay. It's affected by what happens on Beltline and not really impacted by what happens on State Highway 161. we don't get the staff report until they're not posted until late on Friday. And so I was disappointed that we have a recommendation for denial, but I completely most respect the staff. They don't feel like it's compatible. And so we don't really have a lot of time since Friday afternoon late until Monday to get a lot done in the interim. But the owner did go and reach out to all the people that owned lots that are immediately adjacent to this property. There's one lot on the corner that backs up to this property that's not developed. And we did not, weren't able to reach that person. The second, the first house as you enter the street on the south that's directly behind this property, we have that owner. It's owner occupied and he's has sent a letter in support. The next four houses, one I think is under contract, but they're owned by the builder, and we have three of those four, he's representing those, that builder, who's not involved with the Jiffy Lube lot, is okay and has sent in letters of support. Then there's another owner There's one lot that's still owned by the original developer. They sent in a letter of support. And then there's three lots right across on the north side, but I think they're within the 200 feet. It's owned by one person. They bought them as an investment. They may sell or build. And they were able to get their letter in support. So none of the properties that are directly affected by this development have an issue with it or or against it. And so I think that really helps. But the property owners most affected are all in support. And again, I don't really share why this property is in the 161 overlay. There was a comment about floodplain. CIP has already signed off on this zoning case. We did go through FEMA We did get a letter of map revision based on Phil, a Lomer F, that was signed and processed through Gary Finnell. That's already there. The portion of our site plan that shows improvements has already been raised out of the floodplain. There's a retaining wall around it, and we have a letter of map amendment showing that it's not in the floodplain. The portion on the south end of the lot that's not shown to be developed is still in the floodplain. So with that, I'd be glad to answer any questions you have with this request. and respectfully request that you recommend approval.

Mr. Dewey, you said this is for Jiffy Lube. So right down on Beltline, it's either Jiffy Lube or Quick. It's an oil change. So is this the same owner, or this is going to be a second Jiffy Lube right on Beltline?

Well, it's definitely a Jiffy Lube. And I'm not sure if it's the same owner. Okay. I don't think it is. I don't think it is.

Okay. But you do know that there's a jiffy lube already down the street?

I'm remembering it. I didn't really think about it.

Yeah. It's after country flow.

This is minor auto repair. There will be no storage of vehicles overnight. You know what they do. They change oil. They'll replace light bulbs. They may do inspections. They don't do any heavy, they don't change tires, they don't... It's a jiffy loop. Jiffy loop.

Yeah. Yes, ma'am. And my other question is, I know you said you get letters of approval from the people that own those homes that would be closest to the site. Yes. I guess my question becomes, you know, when they leave and then there's new owners that come there. and having a Jiffy Lube that close.

Well, I think that's a little bit of an advantage.

To a home.

I think that's a little bit of an advantage to the new owner because the Jiffy Lube is already there. So if they elect to buy a house that's adjacent to Jiffy Lube, that was something they did.

How would I think it would be an advantage to have a house by Jiffy Lube?

They have the knowledge that there's a Jiffy Lube there. These particular owners that have sent in these letters... Did not know there was going to be a Jiffy Loop there.

Okay. What did they know there was going to be there?

Say that again?

You said that they didn't know it was going to be a Jiffy Loop. What they thought it was going to be?

I'm sorry?

You said they didn't know it was going to be a Jiffy Loop. So what they thought it was going to be?

Well, it's Zone CN. Restaurants allowed. convenience store without fuel sales, retail. You could have dry cleaners, doctor's offices. There's quite a few less intense commercial uses that are allowed in CN.

Thanks, Mr. Dewey. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the item? Anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the item? I'll close the item to the floor and return it to the Commission for further discussion or a vote. A motion. You hit it first.

I just want to provide some comments. I'm probably in favor of staff recommendation, Reason being is because I don't believe it's compatible either. I've never been in favor of having commercial right next to residential. Even if the owners are okay with it, they don't even know how their property value might decrease because of that. So for that reason, if no further comments, I'd like to make a recommendation on zoning case 2026. for a recommendation of disapproval.

Second.

We have a motion and a second for disapproval. Please vote. So, Mr. Dewey, it fails 6-3. The motion, your case has failed. I think you understood that. So, you'll go to City Council for June 25th for final vote. Thanks. Sorry for my confusion on that. Zoning case two zero two six dash eight four dash CZ is the applicant available You'll give your name and city of residence and Anything you'd like to discuss about the case got it Scott Ellermann for property 4401 North State Highway 161 Irving, Texas

Okay, it's already up. Perfect.

