Richardson City Council Meeting April 14th, 2025
OPENING & COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
All councilmembers are present as well as City Manager (CM) Don Magner and City Secretary Aimee Nemer.
Councilman Dorian leads a prayer and the pledges.
Minutes of previous meetings are approved unanimously.
CM Magner acknowledges written comment cards submitted by Patricia Griffin, Nancy Fisher, and Lauren Williamson. These were opposed to ZF 25-05 (Collins Residence). Ken (or Kim) McCord submitted a card neutral to ZF 25-05. (Apologies for any misspellings.)
One speaker is present for the visitors forum, Randal Norwood. He speaks about the upcoming election and a flyer he got in the mail. He supports term limits and the people having the ability to voice their concerns.
Next, Council appoints Jeremy Thomason as vice-chair of the CPC. Kristen Schascheck is also appointed to the CPC. Kristen Ceasar is appointed vice-chair of the Community Inclusion & Engagement Commission. Terry Ziegler is appointed to the Parks & Rec Commission. Jan Taylor is appointed vice-chair of the Sign Control Board. Neil Orleans is also appointed to the Sign Control Board.
CITY HALL PUBLIC ART
The first presentation of the evening is on the three finalists for the City Hall Plaza public art piece. Meredith McKinley of Via Partnership presents. As a reminder, the budget is $850K for this art piece. This art piece will be located in between the new city hall and the plaza fountain. 111 artists applied. The three finalists are Laura Haddad/Tom Drugan, Marc Fornes, and Po Shu Wang. The Cultural Arts Commission has recommended Marc Fornes for this project. The title of his proposed art piece is Tournelle. (I hope that’s how you spell it. Remarkably, the title never appears in writing in the presentation.) This piece is inspired by French gazebos as I understand it. It will serve as both a monument and something that visitors can step into like a gazebo. The design, from the top, mimics a flower bloom. Its appearance is a solid white color, and the material will be aluminum. The dimensions will be 21 ft. in height and 45 ft. in diameter. The piece also appears to include statues of silhouetted people engaging in various activities. Since my description does not do the piece justice, take a look for yourself starting on page 16 of the handouts here: https://www.cor.net/home/showpublisheddocument/43207 .
Councilman Hutchenrider expresses concern about the structure of the piece being able to withstand snow or ice that may gather on top of it. He personally prefers the Haddad/Drugan piece. Councilman Barrios personally prefers the Po Shu Wang piece. He also likes this Marc Fornes piece. He expresses concern about the height of this compared with the new Council chambers. CM Magner confirms that Council chambers will be taller than this piece. Councilman Dorian likes the Marc Fornes piece. He likes the size. He wants to add lighting to the piece.
Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul also likes the Marc Fornes piece. He wants to be mindful of how this piece would affect the view from Council chambers. He also wants to be mindful of how this will feel during the summer heat. Councilman Corcoran asks if they could consider adding a plaque that recognizes the members of the selection committee for their work in reviewing over 100 submissions to recommend this piece. CM Magner agrees to look into how to incorporate this. Councilman Corcoran also asks what the committee’s thoughts were on the other two finalists. Consultant McKinley answers that the committee concluded that the Haddad/Drugan piece was too similar to existing art pieces around the city. Their conclusions on the Po Shu Wang piece were that it would be difficult to finish within budget and they didn’t completely understand how some of the technical aspects would be accomplished. They really liked the interactive nature of the recommended Marc Fornes piece.
Councilwoman Justice is concerned about losing line of sight between City Hall and the library. She likes the concept otherwise. Mayor Dubey asks what the maintenance and cleaning costs will be for this all white piece. Consultant McKinley answers that a power wash would be effective on a piece like this. She also mentions that the artist is open to other color options as well. Councilman Barrios asks if this will be powder-coated and how they can be proactive in preventing graffiti and other issues that would require cleaning. Consultant McKinley answers that this will be powder-coated. They could also add an anti-graffiti coating.
