Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Planning and Zoning Commission - 03/24/2026 - RegularMINUTES CITY OF THE COLONY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2026 After determining that a quorum was present, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of The Colony, Texas convened into Regular Session which was held on Tuesday, March 24, 2026 at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at City Hall, 6053 Main Street, The Colony, Texas, at which time the following items were addressed: Board Members Present: Kirk Varga, Kenneth Flo, DeWayne Snider, Brenda Armour and Jeff Baran, Karen Hames and Robert Cox Board Members Absent: Staff Present: Isaac Williams, Planning Director; Melissa Devin, Planning Technician; Allisen Ducay, Planner; Ron Hartline, Engineering Director and Alan Lathrom, Attorney 1.0 CALL REGULAR SESSION TO ORDER Chair Hames called the regular session of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. 2.0 J CITIZEN INPUT 3.0 1 CONSENT AGENDA 3. 11 Consider the approval of the minutes of the March 10, 2026 Regular Session Chair Hames read Consent Agenda Item 3.1 into record. Commissioner Armour made a motion to approve item 3.1, seconded by Commissioner Cox. The motion carried (7-0). Chair Hames stated she would be moving the Discussion Items up because of the nature of the Public Hearing. 5.0 DISCUSSION ITEMS 5.1 SP25-0007 - Martinizing Cleaners - Site Plan Discuss and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding the Site Plan application of "Martinizing Cleaners," an approximately 3,327 sq ft laundry and dry- cleaning franchise. The subject site contains approximately 0.44 acres (19,081 sq ft) and is located at 7447 Main Street within the General Retail Zoning District and the Gateway Overlay District. 5.2 SPA25-0013 - MN8 Grandscape EV Service - Site Plan Amendment Discuss and consider approval of the Site Plan Amendment application of "MN8 Energy" regarding the installation of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (EVCS) at Lot 3R, Block A, Grandscape Addition Phase II. The subject site is located at 5800 Grandscape Blvd within the NFM-Grandscape Planned Development PD -25 Chair Hames read Discussion Item 5.1 into record. Ms. Ducay presented the staff report. J Commissioner Cox asked about the second story of the building. Ms. Ducay responded that the applicant would need to respond to that question. 1 Mary Herrera, the applicant of the case, stepped forward. She responded that the second story would be a small office for the property owners. Commissioner Cox asked for further clarification on the use of the upstairs space. Mrs. Herrera responded that the office space would not be leased and would only be used by the property owners. Commissioner Baran asked if the parallel parking space shown on the plans was required. Ms. Ducay responded that in order to meet the requirements, it was. Commissioner Baran asked if a parking variance could be done for it because it seemed unnecessarily dangerous. Ms. Ducay responded that the parking space was permitted in that location and it was the proper dimensions for the standard parking spaces. She further added that the location was selected to fit the drive -isle. Chair Hames asked Ms. Ducay to show the parking space in question. Commissioner Baran asked Mr. Williams [Planning Director] if he could make that a condition of approval or a recommendation. Mr. Williams stepped forward and responded that any deviations from the parking code could be addressed via variance, which the Planning Commission did not have the authority to grant or it could be addressed with an SUP, which was not the request. Commissioner Snider asked if the fire lane was sufficient to reach the back of the building. Ms. Ducay responded in the affirmative and added that the fire department had also reviewed the plans and had no concerns. Commissioner Snider made a motion to approve item 5.1, seconded by Commissioner Baran. The motion carried (7-0). Chair Hames read Discussion Item 5.2 into record. Ms. Ducay presented the staff report. Commissioner Cox asked about the poles and whether they were lights. Ms. Ducay responded that the poles were for the devices themselves but there were lights installed in them as well. Commissioner Cox asked if that would also be driving the internet and connectivity for the devices. Ms. Ducay responded that she would have to have the applicant address the specifics of the use of the devices. Commissioner Cox stated that he wasn't concerned, just curious. Commissioner Cox made a motion to approve item 5.2, seconded by Commissioner Flo. The motion carried (7-0). 2 4.0 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 4.1 PD26-0001— Colony Commerce Center Planned Development 31 (PD -31) Conduct a public hearing, discuss and consider making a recommendation to City Council regarding a zoning change from Planned Development 10 (PD -10) to Planned _ Development 31 (PD -31) to establish the conceptual layout and development standards for a mixed commercial development. The subject site contains approximately 71.72 acres and is located north of the northwest intersection of Plano Parkway and Windhaven Parkway within the Planned Development -10 PD -10 zoning district. Chair Hames read Agenda item 4.1 into record. Mr. Williams presented the staff report. Commissioner Snider asked if a traffic study was required for the request. Mr. Williams responded that staff has requested that the applicant take a look at the traffic in the area. Commissioner Cox mentioned that this isn't just a zoning case, that it is also a building standards case. He asked about the land uses specific to the PD proposed versus what it was prior. Mr. Williams responded that the PD being proposed would not allow of any multi -family use. He added that PD -10 did have some allowances for multi -family but the development standards would not really allow for the development of such use. Commissioner Cox stated that he just wanted to be sure that land use and any entitlements were clear. He also added that he