[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6580269,"mediaKeyId","3142252-1183320725bf9c24d4b51b4e9e3aff9d","parentId",3142252,"title","Staff presents Midtown two‑building site plan; requests two minor variances","audioSeconds",211,"startMs",92000,"endMs",303000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3142252-1183320725bf9c24d4b51b4e9e3aff9d&start=92&end=303","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3142252-1183320725bf9c24d4b51b4e9e3aff9d/thumbnail_92000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6580269/Grand-Prairie/Dallas-County/Texas/Staff-presents-Midtown-twobuilding-site-plan-requests-two-minor-variances","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6580269-b7875c6a8c3efa07ffe31ac9ac5a91c7/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184681&Signature=LabnfMPZEP8D-YtFhV1pLOo6cOU-qRZEAmSAWgKuYxT~VWbsX6Eg~1mCGl7YGl~FxjbCM31vGz7cgFYsrtvHgapeXTzBoxoBGqc~a~4MK9GkLiShnOZslGdO9nLJpn-mOBW4zshMJm-R3YS9d-1vaTSUcdYb9GbHv-vUyHXDHUrHoUhuxYnnFNWXa0r04FUVSmppwB9BCVP0JnXj5DcTCz4rVxJe2CDzvYPfM13l1~fukg4x8znqrWRyqxvnHZnTJGQ4dcg~QQn73E-LmEh9CoSElL7LS60cyltYVoG8Hj4i2NF1Gn0K1hk2V4eFswfbC9FjYxmZCuXxDA8sXzpptQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Grand Prairie","date","2025-04-28T00:00:00Z","article","City planning staff on April 28 presented a site plan, STP 25,040,012, for two multi‑tenant buildings in the Midtown area and described two requested variances: a one‑foot height increase and a shortfall in the required window percentage.

The presentation matters because the site is adjacent to existing and planned entertainment and retail uses — including the Black Bear Diner and Andretti’s — and staff said the proposal includes public open space and architectural treatments intended to reduce visible blank walls.

Staff member Steph summarized the proposal as two multi‑tenant buildings on the middle lot, developed by Rise Up Ventures, with landscape and open‑space amenities including seating areas, market umbrellas, benches, planters and water features. Steph said the project “is complying with our appendix f menu items checklist” and noted the applicant requests two variances: to increase the maximum building height from 25 feet to 26 feet and to allow window coverage below the 50% frontage requirement. Steph said staff “does not have any objection to this request.”

Steph showed building elevations and said the applicant proposes murals on side elevations “wherever they have blank walls” to compensate for the glazing variance. Staff also highlighted that the site plan provides required parking and meets or exceeds landscape requirements.

Commissioners raised traffic and operational questions. One commissioner asked whether the area, already experiencing congestion at peak times, had been re‑evaluated for traffic impacts. Staff and civil engineering staff noted a traffic impact analysis (TIA) completed in 2019 that used a 10‑year horizon and said land uses remain generally consistent with that study. Staff member Brett Huntsman said signal timing is set “primarily” for safety and the city will look at adjustments where feasible; he said the team would revisit the TIA if future land uses change substantially.

Staff also noted one condition: the applicant must provide a 40‑foot clear space before the dumpster enclosure; staff said that dimension will be confirmed during construction plan review and reflected in the construction documents if needed. Steph told commissioners that the staff condition is minor and can be adjusted as the design is finalized.

No formal action was taken during the staff briefing. Staff said the item will be heard during the regular meeting public hearing and ultimately requires city council approval to authorize the requested exceptions and the site plan.

