Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

The June 15th, 2026 City of Plano Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I call the meeting to order at 6 o'clock p.m. If you please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the flag of which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you very much for joining us tonight. First item on the agenda is the consent agenda.

Consent agenda. The consent agenda will be acted upon in one motion and contains items that are routine and typically non-controversial. Items may be removed from this agenda for individual consideration by commissioners or staff.

Before we move forward, we do have three commissioners absent tonight. So commissioners, any items to be removed from the agenda tonight? Commissioner Lally. All right, Commissioner Langenfelder. All right, we have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda. Motion passes five to zero. All right, items for individual consideration.

Items for individual consideration. Public hearing items. Unless instructed otherwise by the chair, speakers will be called in the order registrations are received. Applicants are limited to a total of 15 minutes of presentation time with a five-minute rebuttal if needed. Remaining speakers are limited to 30 total minutes of testimony time with three minutes assigned per speaker. The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. Administrative consideration items must be approved if they meet city development regulations. Legislative consideration items are more discretionary except as constrained by legal considerations. Non-public hearing items. The presiding officer will permit limited public comment for items on the agenda not posted for a public hearing. The presiding officer will establish time limits based upon the number of speaker requests, length of the agenda, and to ensure meeting efficiency and may include a total time limit.

Number one.

Agenda item number one, Mustang Square residential block B, 6 through 14, 1X and 2X, block F, lots 1 through 11, 13X and 14X, and block G, lot 1X. 20 single family detached lots and five common area lots on 3.6 acres located on the southwest corner of Community Court and Shoppers Lane. zone plan development 32, regional commercial, and located within the State Highway 121 and Expressway Corridor overlay districts. This item is for administrative consideration.

Good evening, Commissioners. Destiny Woods, planner with the Planning Department. So this graphic shows the location of the proposal. And this one shows the proposed replat. I also want to note that the revised site plan and preliminary replat for this proposal did come to the Commission in February of this year. So the proposed development, this is a replat for blocks B and F within the larger Mustang Square residential development. The applicant is proposing 15 new single-family residential detached lots, and within these blocks, a street lot will also be connected to blocks excuse me, block G. So the next few, excuse me, don't know why I'm, the next few slides will provide some context on the purpose of this replat. So this slide is showing the original proposal and the applicant originally proposed these lots here and you'll see in the next slide The this report that proposal was revised to exclude any of the lots within the floodplain So this is how the blocks are currently plotted And today their proposal Shows the lots now not within the floodplain Since that has been revised and the applicant is reverting back to something similar to the original proposal. I So notice letters were sent out for this residential replant and we did receive one official response in favor That was provided to you all and this item is recommended for approval as submitted.

I'm available for any questions Thank you very much commission any questions of staff Nobody okay, I'll open the public hearing do we have anybody registered to speak on this item? We do not all right, I'll close the public hearing Commissioner runoff And Commissioner Langenfelter. All right, we have a motion and a second. Motion passes five to zero. Item number two.

Agenda item number two, Plano West Senior High School, Block A, Lot 1R. public school on one lot on 42.8 acres located at the northwest corner of Parker Road and Willow Bend Drive, zone single family residence nine and agricultural. This item is for administrative consideration.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Anna Suter, planner for the planning department. This slide shows the subject property along the northwest corner of Parker Road and Willow Bend Drive. The purpose for the preliminary replat is to abandon and dedicate easements necessary for the proposed building additions. The purpose for the revised site plan is to show four proposed building corridors connecting the existing buildings and associated improvements for the existing public school development. The preliminary replat is recommended for approval subjects to additions and or alterations to the engineering plans as required by the engineering department and the revised site plan is recommended for approval as submitted. I'm available for any questions.

Commissioner, any questions for the staff? Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing. Do we have anybody registered on this item?

We do not.

Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Brunoff. Yes, you may. Yes. It's on. Got a green light here.

Oh, there we go, that's it. There it is, okay. I move that agenda item two, including the preliminary replat and the revised site plan be approved as recommended by staff.

All right, Commissioner Bender? I second the motion. All right, we have a motion and a second. Commissioner Langenfelter, did you have a comment? Okay. Motion passes five to zero. Item number three.

Agenda item number three, request to amend plan development 498, multifamily residence three to allow multifamily residents as a permitted use on 30.9 acres of land out of the Mays R. Foster survey, abstract number 332, located on the east and west side of Park Vista Road. 160 feet south of Glenscape Circle in the city of Plano, Collin County, Texas. Presently zoned Plan Development 498, Multifamily Residence 3, and located within the Expressway Corridor Overlay District. This item was tabled May 18th, 2026. This is a request to withdraw from consideration.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Tiara Clark. I'm a planner with the Planning Department. The graphic on your screen shows an aerial image of the subject property, the Park Vista property along Park Vista Road. As mentioned earlier, the item was tabled at the May 18th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Since that time, the applicant has decided to submit a request to withdraw their application, and staff does recommend approval or staff recommends accepting the petitioner's request to withdraw. I'm open for any questions.

