Richardson City Council Meeting December 9th, 2024
OPENING
All councilmembers are present as well as City Manager Don Magner and City Secretary Aimee Nemer.
Councilman Barrios leads a seasonal prayer and the pledges.
Minutes of two meetings from Dec. 2nd are approved unanimously.
City Manager Don Magner acknowledges one public comment submitted by me in opposition to ZF 24-25 (Haraz Coffee drive-thru). Don states that two emails related to this meeting were also received. Since they were submitted via email and not through the public comment portal, their names and addresses are not read aloud. No speakers are present.
BOARD & COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
Now, Council considers appointments to two boards. First, the Civil Service Board. Ben Cronin has been reappointed and promoted to vice-chair. Cindy Hartley is appointed as mayor. (This is how Councilwoman Justice read the motion. I’m not 100% certain if “mayor” in this context means chair but that is my assumption.) For the Community Inclusion and Engagement Commission, Chair Rashmi Varma is reappointed as well as Kristen Ceaser and Audrey Oatis-Newsome. A new vice-chair and regular member are also appointed but I cannot make out their names. Now is also a good time to update you on the Charter Review Commission appointments since they have been updated on the website. Your commissioners are Chair Gerald Bright, Vice-Chair Kimberly Quirk, Jennifer Baker, Doris Benner, Lisa Dunn, Shayan Gaziani, Chip Pratt, Richard Strecker, Jeremy Thomason, Jerry Walker, and Terry Ziegler. Places 1, 2, and 4 each have three residents on the commission. Place 3 only has two.
AQUATICS MASTER PLAN
Now, the final draft of the Aquatics Master Plan is presented by Parks & Recreation Director Yvonne Falgout. Final adoption of this plan will take place on Jan. 13th. Consultants George Deines with Counsilman-Hunsaker and Austin Powers with Kimley-Horn also present. As future needs are considered, this process prioritized access to facilities and distribution of services across the community as well as economic feasibility, modernization, and maintaining high-caliber events and programming. Overall, most neighborhood pools were constructed in the 1960s. Because of the age of facilities, many need replacements, repairs, and ADA improvements to operate efficiently.
George Deines continues the presentation. George explains that attendance is trending down except for the Heights Aquatic Center. Drive time analysis concluded that most of the city is within a 7-minute drive of a city pool, except for NE Richardson. Five open houses were conducted as part of the public engagement process for this plan. Over 1,100 survey responses were also collected. As a result, the community’s feedback indicated desires for an indoor pool, improvements to existing pools, and features that cater to specific groups such as seniors, children, and competitive swimmers. Additionally, year-round aquatics options and improved shade at pools are also desired according to survey results. Several citywide options were presented in a second round of public input sessions.
Austin Powers continues the presentation. He explains the options that were presented. Option A would maintain and upgrade existing facilities. This would cost $10M with a 2–5-year timeline. Cost recovery would be roughly 20%. Option B would maintain and upgrade existing facilities along with a new sprayground at Breckinridge. This would cost $12.5M with a 2-5-year timeline and cost recovery of roughly 20%. Option C would renovate Heights and Canyon Creek. It would also include a new pool, either at Apollo or Glenville. Spraygrounds would replace pools at Cottonwood and either Glenville or Terrace. A sprayground would also be installed at Breckinridge. This would cost $23M with a 2-5-year timeline and 34% cost recovery. Option D would renovate Heights and provide a new pool at Glenville. It would also include spraygrounds to replace pools at Cottonwood, Canyon Creek, and either Terrace or Apollo (new sprayground not replacement). A sprayground would also be installed at Breckinridge. This would cost $21M with a 2-5-year timeline and cost recovery of 35%.
