The Planning and Zoning Commission approved an amendment to Planned Development 107 to revise the concept plan for Redden Farms Phase 2A and 2B, covering about 49.768 acres. The amendment reduces the previously proposed 171 single-family lots to 137 lots and adds eight open-space lots; staff recommended approval, and the commission voted 6–1 to adopt the amendment.

Staff said the amendment leaves allowed uses within PD 107 unchanged and that the project remains consistent with the comprehensive plan’s residential medium-density designation. The submittal shows masonry screening walls and trees along the property line where the residential phase abuts existing industrial uses; staff said the masonry wall and a fence easement would be located on the developer’s property and maintained by an HOA. The plan also included a dog park and common open spaces.

Several commissioners raised detailed questions about consistency between the ordinance text, the site plan and an exhibit labeled “Exhibit C” that depicts the fencing plan. Commissioners and staff discussed differences between older and updated exhibits in the packet, whether the masonry screening wall extends fully around the dog park, and where landscaping obligations (including three-inch-caliper trees) would be located. Engineering consultant Russell Lyons (Strain Engineering) and the developer’s representative said the masonry wall is intended primarily to screen the subdivision from an existing batch plant and that a fence could not be placed where it would block an existing pond outfall.

Commissioners also discussed drainage concerns raised by the adjacent Redden property owners; staff said city and developer representatives had met on site with the Reddens and that a plan of action was underway, with additional staff meetings scheduled. Staff clarified that the areas in the proposed amendment largely drain southeast rather than toward the northwest property that had reported localized drainage problems from earlier phases, and that previously constructed phases remain in place.

Several motions were offered during the discussion. One motion to deny was made on the basis that Exhibit C in the packet did not correctly show fencing; that motion did not carry. After clarifications and agreement that the updated fencing exhibit would be the controlling exhibit when the plat is prepared, Commissioner Skinner moved to approve the amendment as submitted; the motion passed 6–1.

Developer counsel stated the applicant is not requesting changes to fencing locations previously approved; staff confirmed they will require platting-level details and that fencing/tree locations will be formalized in the plat and easements submitted for recordation.