was concerned that we were not requiring screening on Plano Pkwy for any trash receptacles because that was the entrance to Grandscape, which is important to the City. Mr. Williams clarified that the PD did include screening off Plano Pkwy. Commissioner Cox reiterated that he believed it was important for that screening, especially when you got into industrial -type zones because of the different types of waste that could be produced. Commissioner Baran stated that the proposed PD was the connective tissue for PD -22 and PD -25 and it was important that the landscaping and screening standard we hold in the City were consistent along Plano Pkwy. Chair Hames opened public hearing at 6:58 pm. Mr. Tyler Riek, the applicant of the project approached the mic. Mr. Riek offered a presentation on the proposed project to the Commissioners. Commissioner Cox asked Mr. Riek if he would be okay with the Planning and Zoning Commission requiring that all of the property, not just the PD, had the same screening standards as the rest of the City. Mr. Riek responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Cox asked if drone logistics were allowed in this land use. Mr. Williams responded that drone usage is regulated by the FAA so we don't have a land use that would accommodate or prohibit such use so in theory, they would be allowed. He added that we did require an SUP (specific use permit) for the landing pads in case of such use. - J Commissioner Cox added that he had no issue with it, he was just curious. Commissioner Baran asked about the discussions with the surrounding property owners. Mr. Riek replied that there is a mutual easement access for the driveway in question [N side]. Commissioner Baran asked if the conversation had been had with the neighbors. Mr. Riek stated that they had not had a discussion specific to the driveway in question. He provided further clarification on the easements surrounding the property. Commissioner Baran asked if they had a discussion with the owners of the Billingsley property regarding the screening. Mr. Riek responded in the affirmative and added that it is already included in the plans that were submitted. Commissioner Baran asked Mr. Riek if he'd be open to placing landscaping and a meandering sidewalk along Plano Pkwy. Mr. Rick responded that he wasn't sure that there was a sidewalk currently there but he'd look into it. Commissioner Baran asked about detention and whether it was needed on the property. Mr. Riek replied that the site falls north to south and it's roughly 5 acres so from an engineering perspective that was the best location. Commissioner Baran asked if it was a dry pond. Mr. Riek responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Baran asked if they had placed any thought in how they would landscape that area. Mr. Riek replied that it would be sod or seed. Commissioner Cox asked Mr. Willaims if the development standards would include what the typical landscaping requirements were. Mr. Williams responded in the affirmative. He added that the concept of them are included, but if they had anything specific, they were requesting, they would add it at this time. Commissioner Cox stated that he just wanted to be sure that it followed the development standards for our Gateway. Mr. Williams responded that the location proposed does not fall into our Gateway Overlay District but that the PD would have its own development standards or be supplemented by the City Ordinances if the PD standards were silent. Mr. Henry Billingley, a representative of the neighboring property, approached the mic. He described the history of the property and stated his opposition to the proposed development. Mr. Bill Walker, a representative for the neighboring property, approached the mic. He stated that he was an engineer and that some of the details of the project made him nervous. Mr. Dan Gallagher, a representative of the project proposed, approached the mic. He added that the detention and other engineering specifics were not relevant to the zoning request. He stated that the team had already conducted preliminary grading but had not yet submitted it to the City since the PD had to be approved first. He further added that him and his team had done much more work than they currently would for a zoning case and had conducted multiple studies to ensure they were prepared. Chair Hames closed public hearing at 7:31pm. 10 Commissioner Baran made a motion to approve item 4.1 with the conditions stated below, seconded by Commissioner Snider. The motion carried (4-3). Landscape buffer provided along Plano Parkway to be a minimum of 25 feet wide exclusive of any sidewalk/other hardscape. One three-inch caliper canopy tree, 12 feet in height, shall be provided for every 25 feet of street frontage. Three ornamental trees may be substituted for one canopy tree not to exceed 25% of the number of large canopy trees required in the Landscape buffer. ■ Applicant to provide a meandering sidewalk of similar width to existing sidewalks along Plano Parkway. Width and layout are to be reviewed and approved by Parks and Planning staff at Site Plan approval. ■ Detention may not be provided in the front yard. Retention ponds with water feature in the front yard may be approved by the City Manager or his designee but may not be within the required landscape buffer. • Applicant shall provide maximum opacity screening of the truck court, trailer parking and dumpsters from the public ROW with a masonry screening wall and/or living screen. Applicant shall provide a line -of -sight study at the time of Site Plan submission to be approved by the City Manager or his designee. ■ Allowable fencing materials are those shown in 10A-1200 Table 1 or wrought iron with living screen. Black vinyl chain link is not permitted. • Applicant shall provide maximum opacity screening between neighboring properties utilizing fencing/wall, a living screen or a combination thereof. There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chair Hames adjourned the Regular Session of the Planning and Zoning Commission at 7:34pm. 5