Planning & Zoning Commission - workshop

🎵 🎵 you Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It's now 5.30 p.m. Welcome to Planning and Zoning Commission work session of Monday, August 3rd, 2026. The purpose of our work session is to prepare commissioners on cases we have to take action on in the public hearing. You're welcome to provide comments during the work session, but we also encourage you to speak at the public hearing for your case. Claudia, did anyone sign up to speak on any item listed on the work session agenda?

No, Madam Chair, there's no one that signed up to speak today. You can proceed.

Thank you very much. Chairman, Chairperson Lightfoot, would you please read the summary of the consent agenda items? See if anybody has any questions. Oh, no, I'm sorry, Planning and Development Committee meeting. Yeah, I'm sorry, you don't have to read the consent agenda items right now. My mistake.

So at the planning and development, it was very interesting. We have the Verdinti, the consultant we've hired to do our financial analysis concept, and he brought up three valid points. He said that we are starting to flatline off in Irving, and one of the things that we need to look at is one of the three. Either we're going to have to increase taxes and fees, reduce services or start developing in a positive, proactive manner as far as the way we're doing things in order to keep us out of that flat line and keep us growing. One of the other things they did was an annual future land use plan that we had presented to us They had removed item number five, which was the church on 183, the one that they wanted to turn into like a single-family townhome area. They had removed that one from being presented back to us, and they kept commercial use instead of warehouse regional on the one by PUD 6 Texas Stadium. On the agenda, but everything else moved forward.

There was a couple of changes on that That's where we're at I Guess you'll come back to us with the fiscal analysis at some point

Yeah, that was just kind of the next phase. It was just letting council know what we're doing, what we've done to this point. It was really cool because we're starting to see our numbers come together. So what Ricky was talking about is how our population is flattening out, and they're just, as they look at all the different cities, they're seeing obviously the same patterns, and everybody's kind of in a curve, and we're in the... the aging part of the curve. So, yes, they're starting to work through all the analysis phases, and they hope to be finished around October.

October, September.

Yeah, and then they know via P&Z presentation and a council presentation on the summary and the findings and kind of next steps. I wanted to add, too, on your other item for your council action report. Thank you. We had the packet together before the meeting on Thursday, the council meeting, so that's why you have revised one. The only difference is the actions from council from last Thursday.

Thank you very much. So we'll move into the review of the public hearing items. The first item, Haley, would you like to come up to talk about 215 East Airport Freeway Comp Plan 2026-155-CP and 2026-120-ZC?

Debbie, real quick, I just want to mention before we get into the public hearing items that we have two plats that are on for disapproval that can be moved to approval. It's items three and four. Yep, and Ricky's ready to jump in with April's absence. Thank you.

