Richardson City Council Meeting February 17th, 2025
OPENING
All councilmembers are present as well as City Manager (CM) Don Magner and City Secretary Aimee Nemer.
Councilman Barrios leads a prayer and the pledges.
Minutes of the previous meeting are unanimously approved. City Manager Don Magner now acknowledges public comment cards. The first is from Mark Baustian on recording Charter Review Commission meetings. The second is from me on the same topic. The third is from Pat Griffin on the same topic. CM Magner describes the first two comments as neutral and the third comment as speaking in person. Regarding ZF 24-24 (Valencia Villas), One letter from the Highland Terrace Neighborhood Association is in support and one letter from Sarah Marsalis-Luginbill is in support. Regarding ZF 24-21 (Lennox R&D), Jennifer Mckinney, Rachel Lankri, Robert Montelongo, Tomer Lankri, Anil Mishra, and Allen Baskind are opposed. Ryan Campbell, Karley Martin, Tate Byers, Karley Byers, Jodie Michalski, Mackenzie Sanchez, Ashley Claborn, Kyle Claborn, Kathy Colton, Angie Turner, and Jessica Johnston are in support of the same item. I apologize for any misspellings.
No speakers are present for the visitors forum.
(I’d like to clarify my own experience submitting this comment. The online form is divided into sections. If you are commenting on a public hearing, you mark your support, opposition, or neutrality to the item. If you are submitting a comment on an agenda item, you check that box and submit your written comment. If you are speaking on an agenda item, you check that separate box and speak in person. If you are speaking on a topic not on the agenda, you check that box and submit your comments. Item 9 on tonight’s agenda is not a public hearing. It is listed as “REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION”. When I submitted my comment on this agenda item, it would not let me submit it without checking either ‘support’, ‘oppose’, or ‘neutral’ from the public hearing section, even though I wasn’t commenting on a public hearing item. This was confusing, so I clicked neutral to bypass this bug. My written statement was strongly in support of recording these meetings if councilmembers took the time to read it. The third commenter also did not intend to speak in person, so I hope this form is improved for clarity and to avoid these errors in the future.)
PUBLIC HEARING – GALEN COLLEGE OF NURSING
Four public hearings are scheduled tonight. The first is on ZF 24-32. This is the Galen College of Nursing’s request to expand its operations within the same building at 1301 W. PGB Hwy. This was also covered at the Jan. 21st CPC meeting: https://open.substack.com/pub/justinneth/p/richardson-city-plan-commission-meeting-dbb?r=3ahunk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false .
This request is also paired with approval of the amending ordinance tonight. Asst. Development Services Director Andrew Bogda presents a background of the request. Councilman Dorian asks for clarification on their hybrid model of education. The applicant clarifies that not all enrolled students are on campus at once. Students learn online and also do clinicals at Medical City hospitals throughout the DFW region. Parking on campus will never be full. Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul asks if students do any clinicals at hospitals in Richardson. The applicant answers that they match students with the closest Medical City hospital to them. None are in Richardson according to the applicant’s map. This is a pretty straightforward request, so Council unanimously approves the request and the amending ordinance.
PUBLIC HEARING – VALENCIA VILLAS
The next public hearing is on ZF 24-24. This is the Valencia Villas townhomes planned development at Main St./Grove Rd. This is also paired with an amending ordinance tonight. This was discussed in detail at both the Dec. 3rd CPC and Jan. 13th Council meetings.
CM Magner notes that this is an item that has been continued twice by Council to enable collaboration with the applicant and the Highland Terrace Neighborhood Association. The request has been revised as a result of that collaboration. Staff presents a background of the revised plan. The concept plan now includes 34 townhome units, down from the original 38. The units will now be oriented to be street-facing with an alley running through the middle of the development. These units are now placed within 10 buildings compared to the original six buildings, providing smaller buildings with more separation. The alley will have guest parking and ornamental trees. Units will now be 1,500 – 2,000 sq. ft. with larger setbacks to create front yard areas. Each unit will have a 2-car garage and driveways that can fit two vehicles. Perimeter screening has also now been removed from the plan to help the development blend into the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant is also agreeing to install a 5-foot sidewalk around the perimeter. The Highland Terrace Neighborhood Association now supports the request.
