Plano Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting - November 17, 2025

The City of Plano Planning and Zoning Commission met on November 17, 2025, at 6:00 PM. The commission addressed three major items, resulting in one approval, one tabling, and one deadlock that sent a case to council without a recommendation.

Consent Calendar

• The consent agenda was approved unanimously (8-0) via a motion by Commissioner Bronsky and seconded by Commissioner Lingenfelter.

Public Comments & Testimony

• John Stephen Scott (Oak Creek Estates) spoke during the public interest period about a deteriorated seven-foot brick screening wall separating his neighborhood from a car wash. He urged the city to require the owner to restore the wall in its exact configuration, citing noise, safety, and property value concerns. Staff responded that no current case was pending but would reach out for further discussion.
• Public hearing testimony for specific agenda items is summarized under the relevant Discussion Items below.

Discussion Items

Zoning Case 2023-028 (Lavan Farms Rezone)

• Proposal: A request to rezone 215.7 acres of undeveloped land (Lavan Farms) from Agricultural to Residential Community Design (RCD). The project is a key implementation of the Envision Oak Point Small Area Plan, proposing 1,648 housing units (single-family, townhomes, and multifamily), 37 acres of open space, and new thoroughfares.
• Staff Analysis: Mike Bell (Planning) presented the plan, noting that the RCD zoning provides a community benefit over the by-right development allowed under SB 15. The plan aligns with the community-driven Envision Oak Point vision map. Staff recommended approval. Staff reported receiving a high volume of public feedback, with a numerical discrepancy noted in the tally (8 in support, 2 neutral, 66 in opposition, and 25 other letters).
• Applicant Position: Todd Moore (landowner, 90-year family ownership) and Kevin Hickman (High Street Residential) presented the project as a legacy endeavor, emphasizing 25 years of planning, collaboration with city staff, and three community meetings. They argued the plan prevents unplanned by-right development and will significantly increase the tax base.
• Public Hearing: Jennifer Groisman opposed the plan, requesting an age-restricted, single-story owner-occupied community instead. Corey Rennegar supported the concept but opposed the current proposal, arguing for higher density, more mixed-use commercial, and better walkability to meet Envision Oak Point’s full potential.
• Commission Deliberation: Commissioners strongly supported the project, highlighting the deliberate planning process, strict alignment with the small area plan, and the critical benefit of having a planned development over unplanned SB 15 development. Commissioner Brunoff gave an extensive defense of the project as a direct product of community vision.
• Key Outcome: The commission voted 8-0 to approve the rezoning, sending it to City Council with a favorable recommendation contingent on a concurrent development agreement.

Zoning Case 2025-010 (Meadows Baptist Church)

• Proposal: A request to rezone a 14.6-acre church-owned property from Plan Development 173 (Estate Development) to Single Family Residence 6 (SF6) to create 58 single-family residential lots.
• Staff Analysis: Planner Destiny Woods presented the request. The change was deemed compatible with surrounding residential uses. Staff initially reported 67 responses (5 support, 62 oppose), supplemented later by a petition of 123 in support and 26 new opposition letters. Staff recommended approval.
• Applicant Position: Jim Douglas (Douglas Properties) stated the church wanted a quality development. He argued the SF6 zoning was appropriate for the 13-acre tract, which serves as a buffer between Los Rios Boulevard and the estate neighborhoods to the west.
• Public Hearing: Multiple residents from the adjacent Ranch Estates neighborhood spoke in unanimous opposition. Jacqueline Pearl, John Jacobson, Kyle DeShane, and Shep Stall raised strong concerns about traffic safety (proximity to Plano East High School), drainage impacts, wildlife corridors, and the jarring density increase from 2-acre estate lots to 6,000 sq ft lots.
• Commission Deliberation: Commissioners widely expressed dissatisfaction with the applicant’s lack of community outreach. Concerns were raised about the transition in lot sizes on the perimeter, shared fencing, and drainage. Several commissioners indicated a preference for a planned development (PD) approach or requiring larger perimeter lots. Commissioner Bronsky and others recommended tabling to allow the applicant to redesign the plan with meaningful neighbor input.
• Key Outcome: The commission voted 8-0 to table both items 2A and 2B to the January 5, 2026, meeting.

Agenda Item 3: Amendment to Specific Use Permit 56 (Cell Tower)

• Proposal: An amendment to reduce the height of a previously approved cell tower from 120 feet to 95 feet and change the design from a stealth flagpole to a faux eucalyptus tree.
• Staff Position: Staff recommended denial. The primary argument was that the tree design would attract attention (non-native species, out of context) rather than being stealth, and staff referenced past enforcement issues with similar tree designs.
• Applicant Position: Mason Griffin and Verizon RF Engineer Steve Neese argued the tree design would provide superior cell coverage because larger antennas could be mounted externally. They stated it would co-locate three major carriers (Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T), reducing the need for up to three additional tower sites. They noted support from the property owner and the Legacy Association.
• Commission Deliberation: The commission was sharply divided over aesthetics versus coverage. Commissioners Bender and Tong leaned toward approval due to the co-location and coverage benefits. Commissioners Bronsky and Alley cited aesthetic concerns, staff objections, and the lack of a native tree design. The key tension was between the aesthetic compromise of the tree versus the functional compromise of the flagpole and the potential for more towers.
• Key Outcome: A motion to deny the amendment failed 4-4. A subsequent motion to approve the amendment also failed 4-4. The case will proceed to the City Council without a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Key Outcomes

• Zoning 2023-028 (Lavan Farms): Approved 8-0. Moves to City Council with a positive recommendation.
• Zoning 2025-010 (Meadows Baptist Church): Tabled 8-0 to January 5, 2026. Applicant directed to work with neighbors and staff.
• SUP 56 (Cell Tower): No recommendation (votes tied 4-4). Proceeds to City Council without commission recommendation.
• Meeting Adjourned: 9:10 PM.