Commission denies request to rezone Dallas North Tollway corner for single‑family homes, 5–0

The Plano Planning and Zoning Commission on Feb. 3 voted 5–0 to deny a request to rezone an undeveloped 8.6‑acre site at the northeast corner of Spring Creek Parkway and Communications Parkway to allow a 33‑lot single‑family subdivision (a legislative Zoning Case and associated concept plan). Staff had recommended denial, citing conflict with the future‑land‑use designation of Employment Center and the city’s undeveloped‑land policy that prioritizes employment‑generating uses for the Legacy business area.

Staff presentation: Planning staff said the subject property is currently zoned Commercial Employment (CE) and sits inside the Legacy business area and the Dallas North Tollway corridor. Staff told commissioners the Employment Center future‑land‑use category favors corporate offices, medical and research uses and that residential uses are “not appropriate” there because the city intends to reserve such land for employment‑generating development. Staff also raised access and setback issues: they said CE‑zoned towers proposed on adjacent parcels would typically be required to meet substantial setbacks from residential districts and that the applicant’s PD language would exempt the site from being treated as a residential district, thereby removing some of those protections.

Applicant presentation: Jerry Silo, representing the applicant, and Brian Robertson, the proposed purchaser/developer, argued the site is constrained by adjacent development patterns that, they said, make traditional commercial employment projects difficult to deliver. The applicant proposed building 33 luxury single‑family detached homes (SF‑6 standards) with builder commitments and said the proposed product would generate greater assessed value than an office park or small office condominiums. The applicant also sought waivers to subdivision design standards (street width, driveway spacing and other site‑specific items) citing site geometry and nearby development forms.

Commission discussion: Commissioners repeatedly cited the comprehensive plan and the city’s findings policy. Commissioner Brunoff said the proposal represented “beautiful homes in the wrong place,” noting the Employment Center designation and arguing the city must preserve land for higher‑intensity employment uses. Other commissioners echoed that view, saying the proposal did not meet the findings required to recommend rezoning from CE to a residential‑oriented plan development.

Outcome: Commissioner Bernoff moved to deny Zoning Case 2024‑027; Commissioner Bender seconded. The commission voted 5–0 to deny both the rezoning request and the associated concept plan. Staff record: the denial was based on inconsistency with the comprehensive plan’s guiding principles, the legacy business area land‑use pattern, and concerns about connectivity and long‑term protection for future adjacent uses.

Speakers: - Jerry Silo, JBI Partners, applicant representative (business). - Brian Robertson, developer/purchaser, Robertson Companies (business). - Mark Hesse, attorney for applicant and nearby resident (business/citizen). - Commissioner Brunoff, Commissioner Bernoff (mover), Commissioner Bender (second), other commissioners.

Authorities cited by staff: City comprehensive plan future‑land‑use designation (Employment Center); undeveloped‑land policy; Commercial Employment (CE) district standards and relevant setback formulas in the city zoning ordinance (Article 13). Staff referenced Zoning Case 2024‑027 in its recommendation.

Clarifying details: the applicant proposes 33 SF‑6 lots (minimum 6,000 sq. ft. lot size, 55‑ft width), front‑entry houses with two‑car garages and driveways; applicant estimated sale prices in the $2.5–$2.8 million range. Staff noted the property is adjacent to approved or proposed multi‑story independent‑living towers and a 4‑story independent‑living facility under construction to the north; staff said typical CE‑to‑residential adjacency protections would not apply under the applicant’s PD stipulation that would exempt the parcel from being treated as a residential district.

Provenance: - topicintro: block_3822.255 (presentation of item 5A/5B description and staff analysis) - topicfinish: block_7092.115 (motion passes 5 to 0 denying the items)

Votes at a glance: - Zoning Case 2024‑027 (rezone CE to PD allowing SF‑6): motion to deny by Commissioner Bernoff; seconded by Commissioner Bender; vote 5–0; outcome: denied. - Concept plan for 33‑lot subdivision: motion to deny by Commissioner Bernoff; seconded by Commissioner Bender; vote 5–0; outcome: denied.