CM Magner confirms that the feedback is that the bottom of the piece should be explored to open up a line of sight and that the scale is okay. Councilman Barrios asks if this can come back before them before moving forward with a final design. He wishes there was a different location on the campus for this piece to help not obstruct line of sight between buildings. CM Magner answers that this can come back before Council if they want it to. Council would like to see other color options, lighting options, and maintenance costs. Mayor Dubey asks if they could also explore a self-washing mechanism. This will come back before Council with this feedback addressed.
ENVIRONMENTAL OUTREACH INITIATIVES
The next presentation is on environmental outreach initiatives. CM Magner introduces new Environmental Outreach Manager Jade Mizzell to present. She highlights the three areas within the Environmental Partnership Initiative that are currently taking place. The first is Richardson Plants. This includes programs like the Beautification Matching Fund, Operation Bloomtown, and Richardson Replants. The second area is Richardson Conserves. This includes programs like the Blue Bag Program, Water Conservation Kits, the Tree Cycle Christmas Tree Program, and the Texas Pure Partnership. The final area is Richardson Informs. Manager Mizzell will focus on this area in this presentation. This aims to encourage involvement in events and programs that promote environmental stewardship.
The Water Conservation Working Group partners with the NTMWD (Water District) to conduct a community survey to understand perceptions around water conservation. Results from this survey should be shared within the next month. Water is Awesome is a campaign to educate residents about responsible watering habits. This is also a regional effort. Other regional partnerships include the Water Efficiency Network of North Texas, tours at the Republic Services Recycling Center, and the North Central Texas Council of Governments nonprofit. Outreach events include an interactive “stream trailer” from the NTMWD (Water District). This trailer demonstrates water pollution and dilution processes. An Irrigation 101 workshop was also held at the senior center to educate residents on the fundamentals of irrigation systems. The city also partnered with Republic Services to host a lunch & learn event for America Recycles Day at the recycling center. 10 outreach events are also planned for 2025. An environmental calendar will also be available to residents at events.
A residential irrigation evaluation will be a new service in Richardson to provide sprinkler system evaluations at no cost to residents to ensure the efficiency of their systems. Repairs will not be a part of this service. The RISD Earth Day Competition is underway. Schools are competing for a pizza party, which will go to the winners who collect the most recycling materials. Over 5,700 lbs. have already been collected. The Richardson Woman’s Club will also host their Annual Garden Festival to promote water conservation. A copy of the environmental calendar will also be available online.
Councilman Barrios encourages the department to explore incentives for xeriscaping.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - PARKS PROGRAMS STANDARDS OF CARE
Next is the state-required annual briefing on the standards of care for early childhood and youth programs offered by the city’s Parks & Rec Department. These include two public hearings on the standards of care. Heights Rec Center Manager Heidi Scalice presents. Manager Scalise mentions that a job fair will be held on April 19th for Day Camp Counselors. Camp dates are June 2nd – Aug. 1st. No speakers are present for either public hearing, and after some confusion from Mayor Dubey about what votes to call for, the standards of care ordinances are unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARING – CHICK-FIL-A MOBILE ORDER LANE
Next is a public hearing on ZF 25-03. This is a special permit amendment request from Chick-fil-A at 106 W Campbell to add a dedicated mobile drive-thru lane to help with the current traffic issues that this location experiences. Councilman Barrios recuses himself from this item due to a conflict of interest. This request was covered in detail at the March 18th CPC meeting: https://open.substack.com/pub/justinneth/p/richardson-city-plan-commission-meeting-0e3?r=3ahunk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Staff provides a background of the request. No correspondence has been received regarding this request. The applicant is present to answer questions, but Council doesn’t have any questions at this time. One speaker is present for this hearing, Alexander Scott. He opposes this request due to the lack of pedestrian improvements. He would like to see a traffic study required for this request. Council unanimously approves the request with no further discussion.
Next would be a public hearing on ZF 25-04, which is a planned development amendment request for the Amazon center at 3051 Research Dr. to allow a drone delivery distribution center. The applicant has requested the hearing to be continued so they can continue to meet with the surrounding neighborhoods. No speakers are present for the public hearing tonight. Council unanimously continues the hearing until May 19th.
