Commission hears heated public comment on PD 193 amendment; motion to deny submitted

The DeSoto Planning and Zoning Commission heard public comment and applicant presentations on a requested amendment to Planned Development 193 (zoning case Z1530‑24) — a proposal to remove SF‑10 lots and amend PD 193 so the base zoning would be SF‑8 and SF‑9 with deviations. Staff recommended approval; the applicant presented revisions to the conceptual plan after community outreach, and residents urged denial because of lot sizes, front‑facing garages and narrow side‑yard setbacks.

Planning manager Cambria Jordan summarized the request: the PD governs roughly 50.35 acres addressed along East Parkerville Road, and the applicant seeks to revise the PD’s base zoning to SF‑8 and SF‑9 with deviations that would yield approximately 173 residential lots under the revised plan. Jordan told commissioners 56 property owners were notified within the 200‑foot radius and that staff received zero letters of support and one letter of opposition as of the hearing. Jordan noted that the revised PD retains larger minimum dwelling sizes than some commenters feared; the applicant proposes minimum dwelling sizes mostly at 2,000 square feet and a portion at 1,800 square feet rather than the previously proposed 1,600 square feet.

Applicant John McKenzie and attorney Steven Darling said they had held community meetings and revised the concept in response to resident feedback. The applicant described plans to preserve roughly 22 acres of open green space, create roughly a one‑mile walking trail, and offer amenities (playground, pavilion, pickleball court) and a homeowners association to manage the common areas. The team said the revised concept would be a gated, HOA‑maintained community with housing priced in a mid‑$400,000 to mid‑$500,000 range.

Multiple residents who live near the proposed PD — including Hope Stevens, Sharon Temple, Denise Valentine and others — opposed the amendment in public comment. Common concerns included the number of SF‑8 lots (residents requested more SF‑9/SF‑10 lots and larger lots), the five‑foot side setback between homes, the prevalence of front‑entry garages and the potential for on‑street parking and safety hazards, and the city’s prior outreach and notice. Several residents said developers had been engaged with the neighborhood since 2022 and that later communications were inconsistent.

During commission discussion Commissioner Graham moved to deny the amendment as written; the motion was seconded. The transcript records the motion and second; the recorded vote tally at the conclusion of the meeting was not clearly captured in the transcript excerpts provided. Staff had previously advised commissioners that the PD as currently written (PD 193) could be developed under the existing approvals, but the applicant says topographic and drainage constraints required the revised concept in order to achieve a feasible build‑out.

Next steps: The commission’s action and any vote will be forwarded to City Council as the commission’s recommendation; staff and applicants may revise the proposal for future hearings.