All right. Good evening. As I mentioned, my name is Scott Ellerman. I'm the owner applicant on this variance request tonight. Our property is approximately 24 acres located at 4401 North State Highway 161 in Irving, Texas, the current home of the Awakened Church, one of Irving's largest and most respected churches for almost 75 years. THE PROPERTY WAS APPROVED FOR REZONING FOR A DATA CENTER AND WAREHOUSING IN MARCH OF LAST YEAR AND WE'RE ABLE TO FINALIZE THE TRANSACTION THAT ENABLED THE WAKEN CHURCH TO CONSTRUCT AND RELOCATE INTO A NEW PERMANENT FACILITY WHILE CONTINUING OPERATIONS DURING THE TRANSITION WITHIN THE EXISTING FACILITY TODAY. ONCE REZONED WE PURSUED PERMITTING FOR THE DATA CENTER AND CONTINUED OUR DUE DILIGENCE with Encore and ERCOT which we had already substantially done in 2000 of 24 prior to our rezone vote. Now awaiting the zoning for finalization our primary objective was to construct a data center. We spent significant time in capital permitting a significant time in capital pursuing the data center path however recently received notice from encore and ercot that their process had changed significantly and our project was not slated to be heard for finalization until at least 2029 at the very earliest this change caused all prospects to terminate pursuit of this project and forced us to pivot to our secondary choice which was ultimately warehouse this is the slide of the prospective data center that we had planned on site And then this is the slide that was shown in the meeting prior to this. We submitted for permit for a warehouse earlier this year and were told of the parking constraints within the 161 overlay, which led city staff to advise us to place parking in the rear to be in compliance with this overlay requirement. This location, however, is in a space where truck traffic ultimately occurs, as seen here in the truck court behind the building. While the kind assistance of staff or sorry, excuse me while with the kind of systems of staff we have provided that design For current permitting considerations, which was deemed approved today And we do not feel this is the better choice for employee safety This variance request is designed to alleviate this problem by allowing parking to be in the front We appreciate staff working us working with us throughout the process to identify compliant alternatives and The current compliant layout forces employees to walk through active truck loading areas to reach the building as shown in the red arrows here. They have to walk around what could be positioned trailers in order to access the backside of the building despite the primary facade, oh, I'm sorry about that, the primary facade entrance to the building being along the front side. The offices which will predominantly host most of the employees will be along the front side and easier accessible through front loaded parking. Additionally, limiting parking in this manner can restrict the number of employees a future user can comfortably support on site, which can impact a future occupant's operations and staffing needs. We have been approved to pave these car parks, but they are not accessible to future occupants. So really from the public's perspective, when looking at this building, there's no visual difference on whether these spaces are striped for usable employee parking or left inaccessible. These concerns have led us to file a variance request to allow the parking in front of the building, which is the same site plan that we originally illustrated to city council and PNZ for our original zoning case in March of 2025 last year. Within the past three years, there have been two warehouses within the 161 overlay that received approval for this variance with regards to parking limitations in the 161 overlay. And both are less than half a mile from south of our property, noted here in blue. I'm sorry if that's really small. Ultimately, both properties were constructed, delivered, and leased to reputable companies like Costco and BP Aero and serve the Irving tax base as well. Additionally, within the past 60 days, we have received a significant amount of prospective build-to-suit activity and have had several conversations with one of the largest private companies in the United States and a brand name that I unfortunately cannot mention tonight to occupy the entire building prior to us beginning demolition and construction of our development. However, once they were made aware of the parking limitation and our pending variance request, They had completely disengaged from conversations until the City Council vote on June 25th. They have communicated that the existing plan that has been approved for permit does not work because of the concern that they have for the parking behind the truck court, forcing employees to interact with truck traffic to access the building. In conclusion, we believe the warehouse is the highest and best use for the site under the existing zoning, and our goal is to deliver a high-quality, fully occupied, industrial project that contributes long-term economic value to the city of Irving. This request does not increase the building size. It does not increase the truck traffic or the intensity of the use at all. It simply allows for safer and more functional employee parking placement. Thank you so much.

