Planning commission advances amendments to Unified Development Code to require SUP in some manufacturing/warehouse redevelopments amid strong public comment; 6–

The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6–1 on Tuesday to recommend a package of amendments to the City of Lewisville’s Unified Development Code that would add standards and, under certain conditions, require a special‑use permit (SUP) for light, medium or heavy manufacturing and warehouse/distribution facilities when they are proposed on vacant land or when redevelopment would increase intensity near existing lower‑intensity uses.

Planning Director Richard Luedtke (as referenced in an email read into the record) and planning staff said the changes respond to community concerns about the impacts of large‑scale manufacturing and warehouses — particularly semi‑truck traffic, noise and other neighborhood impacts — and aim to give the city a tool to review proposed redevelopments that could create conflicts with adjacent neighborhoods or small businesses. Staff reported receiving nearly 200 emails, phone calls and walk‑ins on the topic during the outreach period.

Key components of the proposed amendments presented to the commission include:

- A 500‑foot rule: the SUP requirement could apply if a new project is not within 500 feet of certain lower‑intensity uses (the ordinance text defines which uses are counted) or conversely if a redevelopment is within 500 feet of such uses, depending on parcel context as clarified in the revised text handed out before the meeting.

- Grandfathering/exemptions: properties with an existing valid certificate of occupancy (CO) for manufacturing or warehouse use as of the ordinance’s effective date (estimated March 3, 2025) and properties with an approved planned development (PD) would be exempt from the new SUP requirement. Staff emphasized that state vesting rules also protect projects once the applicant submits the first in a series of required permits.

- Administrative clarification: in some cases staff would accept alternate documentation when a CO is not available to demonstrate the use of a property on the effective date.

The proposal generated extended public comment and detailed written input. Dozens of property owners, landlords and developers spoke or submitted letters expressing concerns that the amendments would reduce property values, complicate leasing, and create administrative delays; several said language released shortly before the meeting had changed and asked for clearer grandfathering language. For example, Lance Kent (leased owner) and others argued the change could devalue properties that currently accommodate light manufacturing. Attorney Tommy Mann and developer Henry Wright said recent changes to the draft language — including replacing a Friday draft’s concept‑plan/zoning‑plan language with a certificate‑of‑occupancy test — could render projects already underway nonconforming and thus create financing and leasing difficulties.

Other speakers defended the proposed change as a measured “stop‑gap” that lets the city and commission review redevelopments that may not fit adjacent neighborhoods. Winston Edmondson, identifying himself as a Lewisville resident, praised staff for balancing investor and neighborhood concerns and urged approval. "It gives us kind of a stop gap...the ability for you guys to take a look, for this city council to take a look and say, is this gonna be a good fit for the people of Lewisville?" he said.

Commissioners asked staff multiple clarifying questions about how the rule would apply: whether existing tenants and buildings would be grandfathered, how the 500‑foot buffer is measured, whether minor expansions trigger the SUP, and what documentation staff would accept when COs are not available. Staff said medium‑ and heavy‑intensity manufacturing already require an SUP today and would continue to do so; the new language primarily targets certain redevelopments or changes to light‑industrial‑zoned properties.

Several commissioners said they were concerned about the pace and timing of draft language changes and asked for clearer outreach materials; others cited the need to protect small, established "mom and pop" businesses and nearby residents from the impacts of high‑intensity redevelopments. The commission ultimately voted 6–1 to recommend the amendments. Commissioner (name not specified) cast the lone opposing vote. The measure will proceed to City Council for a second public hearing and a final decision on Monday, Feb. 17, 2025, at 7 p.m.

At the meeting staff said a hard copy of revised ordinance language was distributed to commissioners about 3:30 p.m. that day; several commenters noted that a change earlier that day altered which parcels would be affected and raised state‑law concerns about the calculation of the 20% landowner opposition threshold that triggers a supermajority vote at council. Staff reiterated that state vesting rules (the date of an applicant’s first permit submission in a series) remain controlling for projects already in process.

The proposed amendment includes application and sign costs already in the city code: staff noted an SUP application fee of $750 and sign posting fees that vary (example cited: $35 per sign).