Thank you. Haley? All righty. Good evening, Commissioners. Haley Riddick with Planning. All right, so for our first case, this is in companion case with 2026-120. Is it okay if I kind of present them, we can discuss them together? Okay, perfect. So this one is 2026-155CP, located at 215 East Airport Freeway. The current future land use is regional commercial. And they're wanting to change it to mid-density residential. After review, staff recommendation is for approval. In terms of public comments, there's been none in support, and there has been three in opposition. This case was postponed from July 6. You might remember that a little unclear with the zoning case about variances, and you kind of wanted more clarification on the requests and what they were not including. And so we've done some work, and now we're bringing it forward again. So this is a subject property. The future land use, which is like I said, that regional commercial currently. The zoning, so multifamily to the north, single family to the west, and then some commercial to the east. These are the property owners that were notified. And then this is the subject property. And then if you guys are okay, I can go ahead to the 120. Perfect. All right. So currently their zoning is SP2 for CC. This was for senior independent living facility, assisted living, nursing home uses, and the state highway 183 overlay. They're now wanting to rezone it to SP2 for RMF1, so that generalized site plan for multifamily residential one to allow for low-density multifamily uses with variances to Chapter 15 for fences, Chapter 33A, which is for setbacks, State Highway 183 overlay for a wall and open space along 183 and the section 2 and some of the standards to the 3.13 multifamily development standards. After review, staff recommendation is for approval. Public comment, same as the comp plan. There was none in support and there were three in opposition. Subject property, future land use, zoning, property notice not notified. These were the letters of opposition. Most of the concerns, there was one that was, this was when it was previously notified. There were some concerns about the traffic and congestion. Another one was just about density in general. And the third was about, from the neighbor, about having their easement shown and having access to that easement. And this is their generalized site plan. And then for the concept plan. So since this is multifamily, it is enforceable. Since the last time we were here, there's been a little bit of changes. One is that initially this was kind of just barren, I think initially to be like concrete. We met with the owner and kind of talked about what we'd like to see on the site, try to get down some of the variances. So they decided to make this kind of a green space area, which inadvertently kind of turned into one of the variances, which I will explain in a minute. A little bit more green space here. They lengthened their turning lane to the stacking that they could have. They lost two units, I believe, and they did guest parking here, and then some here, and then some here. They addressed the easement for the neighborhood that's to the east by allowing them to have it here, so they always have access. And it will be gated, but again, they'll have access to their own property. landscape plan. So they just kind of increase the number of trees. A lot of their variances are more to like building height and some amenities. They got rid of a lot of their landscaping variances, which is again, I'll talk about in a minute. And then this is their kind of community framework. So what's in the community and what kind of amenities are around them. I showed this to you all last time, but kind of where grocery stores are, it looks like it's mostly over here. There's a fire station relatively nearby. There's some parks. And then this is their illustrative clubhouse, which they're providing. This is the same as last time, so volleyball court and some amenities inside. And then this is kind of an illustrative unit A layout. All these are proposed to be three bedrooms, two stories. And then I can kind of go ahead into the variants requested. So going through the overlay, we realized that 183 is mostly for residential. It does talk about high-density residential, but not kind of this low density. So that's kind of a use that we're adding to this. So that's something that was different from last time. Since they're wanting to do an eight-foot masonry fence, that's kind of what this 30-foot setback is, their fence height. Because if it's in that setback is along 33 a in chapter 33 a then those are variances building height We knew that from the beginning and they're going to do two stories and not eight Dwelling unit size they want to do completely three bedrooms Perimeter landscaping they got most of it. There is one point see Which is just this section right here they're just not providing a landscape buffer here in order to have the fire lane or the road and Dimensions of usable space. Let's see. And then required outdoor amenities, sorry. It looks like they're kind of providing everything besides the swimming pool, the walking trail, instead of being more continuous. They are in that buffer that's now to the south of property that funds Run 83. There's a little bit more of an actual sidewalk strip that's landscaped. But besides that, it's just the sidewalks that are in front of the units. They did, from last time, increase their size of the dog park, which is also gated. And then the bicycle storage, they're providing storage inside the actual individual garages. But since it's not necessarily our standards of having a room for so many units and that stuff, it's still a variance. So subject property, it's currently a vacant lot. And this is the subject property along Wingren. east of the subject property, west of the subject property, and then south, so State Highway 183. And I'm open to any comments or questions.

Are you all satisfied that you got enough information to really have a firm sense of what the variances are?

Yeah, we had them actually quantify in terms of, like, what trees are required, what trees are provided. And so that's why we got that list, even though it's still technically long in terms of what variances you usually see per case, but it's a lot less than what was initial, and we have concrete numbers now. Thank you.

You okay with it? Okay. So we've answered all the... concerns of the Commission basically by your your drawing that was at our last meeting as far as parking as far as making the variances more visual and Understanding what we're changing up. So we Commission everybody's Pretty much. Okay with it.

I mean nice to have a question, but go ahead.

Yeah, please

Has anybody spoken to Mr. David Jones? We've been in contact, yes.

I think last, Jocelyn kind of took the head of, because he had some questions about the easement and that kind of stuff.

And you certainly presented that he has access to his property now. And it's clearly identified on the plans.

Yeah, it's the... I just want to make it super short. But yeah, this part right here. So this is the joining property, and this is their easement to access that.

And along Wingren, is that going to be gated? Yes. So it will be gated on both the east and west ends of that? Yeah, so this is their only... This is where their... No, no, I'm sorry. Just on the easement. Just so that, you know... Yes. Who will provide him access when he needs it?

So it won't be gated on Wingren because that has to be open. But you can see a little bit further back, it actually says the word fire lane, and so it is gated there. So that's part of the shared access easement is it cannot be closed off from the other.

And there's no landscaping there? No. Okay. And there's no building in the actual property that Mr. Kachetian owns? I don't think I said his name properly.

No, it's zone CC, so it's their prerogative to do with it as they choose. Okay.

I'm good. Thank you.

With the SP2 plan, the generalized site plan, they will have to build it exactly as they're showing here? Is that correct?

That's with the concept plan. The SB2 is mostly, when we give that designation, it's usually based on acreage. So since it's more than two acres, that's why it's an SB2. But with multifamily, we require a concept plan, and that's what's the enforceable part. Okay.

Thank you. And then, so if it's for future redevelopment, they would just have to come back and get a whole new SB2 more than likely?

Mm-hmm. Okay.

Thank you. Mm-hmm.

Thanks, Haley. You're up on the next one as well, 2026-132-ZC.