What is the purpose if you're going in a different direction of keeping the data center?

You said the purpose? Yeah. So when we went through the studies with Encore and ERCOT to determine if there was power availability for the site, we started in 2024. We closed on the property in May of 2025 with a full 12-month commitment to lease back the property to the church while we would continue feasibility with Encore and ERCOT to determine the amount of available power that could be assigned to a data center. And it was ultimately left inconclusive. In fact, there is zero engagement from either Encore or ERCOT whether there is power available at all. Earlier this year, there was a batch study that was organized by ERCOT in conjunction with basically all power providers throughout the state of Texas. And that batch study basically assigned you to a category of And then within that category, you had a particular time frame to which your study would even begin to determine whether there's power made available at your site. Unfortunately, the studies that we need in order to move forward with the prospective data center development will not even begin until 2029.

Question for staff. If we pass this, if I was correct during our work session, it still leaves the potential to put in a data center, correct?

Yes, as long as the use is not removed, then it still is allowed use by right. Okay.

And since you're building a total different style warehouse, are you willing to give up the data center as a use?

I mean, it's not really a preference now if this is what it takes to ultimately get the parking approval that we need. I believe that's something that we can work with the city on okay Any other questions from the Commission for Scott So you will be okay removing the data center I Again, our entire focus has completely pivoted to a warehouse development under the current zoning. Right now, there's no intention to build a data center given the timeframe or really ambiguity regarding power availability. And so that's not our plans as of right now.

Thanks, Scott. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in favor of the item? Anyone who'd like to speak in opposition to the item? OK. Seeing as there is none, I'll close the item to the floor and return it to the commission for discussion or a vote.

If there's no further discussion amongst the committee.

Yeah, so my recollection is on this one, the first time it came before us, it went to council and they voted it down altogether, both warehouse and data center. And I mean, it's been a while since we had that discussion, but it seemed like some of the concern was that the idea of the 161 overlay wasn't to have these sorts of facilities at all. And that a data center would have had relatively small parking lots, relatively small number of cars, You know, I know one of the concerns in the 161 overlay was having these big parking lots right there facing the highway. But in the concern that that had already happened and that this was an effort that this was a chance to not do that. So I did kind of take it that at that time that the council only approved this because it was still going to have those sorts of restrictions. Now maybe they've changed their mind on it.

But in light of that history, I can't I can't see supporting it If there's no further discussion amongst commissioners, I'd like to move zoning case 2026 that 84 dash ZC removing data center Prohibited or not prohibited but data center allowed use on the property strictly warehouse and to City Council for approval.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Please vote. And the motion carries six to three. So it goes to City Council with our recommendation. And I know you'll be there, Scott, on June 25th. Thank you all. Andrew, I see you. Welcome back. Zoning Case 2026-117-ZC. Good evening.

Andrew Ruig, 1341 West Mockingbird in Dallas. Good to see you all. I'm here representing Siemens Healthineers for a site on 1320 Greenway Drive. I listened to the work session. I don't think there's too many comments. I'll go through this relatively quickly. The intent here is to rezone the property to a research laboratory manufacturer of pharmaceutical products as principal use, keeping the CO commercial office zoning district. As you can see in the aerial, this is one of the few greenfield sites in this office park of Las Colinas. I think there's been several other attempts at other types of rezonings over the years, but I think this is also a great opportunity to bring a Fortune 100 company to Irving. So this is Siemens Healthineers. This is a subsect of Siemens. They're also known as PetNet Solutions. And what they do here is small-scale pharmaceutical manufacture for positron emission tomography, or PET. So that's used to image and diagnose critical oncologic cardiac and neurological pathology. So what they're essentially doing are research and development and production for biomarker services Those are distributed to local hospitals, medical clinics, or imaging facilities all throughout DFW. And I think what's also very important about this particular use is it would create 20 to 30 high-paying jobs such as chemists, pharmacists, and the engineering staff that would be onsite at this facility. You've seen the aerials and conditions. This is all future land use map. This is consistent with that. IN THE BUSINESS OFFICE AREA, CO, COMMERCIAL OFFICE IS A COMPATIBLE ZONING DISTRICT. ZONING MAP, OUR SITE HAD SPECIALIZED ZONING PREVIOUSLY. PROJECT IS NOT NECESSARILY FEASIBLE THAT EXISTS WITH THE CURRENT ZONING, HENCE THE REZONING FOR SIEMENS TO OCCUPY THE SITE. AGAIN, KEEPING WITH THE BASE CO ZONING THAT IS COVERING THIS AREA OF IRVING. We also have several images and renderings of what the new facility would look like. So this is the proposed research laboratory for pharmaceutical products. Essentially, our chemists, engineers, and staff will work at this facility. We'll also have delivery drivers working. In small, really personal vehicles, sometimes like a sprinter van, but again, this is very small scale, small batch biomarkers. You don't need a lot of space for that. That'll take deliveries and distribute those to different medical facilities in the area. Here's another rendering of what the facility will look like. We do have a preliminary site plan, just so you can kind of see that from the overall, you know, surface parking for our employees, a pickup drop-off area at the northern side so our delivery drivers can get in and out of the site fairly easily. And then you also saw the SP2 site plan, as it was noted in the work session. We're adhering to all CO commercial office requirements. The one variance is for the use, which specifies research laboratory and manufacture of pharmaceutical products. So that use, we worked with staff to kind of keep that as a very narrow use that would allow Siemens and not you know, something else that might be unintended for it. So I also wanted to make a note that I do have some members of Siemens here tonight, David Hyman and Dwayne Marr here in the back. If you have any technical or operational questions, they can also answer those as well. So with that, I thank you for your time.

