Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission backs Pecan Ridge PD amendment, requires 8-foot masonry wall along west edge of Building 4
Summary
After a public hearing and resident testimony about noise, safety and light spillover, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of amendments to the Pecan Ridge planned development at 606 US Highway 80 with a condition that an 8-foot masonry wall be installed on the west side to the extent of Building 4; the motion passed 4–1.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of a planned development amendment for Pecan Ridge at 606 US Highway 80 on May 20, voting 4–1 to require an 8-foot masonry (stone) wall along the western property line to the extent of the proposed Building 4.
Town staff presented the amendment as a cleanup of a split-zoned lot. The proposal would remove subdistricts, establish highway commercial base zoning across the approximately 38.45-acre site, update the PD concept plan to match a concurrent site plan, and prohibit development in the roughly 21-acre southern portion that lies within the Long Creek 100-year floodplain. Staff recommended approval, saying the changes align the ordinance with the proposed site plan while preserving floodplain protections.
During public comment, adjacent homeowner Jorge Martinez urged the commission to require a masonry screening wall rather than a wood fence to reduce noise, limit truck access and prevent trespass. Martinez told the commission, “A masonry wall provides significantly greater protection and separation between commercial and residential uses.” Other neighbors echoed concerns about noise, lighting spillover and safety; Troy Smith said the lack of a masonry wall had contributed to trespass and litter problems on his property.
The applicant and the PD author argued the change is largely a paperwork cleanup and that the proposed flex buildings are not large warehouses. Derek Salser, who identified himself as the author of the PD, said the proposal represents only small layout tweaks and praised the floodplain restriction as a useful clarification. He told the commission he did not believe a masonry wall was necessary to mitigate the site’s expected sound levels.
Commissioners weighed both the neighbors’ concerns and the applicant’s position before moving to add a condition replacing the applicant’s proposed 8-foot wood board-on-board fence along the west side with an 8-foot masonry wall up to the end of Building 4, leaving the other perimeter treatments (retaining wall with wrought iron or wood fencing) as presented. Commissioner (speaker 6) moved the amendment; Commissioner (speaker 8) seconded. The motion carried, 4 in favor and 1 opposed.
The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Town Council, which will consider the PD amendment at its regular meeting on June 8.