All right, so this one is at 1701 Landmark Road. Currently, their zoning is for R75, so that single-family residential 7.5. They're going to rezone to the generalized site plan for R75. This is to permit an accessory building for guest quarters with variances to setbacks, height, and accessory building to be in front of the primary structure. After review, staff recommendation is for denial. In terms of public comments, there's been none in support and one in opposition. So this is the area where it's located. Future land use, which is that traditional neighborhood. Zoning. So all around it is single family, but we just have a little bit different designations. So we have some zero lot lines, some R75, some R6. These are the property owners that were notified. And then you can see number 22 is the one that submitted their letter of opposition. Again, it has to do with kind of a density was mostly their complaint. And this is their site plan. So before I kind of want to go into the site plan, there's, I mean, if you've read the report, then you'll be familiar. But just to kind of recap, there's a little bit of history in terms of cases and stuff that I'd like to go through. So how this kind of came to be, May 2025, there's a current enforcement violation for rental for a detached, two-story detached structure. Initially, it was a two-car garage, which was converted to be habitable. It was initially under the STR, which is that short-term rental. The owner, from where I can stand from the notes, said, oh, we're not doing short-term rentals as in that 30 days. We're doing longer rentals. So they closed, code enforcement closed it and then opened up a new one that was also in May of 2025 for the conversion of the garage to be a habitable structure. It looks like there was no permits from any of the work that has been done really since. I mean, there was a note of the Zillow listing that was around 2019 that initially it always was, at least at that point it was two stories, but it seemed to just have like a wet bar and like an open room, which is allowed for detached garages. Okay. But then we noticed since they kind of got caught because code enforcement found that they were listing it on Airbnb. Throughout the cases, it was noted that they should take down the advertisements. As far as at least a week ago, me doing this report, the ads were still listed active on Airbnb. And I can get into some fabulous photos in a minute. And then kind of talk about the structure. It's about 760 square feet and it's about 21 feet, two inches tall. So since it's two floors on the first floor, you have your like living room, dining nook, you have a half bath, so toilet and sink. There's a kind of a alley kitchen that includes a sink, a refrigerator, a microwave, and a built-in electric cooktop. And then you go to the second story, and that's where you have the room, walk-in closet, and you have your full bathroom. So shower, toilet, and sink. The structure has built-in air conditioning, but does not currently have a dishwasher or an oven. In 2026, February of this year, they tried to submit a permit for a covered walkway. This was an attempt to try to connect the structure with the main house. However, how we have in our section, the 3.11, connection of an accessory structure to a primary structure by a breezeway or walkway does not constitute a connection that makes it part of the primary structure. I believe that permit's still active, but obviously hasn't been acted on since they're here for zoning. In terms of why they're asking for guest quarters, it's what they had in their letter of intent. In RUDC 4, R75, it is allowable use, but you have to use it, you have to request it via site plan. So it's not necessarily by right, but it's allowable use if you get the zoning. Kind of what I would like to talk about too is what's the difference between a guest quarters and maybe accessory dwelling unit. Guest quarters allow anything that's habitable. So when we kind of, in our past ADU cases, when we talk about what's defined as a kitchen, you know, indoor bathtub, you know, bathroom facilities, natural gas service, they're allowed all those things. And then I guess we can kind of go on to the actual site plan. So these variances are a little bit, you know, compared to our ADE cases, usually we'll have a list of what they're allowing in terms of dwelling accommodations. But again, since guest quarters allows for just dwelling accommodations, you know, doesn't specify how many or which ones, we didn't feel the need to list it out. So their first variance is to allow guest quarters as a permitted use. The second one is the location. So when it was a detached garage, it was in conformance. At one point, we did allow them in front of the main structure. But of course, with the conversion, make it inhabitable, you lose that conformity. So in Section 3.11c, it does talk about how accessory buildings can't be in front of the main house or the main building line, which is how it is here. And then finally, their last variance is to the maximum height. Since it is a little over 20 feet in height, We have a max height of, I believe, 18 feet. So it's a variance to that, and then also to the required setback. So as you maybe remember with our old accessory building cases for outside the five feet, every foot you want to go up, you have to go a foot out. And so that's where the other part of the variance comes in. This is the floor plan that was submitted to us by the applicant. So you can see kind of first level, there's still kind of a garage. This is where this half bath is, and then the kitchen, and then bedroom, bathroom, and closet. This is the subject property. So this is actually the structure we're talking about today. Close up. And then east of the subject property, so their neighbor. West of subject property and then south of the subject property. And so what I'm showing you now is from what you saw on the Airbnb website. So you have the living room, you have this like little dining nook area. This is kind of the half bath. They didn't really have the best photo showing like where the toilet is, but it's there. And then this is their kitchen. So you can see how it has the refrigerator and microwave and cooktop here and sink. Then you go upstairs and then there's the bedroom. And then I believe like over, this is the closet. I believe the bathroom's like over here. And I'm open to any comments or questions.