All right. Commission, any questions of staff? Seeing none, all right. I'm going to open the public hearing. While we did have a request to withdraw, I know this was posted for a public hearing and people did come out to observe this public hearing or participate in it. So if you would like to still come forward and give your testimony, we are more than happy to listen. Just understanding that it has been recommended by staff and requested by the petitioner to withdraw the case. So I do believe we do have some registered speakers.

We do. We have Don Bryant, followed by Doug Shea, followed by Gladys Brown.

Good evening, fellow commissioners. My name is Don Bryant, and I say fellow commissioners because full transparency, I serve on the Planning and Zoning Board for the City of Murphy. So thank you for your time this evening. I know how valuable it is. I just want to say my 89-year-old mother-in-law moved into Park Vista about two years ago. We moved her up from San Antonio. We oppose the zoning, removing the 55 plus requirement. This area is specifically designed, as you may know, for senior living. We believe that removing that restriction pretty much the residents move there to enjoy peace and quiet as well as camaraderie with our fellow seniors that would be completely disrupted by removing that age restriction. There's also some concerns as far as safety. There's currently very little traffic through that area. Obviously, with the seniors there, it says it's 55 and over, but most of the population out there believe it's 65 and over probably and enjoys long leisurely walks along the property. You know, traffic increase, that area is not very well suited to handle a whole lot of traffic there. You know, the property owners think that removing that age restriction promotes a little bit better community as far as mixing of the ages and such like that. I personally disagree with that. I think that, you know, there's a reason that all these folks moved to that area, sorry. And the reason for that is the, you know, I said the camaraderie and enjoying people. of their own age and being able to avoid, if you will, all the noise and e-bikes and everything else that teenagers and young children would bring into the area. So again, I thank you for your time. We appreciate that. And again, I think I speak for the majority of the residents there, if not all of them, that we do oppose that. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next, we have Doug Shea, followed by Gladys Brown, followed by Sandra Strickland.

Good evening. Thank you. I'm Doug Shea. I live at Park Residence of Plano. We like the place there. I've been there with my partner for over three years. We have a good time there. We sit out front. We chit-chat. We talk about everything. We were a bit surprised when we found out they wanted to withdraw the 55 and over because we've had trouble with teens from getting in there right now. They were in the courtyard playing pickleball at midnight. They were in the swimming pool right before the city closed it. They say they are taking care of everything. But they don't monitor anything. And when you call to have something done. You get a voicemail. It tells you to call. They'll call you back with a choosing the next day, which was well after the fact. We have lots of... I don't want to say this. We're wondering if there's a federal law that they were using to go around the city of Plano. We don't know because they don't tell us anything. All emails are directed from the corporate office. We asked the office how come we don't get anything from them. They said they're not required to send anything. It has to be approved from the corporate office in Michigan before they can address us at all. So we're kind of sitting there waiting to see what's going to happen. But... Out of all the people that are there, everybody loves it there. They get around, they chit-chat, they help each other. We have Friday get-togethers where we meet everybody. Some come, some don't. I understand that. People work also. And we help them out too because they stop by our place and chit-chat with us when we're sitting up front. We have a little green space we made so everybody likes to come by there and chit-chat. And I believe that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Gladys Brown and then Sandra Strickland.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Gladys Eloise Simone Brown. I have been a resident at Park Vista Residences for seven months now. I am very much a senior, even though some people think I'm in my 30s. Okay, so I very much belong in that area, and I'll tell you why. I have been a resident of Texas for almost seven years now, coming from New York, D.C., Atlanta, and so forth. I loved Texas. I used to come here for work purposes. I still work. I work from home for a very large law firm here in the DFW area. I loved that area very much. It just came upon me about two years ago at a senior fair and they were there talking about the place and I made an appointment. Unfortunately, I couldn't get in there 2024, but I was able to move in finally last year. They showed me the place and it was just quiet, peaceful, clean. The neighbors are incredible. It's like we're all one big village, one big family. Now, I moved out there because it is 55 plus. We have nothing against children. We have children. We have grandchildren. We have great-grandchildren. We love them. But this is a place where we came to retire, and even those of us that still work, we work in a peaceful environment. We understand that the tower there, we have towers, we have a tower of apartments, and we also have what I consider town homes. They call them colleges. It's just perfect layout for not only myself, but our village, I like to call it. Also, there was much concern about the new current owners that they wanted to change it into a multi-family community. That's not really going to make it there. The apartments and the area is really not family oriented. It's not family made. Those apartments and those count homes are really just good enough size for a couple or a single person like myself. It really just doesn't make any sense. We need our area to remain that way. Even our neighbors in the surrounding homes around the area on Glenscape agree with us. They feel like it would just downplay the value of their homes. In fact, when they found out that that area was going to be made a 55 plus area, they loved it. I should hope, well, I'm glad to hear that they withdraw, but still, if it's going to be on the books.