Thank you, Andrew. Questions? Okay. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the item? Anyone who would like to speak in opposition to this item? Okay. Seeing none, I'll close the item to the floor, return it to the Commission for discussion and a motion.

If there's no further questions, I'd like to make a motion. Move zoning case 2026117ZC recommended for approval.

Second.

We have a motion and a second for approval. Please vote. Thank you all very much. We appreciate Simmons coming. We welcome you to Irving. There probably isn't a single person in the room who will not have either a family member or for themselves individually who will be impacted by your good work. So we really appreciate your time. And we're excited to welcome you to Thank you all very much. Thanks, Andrew. Moving on to comprehensive plan 2026-155-CP with a companion case of the zoning 2026-120-CC. Mr. Patel? Good evening. Sorry, we've kept you waiting a little while. Thank you.

All right.

Thank you. . . After three months, what happened is, part of the people were led to believe that that's how they're going to do it. By the last few years, Ask the question. So, today I found out Mr. Patel, I'm sorry to interrupt. Would you please turn on your microphone if you wouldn't mind? At the end of the microphone, can you please turn it on? There should be a little button that turns green.

Is it lighting up green for you? Can you turn it on? Yes, sir.

Oh, so it was not on?

No. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you.

Okay, okay. So in general, we are in agreement with the planning department, but they need more time. And we are willing to work with them. It is not another road. But I would still like to schedule this for a vote by city council. And between now and then, see, it's still almost three weeks left. So within three weeks, I think we can satisfy or dissatisfy the planning department on a variance table. And they can give their report to the city council. So that way, I don't lose another two months. That's my request. Thank you. Oh, one comment I want to make is that in the working session, Haley made a comment that in the original plan, I mean the... This land is zoned for retirement community, nursing home, and assisted living. So she gave me the impression, or she gave the impression to you, that whatever I have in my site has to have all three. But that's not the way I read it. All I read is it can be any one of the three. And that's the way we designed it. That's the way it was approved originally. And that's what we have. But this five-story building business is something I fully understand that it needs zoning change. But I need planning and zoning commission's cooperation in working with me so that I can save some time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Patel. Any questions of Mr. Patel?

Go ahead, April.

Not necessarily a question, but I know you were saying that the staff didn't have enough time, and you were in the working session. I know fire also expressed some concerns about the plan.

No, I heard it, but that was not valid. I have 26 feet radius circle, and we have not changed it.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm going to be looking for fire to approve that.

No, but if she's right, we are willing to make that change. I'm not asking for any variance related to fire department.

Okay. Mr. Patel, are you willing to postpone this until July 6th to give staff enough time to go over everything and get with fire so everybody's got everything straight?

I'm going to lose another two months because the next city council meeting is at the end of July.

Okay. Well, the problem, I know you said you're having a hard time going from 5 to 2, and you don't quite understand that. A lot of it is we changed some of the multifamily ordinances to protect the safety and the health of the citizens here. So you're having to meet some variances. But what you're asking us tonight to do is to move you forward to city council without us really knowing what we're moving you forward with. We have no information. We don't know what variances you're asking.