When asking for community feedback, only 215 responses were received from both in-person meetings and an online survey. Online survey responses equally preferred options A, B, and C. Option D received 7 votes less than the other options. In-person responses indicated more support for options C and D. Combine these results and Option C comes out on top as the most preferred of this extremely small responsive group. Option B is the least preferred. The community was also asked about their support for an indoor and outdoor combined facility. Apollo was the proposed example. This example would cost $56M in bond funds with a timeline of over 5 years and ongoing operation costs of $2.6M. This question received 100 responses. 88 of those indicated that they would vote yes for a bond proposition for a new facility. When asked if they would also support a tax rate increase to accommodate the increased operating cost, 67 responded yes.
Based on these public feedback responses, the consultant recommends two options, both stemming from option C. Option C1 would update Heights and Canyon Creek with a sprayground at Cottonwood, Glenville, and Breckinridge. A new outdoor pool would be constructed at Apollo. Option C2 would include the same except the pool at Apollo would be indoors and outdoors. (Based on the costs of each and the limited community feedback, I would probably lean towards Option D.)
Option C1 would have an operating cost of $850K along with an overall cost of $23M and cost recovery of 33%. Option C2 is much more expensive at a $68M capital cost and $3M operating cost with a 43% cost recovery. The timeline for C2 also extends beyond five years.
Mayor Dubey asks if the indoor facility would include areas for spectators to watch competitions. George answers that deck-level bleachers would be included but not elevated bleachers. This would accommodate 200-300 spectators. Mayor Dubey encourages the team to look at increasing spectator accommodations to increase opportunities for cost recovery. Councilman Hutchenrider asks if Breckinridge could be a potential location for an indoor pool and recreation center. Yvonne answers that this location is not ideal per their analysis since it would provide services to more nonresidents than residents. City Manager Don Magner states that combining a rec center with an indoor pool could be explored to save capital costs in the future.
Councilwoman Justice asks how much spraygrounds cost. Yvonne answers that they cost roughly $2.5M. Councilwoman Justice also asks how we would handle the increase to operating and capital costs. City Manager Don Magner answers that bond capacity would remain roughly the same, around $200M. He also states that the bond capacity can’t accommodate every major initiative from each master plan so capital costs such as street repairs and a new fire station need to be balanced. Councilwoman Justice also asks about partnering with RISD. Don answers that he and the mayor met with the superintendent. RISD’s timeline for aquatic facilities does not align with the city’s.
Councilman Corcoran doesn’t have a preference between options C1 or C2. He asks about attendance trends. George answers that attendance has trended downward compared to years ago. The past few years have remained stable. Councilman Corcoran asks what the cost recovery goal is for aquatic facilities. Yvonne answers that the goal is somewhere in the range of 30-45%. Cost recovery for rec centers is around 40%. Yvonne also points out that renovating existing facilities, since they wouldn’t add any features, does not correlate with an increase in attendance and revenue. Councilman Corcoran asks if any current pools could be enclosed. George answers that the condition and layout of the pools don’t warrant the cost of enclosing them.
Councilman Barrios asks how drive times are calculated. George answers that a 7-minute drive time is used by the National Recreation & Parks Association. GIS analysis is used to determine the drive time for areas. Councilman Barrios also asks if the downward trend in attendance is a local or national trend. George confirms it is a national trend. He also explains that new facilities will cause older facilities to have less attendance. Councilman Barrios also asks if the low rate of response to the second round of surveys is typical compared to other communities. George admits that he was surprised by the low rate of response. This was a lower response rate than they typically see.
Councilman Barrios points out that Option D has a higher cost recovery rate than Option C. He asks why Option C was chosen over Option D. Yvonne answers that community feedback determined this recommendation. (While the consultants and staff may call those few responses conclusive, I do not consider them conclusive. This was such a low rate of response. Everyone agrees on that. I don’t think it’s wise to lean on these 200 survey responses to make such a costly decision.) Councilman Barrios thinks option D makes the most sense. He is concerned that option D wasn’t explored more by the team. His reasoning is the operating costs compared to either option C1 or C2. Additionally, he wants equitable access to swim lessons in the community and thinks option D better achieves that. George responds that Option C covered areas across the city more equally. Councilman Barrios still prefers Option D. He wants the city to prioritize access to swimming lessons for those who need it.