If you can wrap it up for us.

Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. It's done. Okay. I wanted to bring up those points. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Okay.

Sandra Strickland.

Those are all of our registered speakers for tonight. Oh, there's Ms. Strickland, sorry. Didn't see you coming forward.

Hi, I'm Sandra Strickland. I've lived at Park Vista, I mean Park Residence Plano for three years and I've talked to people around since this petition started. Some have lived there four years. Some of them watched the tower that I live in be built. There is a village there, as Gladys said. We watch after each other. We have ways of communicating with each other by phone or knocking on the wall or whatever it takes to get help if we need it. The people there, it's just a great place to be. And I would hate to see anything ruin that environment. I think as we get older, we all look forward to peace, quiet, and tranquility. And our place does that. We have nature, we have the creek, we have birds, bunnies in the flower beds, armadillos that love to tumble through the flower beds too. I think it would be very disruptive to all of our lives. And at our age, change is tough at its best. I appreciate your consideration for all of these things I've said.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have any other speakers? Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing. And just to inform the... The people that joined us tonight, the case is being withdrawn and will no longer be under the jurisdiction of Planning and Zoning Commission. And the reason it's being withdrawn is because for legal reasons, the city has elected to no longer enforce the age restriction on this property. I'm not at liberty to discuss any details, but did want to make sure y'all were aware that that is why the case is being withdrawn. And so just in the interest of full transparency. So with that said, Commissioner Brunoff.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that with respect to item number three, we approve the request to withdraw as recommended by staff.

Commissioner Alali. Second. All right, we have a motion and a second.

Please vote.

Motion passes five to zero. Item number four. Okay.

Agenda item number four, Los Rios Village Block 1, Lot 3, restaurant with drive-thru on one lot on 1.1 acres located at the northeast corner of 14th Street and La Paz Drive, zoned retail. This item is for legislative consideration of residential adjacency screening.

Good evening, Commissioners. Tiara Clark, planner with the Planning Department. The graphic on your screen shows an aerial image of the vacant lot along 14th Street and Los Rios Boulevard. The applicant is proposing a drive-through restaurant on the vacant lot. The drive-through lane contains two menu boards and individual service speakers that are located within proximity to the residential neighborhood to the west. And this actually triggers the residential adjacency standards within the zoning ordinance. One speaker, as shown in the southern red line, is 141 feet away from the residential district boundary, and that's actually measured from the center line of La Paz Drive. That speakerboard is actually 171 feet from the nearest residential lot line. The second speaker is about 149 feet from the residential boundary line that's measured at the center line of La Paz Drive. Under these standards, the commission may require additional screening for buffering and to mitigate any noise impacts that the speaker boards may have on the residential district. And therefore the applicant is proposing an eight foot tall solid living screen installed atop at one foot berm along the entire western property line to kind of separate the menu boards from the residential zoning district. And with that, staff approves what's being proposed by the applicant to construct the eight-foot solid screen along the western property line of the vacant lot. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. One quick question. What is the spacing requirement that they're asking for the variance from? What is the distance that we normally require for a speaker to be from residential?

The distance from the individual speakers from the residential district should be about 150 feet, which triggers the residential adjacency standards. And so this menu board is 141 feet.

Okay, so it's 141 feet from the center line of the road. For the center line, but 171 feet from the residential boundary. It meets the restriction. from the property line, but not from the zoning district line? That's correct. Is that correct? Okay. All right. That was my question. Commission, any other questions of staff? Commissioner Brunoff.

I realize that the distance here is very close to the 150 feet above which there would be no requirement to screen, but I'm curious, how effective is a living screen at blocking noise?

Sure. I think with this living screen being installed about eight feet high, I think it could be pretty effective in screening. Not only that, since the residential property is 171 feet from what is typically required at 150 feet, I think that the solid living screen would serve or would mitigate against those noise impacts.

I get all that. I'm just wondering, a living screen consists of branches and leaves, and I'm wondering What are the sound absorbing properties of branches and leaves?

Yes. Fortunately, I don't know the exact answer to that. However, our city's tree forester has reviewed the city's planting list and recommended certain species for noise screening. And so they will be complying with those tree species and plant species.

Okay. All right. Any other questions of staff? Nobody? Okay. This is not a public hearing. Do we have anybody registered to speak?

We do not.