If this is denied entirely, what do they have to do?

If it's denied entirely, I mean, they'll have to make it, they can take it back to a detached garage.

That's not a problem even though they stopped using it that way.

I mean, they got, when they built the house, and I believe in 2004, they did get permitted for a detached garage and the home. Unfortunately, there was no construction plan, so we couldn't see where the intent was. But as far as I could look back, the lease has been there. So they're still permitted for a detached garage. And that hasn't lapsed because they've... Yeah, it's, yeah. So they would have to take out everything that's habitable and obviously not have it listed and all that kind of stuff, so...

Just the kitchen, or they'd have to take out all of the restrooms and everything?

The dwelling accommodations. So I believe for detached garages, you can have a loft area, but I believe in our code specifies that it can't be AC'd. So you'd be taking out the bathrooms, you'd be taking out the kitchen, and you could have the rooms, I believe. And at that point, because it looks like they converted, because this used to be a two-car garage, so... And you can kind of see in this photo how you can see this is a proper door and this is a little bit different material. And this I believe is where the living room is.

And do we know when they put this all in?

Between 2019 and here. When we looked at the Zillow listing before it was sold, it was just kind of a garage and upstairs had like a loft with I think wood floors and it just kind of had almost like a driveway. It had a sink and like a countertop. So it's been a lot of changes since then.

And you mentioned there's a letter in opposition. I wasn't I didn't see that.

Oh It should have been okay, well It talks about density just how you know, there's talks about the traffic along South of 12 and that area and so does does it mention any that they've had problems with people parking on the road?

I mean that doesn't seem like a good road to park on no, and I mean there was a fair amount of driveway inside the gate and

Yeah, that's the one thing that the site does have is so they have this drive here, and then they could have parking here. They still have a parking space here, and then the actual main house has a garage as well, and then you have all this space. But, no, it didn't talk about, like, noise or, like, parking or any of that kind of stuff. It just said didn't want the density. Okay. Yeah.

We'll print the opposition for you and have it.

Great, thanks. So what you were saying earlier was is that they want to use it as a guest house, but yet they still have it on Airbnb for rent. Correct.

Okay, thank you.

I don't understand how we can allow it as a guest house, even if it's not on Airbnb, when we haven't. Anybody else who's come to us that wanted to build a mother-in-law house or mother-in-law suite, it had to be attached to the main building. So why is a guest house permissible without an attachment to the main building?

It's not unusual to have them detached. The difference is it functions kind of like an extension of the home. It just is physically a separate building. But whoever... is staying in that building has to be functionally attached to the family. It has to be someone who come in and go to the kitchen and, you know, come in and watch the football game. It has to be someone who is an extension of that family. So it's not unusual to have it in a separate building, but it's what is in it so that it cannot function independently. You know, you can't, if Grandma's staying there, you know, for Christmas or something and wants to make some cookies, then she can go in the main house and make cookies. And so we don't have full kitchen facilities, cooking facilities, and it's not intended to operate independently. That's the difference.

Yeah, I'm sorry. I really don't get this because we had a case where a really lovely couple... Could find it you all you all here She had her foot in a cast and her son wanted to build her an accessory dwelling unit And the only way we could allow that was if they attached it to the house Which they did is she that one should they wanted to have a full independent unit so we you know and it was it was intended to be a full-time living unit

But that that was that's the difference is whether it can stand on its own So it doesn't we were recommending that they attach it so that it wouldn't be an independent living unit anymore And she wouldn't need to have all those facilities and they chose not to they looked at it They chose not to so it's not whether it's physically attached.

It's how it functions and who is staying in there I'm missing a subtlety because Other than a washer and dryer this cannot operate independently Can't it?

With all of the facilities as a dwelling unit, it could. So to be a true guest quarters, it would need to have all those functions taken out of it, and then it would need to be a guest of the people who are living on the property. So, yes, there is a nuance. No question, there's a nuance.

But I was looking, go back to the Airbnb pictures of the kitchen, please.

This way or this way?

Of the kitchen?

The kitchen, sorry. Okay.

So I remember we had a case that come to us. It was a couple that had a house and they wanted to, convert a portion of the house, put a kitchen in for a separate, for their mom and dad and everything else, and they were attached to the house. And the one thing that caused the major issue was the Venahood.

Yeah. It was over there at Town Lake.