No, you already have it. I gave it to the planning department on Friday. Everything is there.

Okay. Am I correct? Yeah, that's the one that we received. So, sir, yeah, we didn't receive that until this evening before the meeting we had.

Yeah, but I was told by Haley that it's okay to submit it on Friday. And that's what we did. I have an email from her.

So the question is, are you willing to give us some time to get everything done so we can make sure that all the I's are dotted, T's are crossed, and there's no complications, everybody's able to speak what it is?

I'm not in favor of it, to be honest with you, because I'm fed up with this three years of waiting just to get the site plan approved. Okay.

So if we accept a motion to approve or deny and send it on to city council. No, she's got to ask. No, I just didn't know if you have any other questions of. That's correct.

You can't do that.

Okay, is there anyone else who'd like to speak in favor of the item? Anyone who'd like to speak in opposition to the item? I'll come back to you.

Is this on? Good evening, Chair and Commissioners and staff. My name is Pete Miller. I live on East Newton Circle, 6-2-Zip, and... I received the zoning notice on behalf of our neighborhood association, Nichols Park Neighborhood Association, which is adjacent to this property. And we've kind of been keeping an eye on this property for a long time. But I just want to say the staff is always good about including neighborhood associations as well as the people that are within the zoning department. within the notice zone. But I would just say that I would agree with staff to postpone this because we just got this notice not too long ago. We haven't had a chance to really study what it looks like, what it's going to do for the traffic pattern. That's our biggest concern there. And it should be of everybody's because that's a very precarious intersection right there. And it services University Hills, our neighborhood to get on the westbound freeway, and also it's Woodhaven, all those neighborhoods kind of use that. If you've ever been there like at 4 or 5 in the afternoon, you know that there's a lot of pressure there. So I would, again, recommend. We do welcome the opportunity to meet with the developer and kind of get an idea of what they're doing. Our neighborhood association has done that in the past with zoning cases, and I think it's worked out really well, and I think it's very productive. So I would welcome that. And again, I had to check a box just to get up here to speak, so I'm not necessarily saying I oppose it or that we oppose it or approve it. We would just like to have more information. So again, I'm in agreement with the approval, I mean the postponement. Okay, thank you.

Thanks, Mr. Miller. Mr., Hang on just a second. We'll finish with the opposition, then we'll come back to those who support. Mr. Kidwell, do you want to speak? No. Thank you, sir. My apologies. Now we have no further people speaking in opposition. We'll come back to in favor.

Thank you. Is this on? Can you all hear me? Yes. My name is David Jones at 6510 Clubhouse Circle in Dallas. I'm a broker that represents Dr. Kachachan, who owns 315 East Airport Freeway, which is the property directly adjacent to the east of Mr. Patel's property.

Mr. Jones, could you just speak a little more closely into the mics? Yes, ma'am. Okay.

Anyway, I represent Dr. Kachachan, who owns 315 East Airport Freeway, which is the property directly east of Mr. Patel's property. We're not opposed to this application, but we wanted to ask a couple of questions. It's our understanding that this, in effect, is simply a rezoning application. uh it has a conceptual site plan but there's absolutely no requirement that the developer follow this particular site plan so it's really difficult for us to understand variances or other things that are being proposed as it relates to a non-disclosed exact site plan that we haven't had a chance to take a look at but it's my understanding and i'd like to have this confirmed is that if his plans were to change, then if the property is rezoned multifamily, he can build it to the fullest extent without any other requirements other than meeting the form-based code development criteria. Is that true or false?

So the multifamily regulations require a concept plan and that would be adopted as part of this ordinance, and they would have to follow, be pretty consistent with what is on that plan. There might be a couple adjustments here and there for construction, but it would have to follow the concept plan that's part of the approval.

That's not what I was told by Ms. Hadley.

So that is, it's in Section 3.13 of the Unified Development Code.

So if, in fact, they didn't follow the concept plan, the zoning would be null and void?

right a building permit would not be approved or not would not be issued if it's not consistent with a concept plan but that's not voiding the zoning correct well what's the difference between the concept planned and a site plan review and approval so the concept plan is so the sp2 is the request here that's where all the variances are listed the concept plan is essentially the layout of the property and what it's intended to be built The permits, all of the grading permits, the driveway permits, everything should be consistent with that concept plan, otherwise they will not be issued.