PUBLIC HEARING – DENNIS COLLINS RESIDENCE
Now, the final public hearing of the evening. (And I suggest that you prepare yourselves. I’m pretty sure this is the longest zoning item I have ever observed at roughly 3 hours long.) This public hearing is on ZF 25-05, which is a rezoning request for a single-family home planned development for Dennis Collins at 1025 Point North Pkwy. This was covered in great detail at the March 18th CPC meeting: https://open.substack.com/pub/justinneth/p/richardson-city-plan-commission-meeting-0e3?r=3ahunk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Paired with this item is a variance request to alter Prairie Creek. CM Magner explains that the public hearing will be opened before Council votes on either item to ensure everyone has been heard before Council makes a decision. Staff will present a background of the request first. Staff explains that current zoning only allows the development of a country club on this lot. The Future Land Use Plan designates this area as appropriate for Parks & Open Space. 80% of this property is in the floodplain. Staff also specifies that FEMA floodplain modeling only determines areas of potential flood hazard. A floodplain study concluded that regrading the creek, creek, preparing a pad for the building pad preparation, and building a retaining wall would all be necessary to make a development here possible. After explaining the prohibition on channeling creeks, staff explains that this applicant removed trees from the property before the city issued a tree removal permit. After this was discovered, the city required a tree removal permit to be obtained.
Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul asks if staff knows every tree that was removed from the property. Asst. Director of Development Services for Engineering, Dan Tracy, explains that Bois D’Arc and other “invasive” species were among the tree species removed. (Bois D’Arc is absolutely a native tree, but also can apparently be considered “invasive” due to its ability to grow rapidly. Considering that Bois D’Arc can provide habitats to wildlife and can aid in erosion control and rainwater absorption, I don’t agree with calling this tree “invasive” just because it can grow rapidly. Nature belongs.) Asst. Director Tracy nervously explains that staff reviewed bark types of the debris that was leftover to determine the tree types that were removed, since it was winter, and leaves weren’t present to analyze. “They could tell,” he says. Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul categorizes this effort as the arborists “doing the best they could do.” No previous documentation of existing trees exists. The city also required the applicant to install silt fencing and protective material to prevent erosion of the bank since all of the trees were removed.
Councilman Dorian asks to confirm how a retaining wall will affect the creek. Asst. Director Tracy answers that cut and fill would take place. A slide is shown that depicts a change to the bank of the creek. The bottom of the slope would end up lower after installing a vertical wall. The grade of the bank would change to be completely vertical with a hard surface wall rather than the existing sloped grass bank. Ultimately, this would slightly lower the surface of water flowing in the creek. A vertical hard surface wall also has other effects on the creek that will be elaborated on later.
Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul speaks from his professional experience as a civil engineer. He explains that reducing the sectional area increases fluid velocity. He asks what the city’s opinion is on the study they reviewed. FEMA doesn’t require any erosion analysis. They just look at things from an insurability standpoint to ensure properties won’t flood. Does anything in the study suggest that any velocities might be increased? Asst. Dir. Tracy dodges the question and states that the applicant should answer this.
Councilman Hutchenrider asks staff to “dumb it down.” He states that they have received seven pages of concerns from neighbors and he wants to clear up any misunderstandings. (I’ll just say, citizens understand the situation for what it is. Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul understands this for what it is, based on his line of questioning. It’s clear. The FEMA study doesn’t even speak to the concerns of the neighbors. Neighbors aren’t worried their homes will flood. They are worried that increased velocities will erode their properties further. We should absolutely focus on the science and not “dumb it down” to mean something that it doesn’t.)
He asks if the concerns that neighbors are expressing are actually valid concerns based on the FEMA study. CM Magner answers that the concerns are valid. He explains that there is a legal process that they must follow. The FEMA study concludes that this will not cause upstream or downstream *flooding* impacts. FEMA is also not part of any “approval process.” They simply ensure that the development ensures that property is built outside of the floodplain and doesn’t cause other properties to be put into the floodplain. Cover to cover, that is their role. Asst. Dir. Tracy explains that erosion is currently a problem. He confirms that erosion issues will still exist if this property is developed.