Yeah, and that was in Town Lake, and they were not able to do it because they had to have not a separate door where they could have their, they had to be able to have access, opening, and the Venahood created a major problem. So what's the I'm with Debbie. I don't understand the difference between this and other cases that we've heard.

So the one that you talked about, you can have a kitchenette. We see that all the time. But it can't function as an independent unit. It can't have multiple rooms. It can't have the shower. That's part of it. We've had others where they have to remove the shower somehow, remove the closets, etc. The one that you're referring to, we just looked at that as an extension of just basically adding a bedroom into it. And yes, they had a kitchenette. But whether it's attached or detached, it still has to function the same. It still has to be part of that family structure. Not literally part of it, but it has to operate as part of the family.

How do you ensure that I understand the registration for Airbnb, and, you know, we check for listings and so forth, so I get all that. How do we ensure that this, anyone who stays here is not staying here indefinitely and is a relative of the family? How do you comply? How do they comply?

Guest houses used to be, by right... And I assume for that reason is why they made them by SP, by site plan, because there was a concern that they would become more than just true guest houses. For short-term rentals, they do. They look at the listings. We have a company that is constantly looking to see if there's anything that we don't know. We have the registration. A lot of it is just on complaint, and that's the way a lot of these get found out, is just the activity is more than what should happen in an area.

So to be clear, so this was built without any building standards?

Initially, when it was built in 2004, I believe it passed inspection for a detached garage, but in terms of all those changes and modifications you're seeing here, there was no permits ever issued.

So this is not meeting any kind of building codes that at least we know of?

Correct.

As it is? Yeah.

There's no record of them applying or having a permit issued, so...

And they were issued notifications about stopping the Irving B usage according to the case multiple times.

Yeah, in the short-term rental case and then in the code enforcement case about the property standards, it was in the notes that they were told to take down the listings. But like I said, that's kind of one of the first things that pop up when you google the address is the Airbnb listing. And I went to the reservations, and you could make one. You could only do a minimum of 60 days, which is not necessarily short-term rental anymore, but you could still rent it from what I could see.

So we have a record of this operator. on how they operate. Thank you.

Okay, it looks like we're finished with this case. The next one, Haley, is yours, 2026-195-ZC.

Yes, so this one's on 526 North MacArthur Boulevard. We are requesting indefinite postponement. It seems when... Kind of after talking with Carolyn, we initially thought we could take it outside of the site plan and just rezone it since it is on separate law, it's separate ownership. But we were kind of told that they need to be part of the rezoning process. They need to amend their site plan for the car wash that's to the north. And I can kind of, this is a subject property. And then their neighbor right here, which is that Mighty Fine car wash. So when the site plan was really done, it included this. And there was supposed to be some kind of structure here. Well, anyway, they never built it. They sold it. And now the new owner is wanting to put a duplex on it. But kind of after we talked with Carolyn, it seems like we need the... re-notify one to include both lots, and also we need kind of an owner authorization form from the owner of Mighty Fine Car Wash to have his site plan amended. So that's kind of why we need to postpone this.

Okay, postpone it is. Abigail, your first case with us is 2026-203-ZC.

Hello, everyone. Abigail See, intern with the Planning and Zoning Department. Abigail, will you pull the microphone to you?

Is that a little bit better? Yeah, thank you.

Okay, perfect. So zoning case 2026-203ZC-1310, West Pioneer Drive, a zoning request change from SP1, detailed site plan for drive-in restaurant to neighborhood commercial. After review, staff recommends approval. And for public comment, one in support and none in opposition. So here is the aerial view map. The future land use for local commercial, which does align with the zoning change. And then the surrounding zoning map, so you can see that there is, along the east, you have more commercial neighborhood, community commercial, so again, aligns with it. The notification map. And then the picture of the subject property, which I do want to note, when we did look at this property, it does look dilapidated, and there's boarded up windows, so east of the subject property, and then we have the subject property to the west and south of the subject property. And then also, just a little bit of background on this case. The subject property, as I mentioned earlier, it does have a detailed site plan, but because of its restrictive nature, only a drive-in restaurant is approved as a use. The current Sonic Drive-Thru is no longer in business, so unless another drive-in restaurant were to come into this property, this building will remain vacant. And the applicant does want to convert the space from a drive-in restaurant to a dine-in restaurant. And with the change in zoning, that would allow for this use. And then it already complies with CN regulations for this space. And I also did want to note that we did see that letter of support that really is eager to see change in this property right here. And I'm open to any questions.

It's kind of a full circle moment for us because one of our previous commissioners was the original owner and developer of the Sonic. So it's kind of nice to see that it's moving into something.