Councilwoman Justice asks at what point would it make sense to stop putting money towards a facility well beyond its useful life. George concludes that mechanical renovations could add up to 15 years to the use of a facility but it’s hard to predict failures that would take a facility offline. Councilman Corcoran asks if there is room at Breckinridge to install a sprayground and a rec center. Yvonne confirms that there is enough space. Councilman Hutchenrider asks if the city could lease existing RISD natatoriums. Mayor Dubey answers that there probably isn’t enough time available for the city to lease those facilities. Students need those facilities for most of the day.
City Manager Don Magner states that they could explore Option C1 with some amendments. Heights could still be renovated. Canyon Creek could either be renovated or replaced with a sprayground. Another option would be to consider a rec center/pool at Breckinridge while leaving either Terrace or Glenville open. All of these decisions won’t need to be made until a few years from now.
Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul asks for details on the proposed spraygrounds. Austin explains that much of the $2.5M cost of each sprayground is because of the recirculating water system. Councilman Barrios asks what the operational savings would be for replacing pools with spraygrounds. George answers that existing pools cost $130K on average without accounting for utilities. Spraygrounds cost roughly $20K for a season. So roughly $100K in operational cost savings for each pool replaced by a sprayground.
PUBLIC HEARING – HARAZ COFFEE DRIVE-THRU
Next is the public hearing for ZF 24-25. This is a special permit request for a drive-thru coffee shop, Haraz, at 508 Centennial Blvd. This was also discussed at the Nov. 19th CPC meeting. I explain my reasons for opposing this request in the report from that CPC meeting. Staff presents a background of the request. Staff explains that the applicant developed a drive-thru when the old Town of Buckingham zoning applied to this area. After they developed that drive-thru, the city rezoned the property to bring it in alignment with Richardson’s citywide zoning laws. Drive-thrus require a special permit in Richardson.
The applicant steps forward to present their plans. Councilwoman Justice asks if Haraz would still open if the drive-thru were not approved. The applicant answers that they as owners of the property would not be able to collect the desired rent if the drive-thru was not approved. He says Haraz would probably still be interested but they wouldn’t achieve the desired rent. He says they spent $200K on developing a drive-thru. Councilman Dorian states that two other coffee shops have opened recently nearby. He seems to indicate that the area may already be saturated with coffee shops whose business might be affected if another coffee shop is approved. (This remark is misguided. This applicant is not requesting a special permit for a coffee shop. They are requesting a special permit for a *drive-thru*. If this weren’t a drive-thru, the applicant could open a coffee shop by right.)
Councilman Barrios asks why the applicant seemed surprised at the zoning change requiring a special permit for a drive-thru in 2018. The applicant explains they bought the property around 2017. In 2018, the zoning changed. After six months of the property not being occupied as a drive-thru, the owners lost their legal nonconforming status and were no longer grandfathered in. Councilman Hutchenrider asks if the applicant has met with the neighboring HOA. The applicant answers that they attempted to reach out to the HOA after the Nov. 19th CPC meeting, but they were not responsive. Councilman Hutchenrider says he reached out to the HOA, and they confirmed that they had not heard from the applicant. He suggests perhaps continuing the hearing to give the applicant time to meet with the HOA. He is not compelled to approve the request, especially if they do not have the support of neighbors. He is disappointed that the applicant only attempted to reach out after the CPC hearing.
Councilman Corcoran asks what the purpose of the 2018 amending ordinance was. City Manager Don Magner answers that this was to apply Richardson’s citywide zoning to this area that was formerly the Town of Buckingham. When Buckingham was annexed, Buckingham zoning still applied to this area of Richardson. Councilwoman Justice asks if they would be willing to install a landscaping screen to mitigate light and sound affecting the neighbors. The applicant answers that they would be willing to mitigate those concerns by deflecting lights and installing trees. The applicant now states that if they don’t get the drive-thru approved by the end of January, Haraz will pull out of the agreement. Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul asks if they would be willing to only have one menu board/speaker. The applicant answers that they are planning only one speaker facing the building.