FOR WHATEVER IT'S WORTH, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THIS APPLICATION AT ALL, BUT THE CONCEPT PLAN AS DRAWN BASICALLY SHOWS NO SETBACK ON THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN MR. PATEL'S PROPERTY TO HIS FAR EAST AND TO OUR WEST PROPERTY LINE. IT HAS A PICKLE BALL COURT LITERALLY RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. SO THERE ARE SPECIFIC ISSUES AS IT RELATES TO THE LAYOUT OF THIS PARTICULAR DESIGN THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO REALLY TAKE A LOOK AT, NOR HAS ANYONE BASICALLY CONFIRMED THAT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HE PLANS TO BUILD. AND THERE'S NO, I DON'T THINK ANY REQUIREMENT THAT HE BUILD THIS EXACTLY THAT WAY. BUT I COULD BE WRONG. I GUESS I AM WRONG. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

NEW SPEAKER YES, HE WOULD HAVE TO SUBSTANTIALLY BUILD TO THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT'S APPROVED.

So if we have issues with the site plan itself, today is the day to bring that up or not?

Not today. If it's postponed, then this will come back on July 6th, and so we'll have a few weeks to work through it. So if you have any comments within the next few weeks, assuming it's postponed, then that either work directly with the applicant, you can communicate with us, but either way we'd have to communicate with the applicant to see if there's any adjustments that can be made.

So he doesn't have to come back for a site plan review if this gets approved?

It would still go to the City Council. If this gets through the Planning and Zoning Commission, and our attorney, I believe, is saying that it can't get through today. It needs to be postponed because we don't have the level of detail that we need. But either way, it still has to go to the City Council. It's not finished today.

Okay. We're looking forward to the project. We think Mr. Patel will build a nice project once it gets built. Thank you.

Any further questions of Mr. Patel? Okay. Well, we've already had our discussion, so I'm waiting for a motion. We've already closed it to the floor.

I'll make a motion for Comprehensive Plan Case Number 2026-155-CP be postponed until our July 6th meeting for staff to be able to review and go over all the documents and have time for people to ask necessary questions on this. Second.

We have a motion and a second to postpone. Please vote. And the motion to postpone carries 9-0. Mr. Patel, I'd just like to make one comment. You will not be waiting for another two months. The postponement allows city staff to document completely what the variances are. We can't forward a recommendation to City Council without knowing exactly what we're recommending to City Council. So if you work out the details with the staff, they can create their variance chart. We can have our meeting on the 6th of July, and then City Council will hear it two weeks later on the 16th, 10 days later. Sorry, 17th. So you'll get a final determination of the project on the 17th of July 16th 16th of July as long as you put me on July 16 City Council meeting you got it I think I can live with it yeah thank you sir and then we do need to take the that was the CP case we do need to take the zoning case as well motion Yeah. Mr. Patel, do you have anything else to add on the zoning case part of it? Because we've just voted on the comprehensive plan. If you don't have anything further to add, that's fine. Okay. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak in favor of the zoning case? Anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the zoning case? Okay. I'll close the item to the floor and return it to the Commission for discussion or a motion.

I'll make a motion. Zoning case 2026120ZC for postponement to July 6th. I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. Please vote. 9-0 going to City Council for a motion to postpone so that staff can review the variances and make it clear with the commitment that city council will hear on the 16th of July. Thank you, sir. We're now moving to zoning case 2026-122-CC. Mr. Dewey, you're back up.

Good evening again. Jim Dewey with JDJR Engineers. 2500 Texas Drive, Suite 100, Irving.

We're having a little trouble with mechanics tonight. Can you talk a little bit more directly?

Is that better?

Yes, sir. Okay.

I'm here tonight on behalf of the owner and operator of the Aviation Institute of Maintenance. They're on 183. It's a great company. They teach aircraft maintenance, including engine maintenance, as well as other parts of the airplane. I met with them, learned something. They're wanting to add a program for electrical workers, line workers, pole workers. The companies that hire these people have been self-training and it's been kind of a problem so they've provided kind of a niche in the market and they do a lot of training through a six month program. It's been very successful. They'd like to add that training to their facility. It'll be in the far back of the facility. They're going to have a portion of the pavement removed and install some poles and do the training outside as far as the outdoor training they'll have some indoor training as well on electrical work. Staff is recommending approval so with that I'd be glad to answer any questions you have regarding this request.