All right.

Commissioner Langenfelter.

All right. I move that we approve this as recommended by staff, especially since it is adding additional screening and sound buffering that wouldn't be there if it was nine feet longer. And it just makes sense.

Commissioner Lally. All right, we have a motion and a second. Motion passes five to zero. Item number five.

Agenda item number five, Dow Tech's Maple Shade block one, lot two, 475 multifamily residence units on one lot on 5.1 acres located on the north side of Maple Shade Lane, 2100 feet west of Coit Road, zoned corridor commercial and located within the 190 tollway Plano Parkway overlay district. This item is for legislative consideration of subdivision ordinance variance.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is John Kim, senior planner with the planning department. Here is the map. This is currently an undeveloped property on the north side of Mapleshade Lane about 2,100 feet west of Coit Road Here is the Excuse me revised advanced plat that accompanies those requests as well as the concept plan on the concept plan it is showing a proposed layout of the multifamily residence development and related site improvements and There is currently an existing platted fire lane and access easement along the eastern side of the property. The plan shows a path of direct access that lines up with that easement to an existing maple shade median. The applicant is seeking a variance with this proposal with this development to ensure the lot is developable as a standalone lot. So here's the request. In the subdivision ordinance, there is a requirement for multifamily developments to provide an internal quasi-public street network if it is in total over five acres in size. This lot is 5.066 acres in size, an irregular-shaped lot. I do want to clarify that in the report, it does say 5.081. There were additional discussions with engineering that led to additional right-of-way reservation. So that is the discrepancy in the right-of-way area. So the subdivision ordinance provides information and criteria that must be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission when granting a variance. Staff has reviewed the criteria with the following analysis here. The site will maintain adequate requirements for the public safety, health, or welfare, and non injurious to other property. To there are unique conditions to the property the site size and shape make a compliant internal street network difficult to provide a Functional street connection depends on future coordination with adjacent properties and is not guaranteed today staff supports the variance with removal of the Western driveway if the future shared Street is constructed and I have that shown here as well and So the portion in orange, that is the portion of the dry that would be removed on the west side. And then in blue is a potential quasi-public street that would be developed. And so the quasi-public street, the owner has expressed willingness to work with the adjacent property owners to kind of create the quasi-public street. But this request will be to show that it is developable today in the current configuration of the concept plan. And then the third analysis, the triangular shape is not the ideal configuration of the property for internal street network. And the request will not vary provisions of the zoning ordinance or comprehensive plan. With the multifamily development, there is a requirement to provide a water and sewer capacity study with the concept plan. A study was submitted to evaluate the infrastructure capacity. It is still currently under review by the engineering department the applicant has agreed to mitigate Complete any mitigation required as a result of the study For the recommendations the revised conveyance flat is recommended for approval Subject to the Commission making the necessary findings for the requested variance from section 5.2. C dot 5 B of the subdivision ordinance for the concept plan It is recommended for approval subject to the following conditions. If an internal quasi public street is shared with the adjacent property to the north, as shown in the adopted development plan for the urban mixed use two district, the Western driveway location proposed on the concept plan will no longer be permitted. And that's that orange portion from earlier. Results of the analysis of the water and sewer capacity study with recommended mitigation must be provided by the applicant at the time of preliminary plat I'm available for any questions All right commissioners questions of staff Mr. Alali

If you can punch your button up there, we have a little, there you go, thank you.

Was there any traffic study done by the city or the applicant to support that they don't need this additional street connection?

Yeah, so as a part of the, let me go back to the concept plan. So as a part of the concept plan, they are showing a proposed right turn lane into the site as it was determined that that would be a requirement. Yes.

But no traffic studies?

So the five-acre internal street requirement is not necessarily due to a traffic requirement. It's more for creating walkable streetscapes in larger multifamily developments that are enabled by state law.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Commissioner Brunoff.

Thank you. Are the proposed fire lanes wide enough to admit emergency vehicles? Yes, correct. Okay, thank you.

All right, other questions of staff? Anybody? All right, I believe we do have the applicant here. Are you available for questions or do you have a presentation? All right, does anybody have questions of the applicant?

Commissioner Brunoff. Mr. Chairman, with respect to item five on our agenda, I move first that the commission find that based upon the information provided by staff, all of the conditions necessary for approval of the requested variants have been met, and therefore that we approve both the revised conveyance plan and concept plan, excuse me, conveyance plat and concept plan as recommended by staff.

All right. Commissioner Bender. Second the motion. All right. Looks like we didn't have any questions for you, but thank you. All right. Unless you want to talk, you've got a motion and a second. I'll say thank you. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Please vote.

Motion passes five to zero.

All right. Any other business before the commission this evening? No? All right. We stand adjourned at 6.33 p.m.