Councilman Corcoran asks if the city can address comments suggesting that the retention pond to the north hasn’t been appropriately dredged. Asst. Dir. Tracy states that these facilities still function the same from a flood control standpoint, even if they have silt. CM Magner explains that the city does not have a dredging program. Dredging this facility would need to be included in a bond program.
Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul again reminds Council that FEMA only looks at upstream and downstream “flood conditions,” not erosion. He asks if there has been any EPA analysis on how this would affect the water itself. Asst. Dir. Tracy explains that the applicant did hire an environmental scientist to look at this. They determined that this development would not fall within the thresholds that legally require mitigation, so they didn’t have to notify the government agencies.
Staff continues the presentation on the zoning considerations. The developed lot area will be 2 acres. The front setback in this planned development is reduced to 20 ft. Two enclosed parking garages will be located behind a front gate. The garage doors won’t face the street, but the gate will. A driveway will take up most of the front of the property. Landscape planters are planned for 25% of the front property line. A retaining wall will be installed to protect this proposed property. Shrubs and ornamental trees are proposed along the front property line. A front masonry screening wall up to 10 ft. is also proposed. The CPC narrowly recommended approval 3-2 at their March 18th CPC meeting. To date, five statements in support, along with a packet with 37 signatures in support, have been received. 20 statements and a presentation with 50+ residents listed in opposition have also been received. Three statements in neutrality have also been received.
Mayor Dubey asks how this development will compare to neighbors on the same street with a reduced setback. (If you take the time to look at any of the slides that have been presented to Council just now, you know that there are no neighbors on this same street.) Staff clarifies that no neighbors are on this same street. Councilman Barrios asks if the packet showing 37 in support is part of the public record because he hasn’t seen it. Staff will ensure that it is included in the record.
The applicant, Dennis Collins, now steps forward to present his request. He explains why he wants to build this. He claims that it is zoned residential. (This is factually incorrect. It is zoned for a clubhouse only, as staff has explained multiple times.) Councilwoman Justice asks what he has done to address neighbors’ concerns. He states that he held a meeting at the country club and invited everyone in the 200 ft. radius. He claims that 93% of the people within that zone were either neutral or in support of the request. Councilwoman Justice presses him on this claim. She asks if 100% of the people within that radius even responded. He finally admits, after being corrected by staff, that the 93% also includes those who didn’t respond. Staff clarifies that one response was neutral, and it sounds like only one other response besides the applicant himself was in support. The applicant states that 20 people showed up to the community meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul asks what the applicant has done for erosion protection. The applicant answers that they are trying to have a neutral impact on erosion. The applicant also admits that they are increasing the velocity on the left overbank, which is the side that homes are on. They are lowering the velocity on the other overbank.
Councilman Barrios asks how one side increases while the other side decreases velocity. The applicant explains that, since they are decreasing the water level slightly, the surface area is also decreasing. This, combined with the same flow rate, means that velocity will increase. Councilman Barrios asks if the golf course responded to the public notification. Staff confirms that the golf course was notified and did not respond.
Mayor Dubey asks the applicant if he began clearing trees before he had permission. The applicant claims that he read the rules and decided that he didn’t need permission. (Staff has already confirmed that he removed trees before being issued a required permit.) Mayor Dubey asks the applicant if the trees on his property were experiencing erosion issues. The applicant answers that it was hard to tell.
(This summary is already too long to include the content of speakers’ remarks, but residents spoke passionately and knowledgeably. This was the largest number of speakers I have ever seen show up to speak on a zoning case. I encourage you to view their remarks starting at the 2 hr. 54 min. mark on the recording here: https://richardsontx.new.swagit.com/videos/339969 )
20 speakers are present for this hearing. The first is Bill Koch. He is a neighbor on the creek. He opposes the request. Julie Koch is the second speaker. She opposes this request as a neighbor on the creek. The third speaker is John Sharp. He also opposes the request. Ginny Laughlin is the fourth speaker. She opposes the request. Rance Jones is the fifth speaker. He also opposes the request. Christina Jones is the sixth speaker. She opposes the request. Kelly McCarthy is the seventh speaker. She opposes the request. Brad Fisher is the eighth speaker. He opposes the request as a neighbor within the 200 ft. boundary. Mandy Pathak is the ninth speaker. She opposes the request. Former Mayor Pro Tem Mary Ann Fraley is the 10th speaker. She opposes the request. Kyle Cotterell is the 11th speaker. He opposes the request. I am the 12th speaker. I oppose the request.