The applicant steps forward to present their revised plan. He explains that he met with the neighborhood association twice. He compliments the willingness of the association to collaborate on an improved plan. All perimeter trees will now be saved except for one. The alley will also have appropriate security lighting. Councilman Dorian thanks the applicant for listening to the neighborhood association. He also asks if this will be a mandatory HOA. The applicant answers that it will.
Councilman Corcoran asks who will maintain the alley. CM Magner answers that the city will maintain the alley. Councilman Barrios asks if the landscaping will be maintained by the city. CM Magner clarifies that the concrete will be maintained by the city. Landscaping will be maintained by the HOA. Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul asks if utilities will be underground. The applicant confirms they will put utilities underground. Councilman Hutchenrider thanks the neighborhood association and the applicant.
One speaker is present for this hearing, Tony Palagonia. Tony is the founder of the Highland Terrace Neighborhood Association. He compliments the applicant’s willingness to work together with the neighbors. He also thanks Council for continuing the request. Council unanimously approves this revised request with the additional requirement of 5-ft sidewalks. The amending ordinance is also adopted in the same motion.
PUBLIC HEARING – LENNOX INNOVATION R&D CENTER
The next public hearing is on ZF 24-21. This is a planned development request from Lennox to rezone the area at 2140 Lake Park Blvd to allow a research & development building. This request was covered in detail at the Oct. 3rd and Dec. 17th CPC meetings.
Staff presents a background of the request. This request has also been continued a few times to allow more collaboration with the neighborhood. Staff provides a history of the zoning of the surrounding area. The new building will be 45,000 sq. ft. with two stories. This request now preserves trees on the north and west sides of the proposed building. Canopy trees will also be installed in parking lot islands. Delivery and recycling areas will both be enclosed to mitigate noise impact on neighbors. Staff states that, in total, 15 comments have been received supporting the request and 43 comments have been received opposing the request. A petition from 29.6% of the property owners in the notification zone has also been received opposing the request. This now requires a supermajority of Council (6 out of 7) for the request to be approved.
The applicant steps forward to present their request. They state that this will bring more white-collar jobs to Richardson. They also state that they conducted outreach and meetings with the five neighboring homeowner and neighborhood associations. One of those meetings wasn’t attended by anyone. The applicant also states that this will likely not ever be converted into a manufacturing facility because it wouldn’t be big enough. They are also now considering making their neighboring office campus smoke-free.
Councilman Barrios asks where their current R&D activities are done. The applicant answers that they have a facility in Carrollton that they have outgrown. Because the existing facility doesn’t have enough space, much of the testing is also outsourced to third-party testers. This new facility would allow them to do more testing in-house. Councilman Barrios also asks how big the units will be that are being tested. The applicant answers that they could be as large as a minivan and will be delivered on flatbeds. They expect two deliveries weekly on average. Councilman Barrios also asks if these delivery trucks will have enough space to maneuver. He states that some of the streets and alleys seemed narrow. The applicant answers that they will take an appropriate route for deliveries. The city also has regulations ensuring proper turn radius for delivery routes.
Councilwoman Justice asks what the caliper of the trees will be. The applicant answers that the caliper will be around 3-4 inches at the time of installment. Councilwoman Justice states that one of the comments received asked them to consider 6-inch minimum caliper trees. The applicant states that larger calipers transplanted have lower chances of survival. They are willing to install a higher caliper if that’s what Council desires.
Councilman Hutchenrider asks if commercial space existed here before residential developments were built. Staff confirms this is the case. Councilman Corcoran asks how they conducted outreach to neighbors. The applicant answers that they gave two weeks' notice of meetings and provided this to HOA presidents. Councilman Dorian asks for clarification on the building height. The applicant answers that the building height will be 36 ft.
Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul asks if R&D is an allowed use for this area. CM Magner confirms that it is not. For base office district zoning, R&D is an allowed use. But this area is not covered by the base office district zoning. Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul asks if they have considered transporting units in pieces rather than on flatbeds as whole units. The applicant answers that assembling units would violate the zoning. Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul asks who maintains the nearby pond. The applicant answers that it is a stormwater retention pond maintained by the University World HOA. Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul asks the applicant about their landscaping plan. The applicant answers that they are planning to re-do landscaping for the entire campus. This will include native plants. Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul asks what the applicant will do to mitigate noise from construction. The applicant answers that they will draft a neighborhood agreement that specifies when construction will happen, a 24-hour contact number for neighbors to report issues, and security monitoring.