Questions? Thank you Mr. Dewey. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the item? Seeing none, anyone who'd like to speak in opposition to the case? I'll close the item to the floor, return to the commission for discussion or a motion.

If none of my fellow commissioners have any questions, I'd like to make a motion for zoning case 2026122ZC be forwarded to city council with a recommendation of approval.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Please vote. 920 passes and it'll be forwarded to City Council for June 25th. Thank you, sir We look forward to having more trained electrical workers for sure For our data centers, that's exactly what I was thinking Hopefully we get first pick of them zoning case 2 0 2 6 dash 1 2 3 dash CC Applicant is here in the house. It looks like Thanks for coming tonight. We're sorry you've had to wait so long. If you'll give us your name and city of residence.

My name is Ashley Raby. I reside in Dallas, but I'm here for an applicant in Irving, obviously. We're an Australian-based business, and I've chosen Irving for our have chosen Irving for our North American headquarters.

Can you please repeat your name, ma'am, for the record?

Ashley Raby. Thank you. Yes. We are requesting approval for the sale of recreational vehicles in Suite 100 at 3300 Royalty Road, Irving. It is? Okay.

There's a green light at the bottom.

There's a green light, yeah? Is that better? Yeah, just a little closer. Okay. Yes, so we're requesting the sale of recreational vehicles at our suite at 100 Royalty Road, Irving. All sales would be indoors. There's no proposition of outdoor recreational sales or anything like that, so everything would remain in the suite.

So I did have the question, and I don't know if you were in a working session, but these are RVs, right?

They're travel trailers, so they're towable, so they're not motorized or anything like that. Very high end, so they range from 100K to 400K.

I can imagine that, but I can't imagine that all of these are just inside a building because, you know, a travel trailer, they're normally pretty big. And so visually, even if you're trying to get sales, people driving down the street, you want them to see what you're selling.

Yeah.

So are these going to be outside for a period of time and then brought in at the end of the day?

Not at all. So ours are very high end. They're about 23 to 24 feet in total length, so they're not huge, not like a 50-foot like most RV sales, so they're completely indoors. I will never drive down the street and see what's outside. Never. I hope you don't. Please do.

Are you requesting this change to comply with the DMV and making sure the ordinance is? Yeah. Okay.

Any other questions for Ashley? Okay. Thanks, Ashley. Is there anyone else who would like to speak in favor of the item? Anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the item? Okay, if there's no opposition, I'll close the item to the floor and return it to the Commission for discussion or a motion.

If there's no further conversation amongst our Commissioners, I'd like to move Zoning Case 2026-123-ZC to City Council for approval. I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. Please vote. And the motion is approved. It does go to city council for the July, excuse me, the June 11th meeting. So I would recommend you be there in case they have any questions of you, but we're excited that you've taken the step and we look forward to welcome you while continuing your business here in Irving. Thank you all for being here tonight. All right. We have our final case this evening, which is comprehensive plan. Case 2026-43-CP, which is amending our Imagine Irving Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents to add Section 5 appendices to adopt the North Nursery Corridor Neighborhood Plan as Appendix 01 to the Imagine Irving Comprehensive Plan. And third is amend the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map for 12 areas as itemized below. Do I need to read all 12 areas? Okay, so on the agenda, though, for record, there are 12 items that are outlined in detail in the agenda. So is there, the applicant is the city, obviously. We've all had a chance to review this. Is there any further questions of the city on these items?

Is the city in agreeance to remove Is it item number eight, seven? Is the city in agreeance to remove item number seven at this point?

Yes, that's fine. Great. So is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of the item? Anyone who would like to speak in opposition to the item? OK, I'll close the item to the floor and return it to commission for discussion or a motion.

Make a motion for approval of comprehensive plan case 2026 dash 43 dash CP with the exception of item 7 which is described in our packet as 6.9 acres along Pioneer Drive between Joffrey Drive and nursery Road and one parcel south of Pioneer Drive exhibit H and that part is excluded as Part of the motion and for the agreement of the city I'll second we have a motion a second.

Please vote. I And the motion as identified or outlined has carried nine to zero. With no further business, we are adjourned at 8.38 PM. Thank you all very much tonight.