Councilman Barrios makes the point that the applicant would be wise to consider that they have developed the property in a way that they are not guaranteed a right to. If this tenant doesn’t work out and the use is abandoned, there is no guarantee a future Council will approve another special permit. If this is approved, it does not mean drive-thrus are allowed by right for this property. The special permit is only tied to the occupant. Councilman Dorian asks if the owners have reached out to any other potential tenants if a drive-thru is not approved. The applicant answers that all potential tenants are interested in the drive-thru use.
City Manager Don Magner states that if Council wants to continue the item, they could continue it until Jan. 6th or 13th. He also clarifies that no landscaping would be allowed in the area suggested since it is a utility easement. If Council desires to restrict the drive-thru to only one speaker, that would need to be part of the motion. The applicant is not optimistic that they would gain the support of neighbors even if the item is continued. Council unanimously continues the hearing until Jan. 6th, 2025.
PUBLIC HEARING – 7 BREW COFFEE DRIVE-THRU
The final public hearing of the evening is on ZF 24-27. This is another special permit request for a drive-thru coffee shop, 7 Brew, at 1230 E. Belt Line Rd. This was also covered at the Nov. 19th CPC meeting where the CPC unanimously recommended approval with zero discussion since the applicant was absent due to COVID. Staff presents a background of the request. This applicant was approved for a special permit for a drive-thru in 2023, but the use was deemed abandoned since development didn’t occur. This request is the same as the 2023 request.
The applicant steps forward to present their plans. Mayor Dubey asks why the property wasn’t developed in time after the last approval. The applicant answers that they were expanding their brand too quickly and needed to slow things down. Councilman Barrios asks about the building’s construction. The applicant answers that the building will be prefabricated out-of-state and installed in three pieces. Councilman Barrios asks if they target youth customers. The applicant confirms they do.
No speakers are present for this hearing.
Councilman Corcoran and Councilwoman Justice state their opposition and refer to their comments made at the Dec. 12th, 2022 hearing as their reasoning. Councilwoman Justice reminds Council that this area was identified as a study area in the comprehensive plan update and states her opposition is even stronger because of the saturation of drive-thrus in the area. Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul states that he supported this request previously and still supports the request. Councilman Barrios is opposed to the request. He thinks that this is an area that needs to be elevated in a different direction. Mayor Dubey supports the request because it would occupy a vacant space. He doesn’t see the request as contrary to Richardson’s vision. Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul attempts to make a motion to approve the request. His motion does not receive a second. Councilman Corcoran moves to deny the request. Councilman Barrios seconds the motion. Council denies the request 5-2, with Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul and Mayor Dubey being the only votes in favor of the request. (This is a unique vote. I don’t think I’ve ever seen these five vote together against the mayor and mayor pro tem. We didn’t hear Councilman Dorian’s or Councilman Hutchenrider’s reasoning today. I wish they had explained their vote.)
CONSENT AGENDA & CLOSING
Now, the consent agenda is addressed. City Manager Don Magner elaborates on the first two consent agenda items. He reminds Council that the election process for the central appraisal districts was described in September. Richardson will vote for Rick Grady for Collin CAD and Brett Franks for Dallas CAD. The consent agenda is then approved unanimously. In addition to the resolutions casting votes in the appraisal district elections, it includes approval of the 2025 Council Meeting Schedule. One bid award is included, $81K to Farrwest Environmental Supply Inc. for handheld gas leak detectors for the fire department. Finally, a change order is included for the Sherrill Park Golf Course 2 renovation for the amount of $115K. This brings the total project cost over $7M. The reason for this increase is due to a secondary landscape wall needed to reduce slopes.
Council discusses the Richardson Woman’s Club Candlelight Walk, a Richardson Symphony Orchestra performance, upcoming Eisemann Center performances, the boards & commissions appreciation dinner, and the upcoming State of the City address on Jan. 29th. Council then convenes into executive session to deliberate regarding economic development for a commercial development in the area of W. Renner/Alma Rd. The footage ends there.