I have a question. When I drove around it and inspected it yesterday, it is the laugh day, but also, In the back, all the wiring has been stripped out and everything else. Is there enough room? Or it wasn't a dine-in. Is there enough room inside to really make it an inside diner? I'm just curious.

Well, because there's no requested variances, and this is just for a zoning change, we didn't receive a site plan or what the restaurant will look like in the future. But as far as we know, the regulations do support for a dine-in restaurant.

A great improvement, let's say it this way, from where it stands now, but I support it.

Me too. I think it's a win-win.

Are they going to renovate the existing restaurant, or are they going to remove it and rebuild?

That has not been determined yet, I don't believe. Jocelyn or Gina?

Yeah, to our knowledge, and I think Christine can address it as well, they have a building permit to the interior.

Thanks, Abigail. Okay.

Thank you.

Nice job on your first case. All right. We have the next two we can take together, if it's okay with everybody. Comp Plan 2026-229-CCP and 2026-208-CC. And that's Tanner.

Hello, everyone. Tanner Bristol with the Planning Department. So we are looking at 2026229CP at 4790 and 4800 Regent Boulevard. They are requesting to change the future land use designation from business office to manufacturing warehouse. Staff recommends approval, and at the moment we don't have any comments in support or opposition. Here we have the aerial view, 4800, being the northern property and 4790 being the southern property. And as you stated, this is the companion case to 2026208ZC, where they're hoping to rezone these properties from CO to the north and a split zoning of CO and ML20A in the south to just ML20A. Here we have the future land use map. It's in the middle of some business office here with manufacturing warehouse to the west. Here's our notification map. Surrounding zoning map. We have some freeway to the east and a lot of ML20A to the south and around and some SPs with variances to those. A little bit of the history of the future land use of this area. Prior to 2023, it was all lumped together as business district. And when reconsidering this area and the definitions being split from business district to manufacturing warehouse and business office, staff recommended to bring this entire area to manufacturing warehouse. And in the end, it was decided to split it up with manufacturing warehouse to the south and west with business office taking up the majority of it. Here we have existing land uses, a mix of office professional manufacturing and warehouse. And a little bit more zoomed out, looking at the base zoning of this entire area with the subject properties being up here to the north, we see a mix of commercial and industrial. Here's a breakdown of the existing zoning types of CO and ML20A. And once again, the future land use map. As an additional note, we were informed on July 30th that the property may be under a private deed restriction preventing warehouse and manufacturing use. However, the city does not enforce private deed restrictions and staff cannot confirm the status of the deed restriction. Following market-driven trends in the area to redevelop office parks and warehouse distribution facilities and the existing zoning entitlements of most of the area allowing for these more intense uses, staff supports the request to change the future land use map to manufacturing warehouse. On to more of the zoning aspect of it. Once again, going from commercial office and ML20A to just ML20A, we recommend approval and there is no comments in support or opposition. The property to the north has a two-story office building on it currently. that was built in 1993. The southern property has a two-story office building built in 2008. And in the applicant's letter of intent, they wish to preserve the current office uses while allowing for the potential for light warehouse and light industrial uses. Future land use map again. Current zoning again. Notification map. surrounding zoning of the larger area, breakdowns of CO and ML20A. Here we have the northern parcel, 4800 Regent, from across Regent Boulevard. This is the other side of the property from the parking lot. Here we have the southern property, 4790 Regent Boulevard. across the street to the north, to the east, to the south, to the west, and back to the aerial view. Many of the surrounding properties have zoning entitlements for freeway and ML-20A, and over the last several decades have become a mix of low-rise office parks with some warehouse distribution and light industrial uses. Perhaps due to the proximity to DFW Airport and changes in the office market, the city has received inquiries regarding changes to properties and permits for demolition and have been submitted for construction of warehouse and light industrial properties. The existing freeway and ML20 districts do allow these by rights. The property remains zoned CO commercial office in the center of an area where surrounding properties can redevelop with no rezoning processes or considerations necessary by the city. This creates an inconsistency for the potential for the properties develop in the same future pattern that other properties currently enjoy. Considering that the sole property remains zoned for offices in an area where current zoning entitlements allow for a lot of industrial uses, and just the consistency of the area and the compatibility of the adjacent land uses, staff supports the requested zoning change. Any questions?

Is this gonna be a sort of a flex warehouse type application or are we talking, what kind of development are we talking?

I believe the southern property has one company in their office building that is hoping to develop a warehouse nearby so it would be a joint operation.

Right now the owner intends to keep the buildings. They just want to change the entitlement to give them options in the future. So there's no plan at the moment.