Next steps: the commission will have the public hearing during the regular meeting; staff will verify compliance with the dumpster clear space condition and civil review comments during the construction plan (CEP) process.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Grand Prairie - Planning & Zoning Briefing 04282025 - Apr 28, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","City planning staff on April 28 presented a site plan, STP 25,040,012, for two multi‑tenant buildings in Midtown, noting two requested variances — a one‑foot height increase to 26 feet and a glazing shortfall under the 50% window requirement — and a staff condition on dumpster access.","taxTitle","Grand Prairie, Dallas County, Texas","taxId",2784,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6580264,"Staff reviews site plan for two warehouses in PD‑459; drainage study and CEP review remain outstanding",58,990000,932000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3142252-1183320725bf9c24d4b51b4e9e3aff9d&start=990&end=932","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3142252-1183320725bf9c24d4b51b4e9e3aff9d/thumbnail_990000.jpg","/articles/6580264/Grand-Prairie/Dallas-County/Texas/Staff-reviews-site-plan-for-two-warehouses-in-PD459-drainage-study-and-CEP-review-remain-outstanding","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6580264-19dae6b44985ad00bd48bb18a96a93a6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184681&Signature=WqqPtU2XufnivfqDdUKJsaS51sarDkFGqcxp1UgGcPHEVUBv9Pp7vD0ZsXwIYzWs9W~1qBIhn925TJIHVkPWO5Yby1-UnS9Xa52EMwVmX7puXp-HYa618DT0Vufn6myegtpC3UoZTd7b4XlWayrFZqSyM0NdkCyc7Dwqx1Q2MiPo7Y64dPdoF1wQ6EVNjm1UsE9QBeowQ~BTNvste9VITIWw-3NOwxBkUYA0bllE6umDRAW~uGHnk8U4PNnWPWz1okT1Qcr1ncLSowSK9qdX8qOgKwSpV5-HUKnt4awzwTH2V5p~1Mjq031fFj7dc6uZU7-bRPjqC2cribDeXyGcig__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planning staff on April 28 briefed the Planning and Zoning Commission on a site plan, STP 25030009, for two industrial warehouses within Planned Development PD‑459, noting compliance with the PD concept plan but flagging outstanding drainage review and construction plan requirements.

The item is significant because the property abuts residences and staff emphasized screening measures — including an 8‑foot masonry wall and wing walls to conceal the truck court — while also advising commissioners that drainage analysis and civil engineering plan reviews remain to be completed before construction can begin.

Staff said the warehouses were originally approved with PD‑459 in October 2024 and that the current site plan aligns with that concept approval. Steph said the truck court is set back from residential lots (staff said at least 80 feet) and will be screened by an 8‑foot masonry wall and building wing walls. Steph told commissioners the applicant is not requesting variances on this site plan.

On drainage, staff said the applicant submitted a drainage study on March 11 but the city’s civil engineering team has not completed its full review. Staff emphasized that civil engineering plans (CEP) must be reviewed and approved before public improvements or substantive construction can be released; the CEP process typically takes three to four months, staff said.

Commissioner Madden asked whether a retention pond was required; staff replied that the submitted study indicates none is required but that the civil engineering review has not been completed. A commissioner raised concern that developers might invest in clearing or preliminary work before drainage issues and final civil approvals are resolved; staff said minor site clearing sometimes occurs but public improvements and construction permits will not be released until civil plans are approved.

Staff also noted driveway radii changes: the approved concept plan showed 50‑foot radii for some driveway openings but design drawings for this site reflected a reduced 35‑foot radius in places; staff said they would work with the applicant to resolve that before council review. Brett Huntsman explained the purpose of a required corner clip — a property dedication to the city for signal or public infrastructure that may affect setback lines — and said staff would require that dedication during planning if applicable; staff observed it likely would not materially affect the current design.

No action was taken at the staff briefing. Staff said outstanding technical items (drainage review, CEP) will be resolved during civil plan review and that the item will proceed through the public hearing and city council process as required.

Next steps: civil engineering review of the drainage study, resolution of driveway radii to match the approved concept plan or obtain approvals for changes, and final council action on the site plan as needed.