Lane Cardwell is the 13th speaker. He supports the request because he hopes it will increase his property value. Lloyd Timmons is the 14th speaker. He speaks in neutrality to the request, though he states that the applicant is part of the solution, not the problem. (No address was provided for Mr. Timmons, so I apologize if the name is misspelled.) Al Nix is the 15th speaker. He supports the request. Beverly McCord is the 16th speaker. She speaks in neutrality to the request but describes problems with safety and erosion on the creek. Michael McGown is the 17th speaker. (No address given, so apologies if misspelled.) He speaks in support of the request. Patrick Fraley is the 18th speaker. He opposes the request. He states that if a gabion wall is extended to neighbors, much of the opposition would likely change. Russell Fisher is the 19th speaker. He supports the request. Michael Levy is the 20th and final speaker. He explains the effect this will likely have on the creek. I think it’s fair to say he speaks in neutrality.
Councilman Corcoran states that the amount of time staff has dedicated to this request is not disproportionate compared to other requests. He explains that, after seeing the creek conditions in person and hearing everyone’s feedback, he opposes the request. Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul states that we have to understand how to apply the science from these studies. With all the information they have been given, he opposes the request. Councilman Dorian states that he has to consider what is best for the city and residents. He is leaning toward opposing the request, but he is open to continuing the request to allow changes. Councilman Barrios says he has to consider what benefit this would bring. He says the red flags outweigh the benefits in this request. He doesn’t like that the applicant didn’t reach out to the city first before removing trees. He opposes the request.
Councilwoman Justice states that the comprehensive plan is clear. This is intended to be open space. Significant development has also occurred since the latest FEMA study data in 2018. She opposes the request. Councilman Hutchenrider asks for clarification on the functionality of the detention pond upstream. Asst. Dir. Tracy attempts to explain that the pond should function “as it was designed,” even if silt has built up above the water surface in parts. Councilman Hutchenrider also asks for an explanation of the dates of the FEMA study data. Asst. Dir. Tracy explains that FEMA models speak to insurability. This FEMA data was originally mapped in 2009. The latest revision to the model was done in 2018. FEMA does not regularly update its mapping. Councilman Hutchenrider struggles to understand the science from these studies. He suggests continuing the case to sort out what this data concludes.
Mayor Dubey interjects to offer a suggestion. He suggests that this probably won’t get approved tonight. But he suggests denying without prejudice to allow the applicant to make substantial changes to the request to bring it back in the future. Councilman Corcoran asks for clarification on the “with or without prejudice” distinction. CM Magner clarifies that if denied with prejudice, the applicant must wait a calendar year before bringing it back. If it is denied without prejudice, the applicant must make substantial changes to the request to bring it back within a calendar year. “Substantial changes” is not something that is clearly defined. Councilman Barrios does not agree that anything is unclear about the case. Staff and the public have testified to this request more than any other that he can recall.
Council calls the applicant back up to ask if he is open to a substantial change to the request. The applicant attempts to start the discussion over and point out how little of an impact his development will have. Councilman Barrios directs the applicant to answer the question. The applicant answers that he is open to a substantial change. Councilman Hutchenrider moves to continue the request. The motion fails for lack of a second. Council then unanimously denies the request and the accompanying variance request without prejudice.
CONSENT AGENDA & CLOSING
The consent agenda is approved unanimously. It includes a resolution adopting the Solid Waste Master Plan. It also includes four bid awards: $150K to Lowe’s Home Centers for maintenance supplies, a $225K annual requirements contract to Staples Advantage for office supplies, $54K to H.D. Snow and Son House Moving for relocating the Belle House, and $95K split into two payments to Insituform Technologies and United Rentals North America for Emergency Sewer Main repairs.
Council wishes everyone a Happy Easter, and the meeting adjourns after 4 hours and 40 minutes.