So right now they're wanting to keep basically the same facade and be able to maybe open up the back for storage, et cetera? I mean, or are they wanting to tear down? Are we going to have metal buildings there? Are we going to have tilt wall flex warehouse?

We were told there's no plans for the northern area. property at this time. It will stay as an office building. There's a tenant in there. They just wanted to, I think they recently purchased it, so they just wanted to have the same entitlements that the properties around them have. But they don't have any plans, nor do they have a schedule. But it's not, they just want to have the ability to do it if they have a user.

Yeah, I don't see an issue with having like a flex warehouse there or whatever. Just my concern is that Tenant moves out of the top building and they go to the back and build a big metal building.

It's really inconsistent with what's around So Can you go back to page 81 and let me see the allowed uses in the light industrial So does that include any tractor-trailer traffic, potentially?

It includes warehouse distribution and light manufacturing. Everything in the ML20A district has to be inside the building. They can have some accessory outside storage, but the activity is inside the building.

So, like everybody, I drove around the area and saw... Unfortunately, I was there on a weekend, so I don't see how much... Normal traffic was there in terms of the office use. But I did see OM Produce not too far away with tractor trailers lined up and staged, I'm guessing because they're distributing produce from that building. The roads through there are horrible. So do we have, if they're not tearing the building down, we're not going to get capital impact fees to assist with any

Possible road improvement so when comes the impact fees they will look at the demand for the office versus the demand for the industrial and if there's more demand for the industrial and it's especially because of the trucks then they'll be a They'll have to pay the Delta So it's I can't tell you a yes or no at this point because there'd be a we have one conversation, please Sorry, I can't I can't hear you and her So the for the impact fees we'll just have to see they'll have to run the numbers to see if it triggers any the charge or not.

Anybody have any other questions? Do you want, you were, is there some confusion?

Okay. How did you know about the date restriction?

Pay Property Organization Association reached out and let us know.

Jocelyn, you might be able to give a little bit more background on that.

Yeah, no, how we found out about it is pretty simple. We don't know if someone got a notification, but there wasn't an owner. It was just a property owner, a POA representative that told us about it.

And the current applicant knows about it?

Yeah, we informed them. And they have, we don't want to get into, you know, whether it's current or whether it's not. That's a private restriction. It's good that we know about it, but I think there's some conflict between whether it's current or not, but they'll have to work through that.

Thank you.

Do we know who the HOA or POA is? Is it LCA or is it somebody else? No, it's not LCA.

It's a Freeport POA. Freeport, okay.

Any other questions?

Can I say one thing? That's all right, sir. You'll have an opportunity during the public hearing. No problem. We appreciate it, though. We'll see you then. Tanner, you have the next case, 2026-209-ZC.

Yes, we're looking at 2305 West Northgate. They are requesting to rezone for SP2 for R6 and PO, that is single-family residential 6 and professional office, to CN neighborhood commercial. Staff recommends approval, and we have no comments in support or opposition at this time. It is located at the corner of West Northgate and North Story Road right here. The current SP2 allows for the PO uses within the subject property and then R6 in this undeveloped area over here. The future land use is business office on the subject property and traditional neighborhood to the west. surrounded by other traditional neighborhood to the east and local commercial to the south. Current zoning. Notification map. This is the subject property across from West Northgate, looking down from North Story Road. This is to the north, to the east, and to the south. And this is down to the west where the rest of the undeveloped residential is. Also in the site plan is a request, the original site plan that is, is a request for a front setback variance which would not be needed with the requested rezoning. in the letters applicant or in the applicant's letter of intent they state that the owners want to construct a building for neighborhoods serving commercial uses such as retail professional services and a small restaurant given that cn is a compatible district in the business office feature land use And that the site's location is at the intersection of two arterial roads and adjacent CC community commercial zoning to the south. And with non-residential uses to the east, staff can support this request. Any questions?

Looking at the map there, on the Story Road, the request they've made for small businesses like a restaurant, what part of that slope there is so Dramatic I can't imagine any one thing you can put in there speak of And I didn't know if what I read and what I saw if they're gonna go to the west Down in the small or you're talking about in the corner there.

I Guess a question I have to ask them but yeah, I'm not sure that we've received building permits for it Any other questions

It doesn't appear to be, Tanner. Thank you.

All right.

And you have the final case tonight. Yes. 2026-211-SFP.