","City planning staff briefed the commission on STP 25030009 — a site plan for two warehouses in Planned Development PD‑459 — and said the plan complies with the concept approval but requires civil engineering (CEP) and drainage review before construction permits can be released.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6580260,"Hidden Creek seeks fence exception from masonry wall rule; staff notes support and opposition",0,1427000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3142252-1183320725bf9c24d4b51b4e9e3aff9d&start=1427&end=1427","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3142252-1183320725bf9c24d4b51b4e9e3aff9d/thumbnail_1427000.jpg","/articles/6580260/Grand-Prairie/Dallas-County/Texas/Hidden-Creek-seeks-fence-exception-from-masonry-wall-rule-staff-notes-support-and-opposition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6580260-cb97a673065fea8bfc7d678acc07cab3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771184681&Signature=m4WPo-PvwterQFBKjcv~KWeace8Zn5HBaNwvkrBRtVSZF5c4OyxkV6cRjL1Xmn-HHGkujIjLDPtiGq6SOh-N1V4UGSIg3NMsrgu-d7JbBewKkrVtkftw8v358KTgfg2IjbB8CKLLFVI72z0VlZlQ7TLu5tRd4ayhHCSKTZcxCGfFrNtUsVcgbL~Z8nnxGmfAcTuke0T0PBppd3SNNbyfbO1XYsrZVO4jNHwB0fmGfgi5Ji3C9bzYjaUt6-Z~VlxiW07poyLnbZSFHIwjH91A6nzJFURKBXzjNV6SjhdDupBYo2Qtc5iIZ8mAJNLBwUKk2wTtDtpUThK6PBdLsVML2Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff briefed the commission on April 28 about a fence‑exception request from the Hidden Creek subdivision’s first phase to allow a board‑on‑board wooden fence with masonry columns along collectors/arterials instead of the Unified Development Code’s required masonry screening wall.

The request is notable because staff reported the developer and homeowners’ association indicated that replacing the required masonry wall would carry a high cost (staff said the applicant estimated about $6,000 per home as an additional assessment), and the submission included a maintenance plan and both letters of support and opposition from residents.

Staff member Savannah explained that the UDC requires masonry screening walls along collectors or arterials but that the UDC allows the city council to grant an exception on recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission if applicants provide a maintenance plan. Savannah said the applicant’s proposed maintenance plan calls for biannual inspections, cleaning, periodic sealing or staining as needed, and replacement when repair is no longer possible. Savannah said staff received 15 letters of support (representing 14 unique addresses) and four letters of opposition (representing four unique addresses). She also said the opposition letters generally cited expectations that the originally intended masonry wall would reduce noise, enhance safety, and provide aesthetic value.

One person in the room said, “I’m here to support,” but no name was recorded in the staff briefing transcript; Savannah said the decision to pursue the exception would be the HOA’s responsibility and that, if the commission recommends approval, the city council would make the final decision.

Commissioners asked whether the applicant had documented the $6,000 figure and whether less expensive alternatives — including panelized or precast masonry products (one brand mentioned was Fiscrete) — were considered. Savannah said the applicant could address cost details at the public hearing. Commissioners also asked whether a maintenance schedule could be binding; Savannah said the commission could recommend conditions to council but staff could not guarantee how binding a maintenance commitment would be through the HOA and council process.

Staff said this briefing was to give the commission background and to note correspondence; no action was taken. The matter will be scheduled for the public hearing at the regular meeting and may be forwarded to city council for a final decision on the UDC exception.

","The Planning and Zoning Commission heard a staff briefing on a fence exception request for the Hidden Creek subdivision (phase 1) to permit a board‑on‑board wooden fence with masonry columns along Perry and Avenue H East instead of the masonry screening wall required by the Unified Development Code. Staff said the applicant provided a maintenance","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Staff presents Midtown two‑building site plan; requests two minor variances

Staff reviews site plan for two warehouses in PD‑459; drainage study and CEP review remain outstanding

Hidden Creek seeks fence exception from masonry wall rule; staff notes support and opposition