Yes. We're looking at a special fence plan request at 614 Lexington Drive. The current zoning is R7.5, and the request is for an 8-foot tall solid wood fence within the 15-foot side yard setback of a reverse frontage lot. For SFP cases, there are certain criteria to be met, and we have found that they do not meet that. There are no comments in support or opposition at this time. Here we have the subject property at the corner of Lexington and Wells. Future land use map is all traditional neighborhood. Current zoning. Notification map. And here we have the site plan. Right here is where we're looking at the variance. Being a reverse frontage lot where the neighboring property faces out to the east here, or sorry, that would be to the north here, they would be required to observe a 15-foot build line for their fence from the property. They were requesting a four-foot build line, so a variance of 11 feet. These are the criteria for an SFP. Here's the subject property along Lexington Drive, the frontage of the property. Here's along Lexington. This is the fence to be replaced. They're neighbor to the east. That is a budding where the new fence will be. South of the subject property and back to the site plan.

Questions?

A question for traffic. We've had this scenario before. It's come before P&Z. And what we did on the back of the property is we cut a 15-foot by 15-foot angle on the corner so the neighbor would have visual sight. Is there any issues with... basically doing the exact same thing, and will there be any issues with traffic if that fence is put up?

We can do the same thing here. I know that intersection isn't always stopped, so there's not going to be a site issue.

Okay.

The houses on the other street on Wells, they looked like they were a bit further back from the road, so it seemed like even if they did it at the 15 mark, it would still – the fence still wouldn't line up with the front of their homes. A lot of times on these, it seems like we're trying to keep the fence line sort of in line with the line of the homes all the way down. But it didn't look like, even without the variance, that that would happen here. It looked like they were a lot further back, maybe 25 feet back.

That sound about right?

Yeah, 25, 30 feet back. It just wasn't clear how this difference was going to affect them on this one.

So the requirement is to be 15 feet, and the front setback is 25. Older houses are often 30. So even with the regulation at 15 feet, it still would be in front of the houses. It just wouldn't be as much in front as it would be if it's four foot.

Okay. If it was 15 feet back, how close to the house would it be? I mean, how much space there on that well side would they have between their fence and the side of the house?

This map shows about 30 feet between the property line and the house along Wells, so that would be halfway.

They'd still have a decent amount.

Any other questions?

Jocelyn, can you remind us why special fence plans don't require the big yellow zoning change sign? And do neighbors get notified of these?

We do mail notices, yeah. There are variances essentially, but by ordinance they go through P&Z and council. But like Board of Adjustment cases, typical variances don't have the full signage and don't have newspaper notification, but they do have the mail notification. So this is consistent with a variance. Should it be the same? The signage requirement, at least per state law, is for zoning changes, which is land use. Got it.

So no, the state doesn't see it the same. Okay, does anybody have any questions about any of the cases that have been presented tonight? Anybody have future agenda items for meetings? A couple of things. Fernando was promoted to an IT server analyst, network specialist, infrastructure specialist. So JD is helping us tonight. We have had JD before. You'll also see Dax and his colleague who will be more than likely setting us up most of the time. So just if you wonder where Fernando is, he got a promotion. We do have our second work, excuse me, our third workshop this month. Jocelyn, do you want to give a little heads up as to topics?

Yeah, so it'll be on Monday the 17th, starting at 6 p.m. So it'll be in here, of course. We will be looking at just giving you all an overview of our PUDs, our planned unit developments. We have six of those. Staff has put together a PowerPoint of what are the PUDs. How do they operate with the development plans? What are the six? Where are they? Mostly in the Las Colinas area and, of course, Valley Ranch and Ken West. We'll also have a summary of the overlays. So we have the 183, the 161, and the Urban Business District overlay. We have Imelda from our new community development, housing community development, I guess, department is what it's called. She'll be giving a... Just a summary and overall, an overview of the TIFs, so our tax increment financing program, where our districts are, how we use those, and then I got a little quick short presentation from Finance on the PIDs, our public improvement districts. So they won't be here to give that. I'll probably give that, but it's just, again, it's just informational of some of the tools that we use, some of the ones that, of course, that y'all use, which are the PUDs and the overlays, and just to give some context of how what you do fits into these other tools. Exciting.

Pardon me? Monday the 16th at 6 p.m. We start a little later because... Should be Monday the 17th. 17th, I'm sorry.

Yeah, 6 p.m.

Thank you. Thank you, 17th. We're not doing the data center one since there was a town hall, and you can access the town hall information off of the city website.

But what about the tour?

Oh, the QTS tour, yeah. That is on the 19th. You are correct. I thought you meant the workshop topic. So, yes, we still do have the QTS tour. Yes, it's been confirmed. I'm sure they'll be reaching out to us because they may need some personal information in order to allow us in the building because the security is tight at those buildings. So Jocelyn will notify us if you need any personal information provided. So we'll see you three times this month. Anything else, folks? Any topics for the September or the final workshop, please let us know and We are adjourned at 631