Seven speakers are present. Tomer Lankri is the first speaker. He represents the University Place HOA. He opposes the request. He is against the potential noise, pollution, traffic from delivery trucks, the building size, and the impact on neighbors’ property values. Anil Mishra is the second speaker. He opposes the request. He is against the noise impact and construction of a new building. Allen Baskind is the third speaker. He represents residents of the neighboring Parkside Towns development. He is opposed to the request. He is against the use, noise, truck deliveries, and the impact on pedestrian safety. He also asks that the use be more specifically regulated in the ordinance. Cliff Wood is the fourth speaker. He is against the building height. He suggests that Lennox build a basement instead of a second floor to make the building 25. ft. tall. He also suggests using 8-10 in. caliper Southern Live Oak trees for landscaping.
Anne Edelen is the fifth speaker. She opposes the request. She is against the noise and truck deliveries. Omar Khan is the sixth speaker. He is the president of the Savoy Landing HOA. He opposes the request. He is against the traffic, noise, the impact of delivery trucks on roads, and the impact of construction. Brenda Bailey is the seventh and final speaker. She opposes the request. She is concerned about the impact of delivery trucks and on property values.
Council offers no additional discussion before unanimously approving the request and accompanying ordinance with the addition of requiring minimum of 6-inch caliper trees.
Regarding the final scheduled public hearing of the evening on ZF 25-01 (Event Factory), CM Magner shares that the applicant has communicated that they are unable to attend tonight’s hearing. CM Magner suggests that Council consider continuing the hearing until Feb. 24th. Council unanimously continues the hearing until Feb. 24th.
2025 CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION MEETINGS
Now for the final discussion item of the evening. This is a discussion on the Charter Review Commission meetings. CM Magner states that Mayor Dubey directed him to put this on the agenda in response to a request from councilmembers to discuss recording these meetings. Mayor Dubey states that some have relayed concerns about transparency and asked Council to consider recording these meetings and other board & commission meetings. He states that initially, he didn’t even see the need to discuss it because Council didn’t mention recording these meetings when they interviewed candidates. Additionally, we haven’t recorded these meetings in the past. He states that these meetings are open to the public and some visitors have recorded the meetings themselves. He is concerned, though, that commissioners were not told they might be filmed. He sees this as potentially affecting their thought processes. He is also concerned about the cost of filming meetings.
Councilwoman Justice asks what the cost of filming meetings would be. CM Magner shares that meetings cost roughly $750 each including software, equipment, and staff. Recording all board & commission meetings would cost $100K annually. Councilwoman Justice expresses that current charter commissioners shared concerns with her about being filmed. She states it is unfair to ask them to be recorded now. She thinks recording these meetings would be more appropriate for future charter commissions and this should be communicated to applicants upfront.
Mayor Dubey adds that he thinks they are already transparent because the commission’s report will be provided in an open and recorded Council meeting.
Councilman Dorian states that he supports being transparent. He is concerned about the cost of recording all meetings. He dittos the concern about not informing commissioners that they would record these meetings from the beginning.
Councilman Corcoran states that he understands the logistical concerns about recording all board & commission meetings. However, in an effort to combat misinformation that is already being spread, he thinks it makes sense to record these meetings.
Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul acknowledges that they didn’t tell commissioners they would record these meetings, but they also didn’t say they wouldn’t be recorded. He thinks it’s better for the city to record these meetings to protect commissioners from being misrepresented. He doesn’t see cost as an issue for recording them. Eventually, he would like to see all board & commission meetings recorded.
Councilman Barrios acknowledges that recording these meetings was not something they discussed. He asks how many more meetings this commission has scheduled. Sec. Nemer answers that six more meetings are scheduled. Councilman Barrios asks where the meetings are held. CM Magner answers that they are held in the Spring Creek Room, which is where most boards & commissions meet. This room allows them to face each other when discussing instead of being lined up on a dais. Councilman Barrios also asks if commissioners sign a photo waiver release. Sec. Nemer confirms that they do not. CM Magner adds that they are considered in the public realm. CM Magner also clarifies that it would not be a budgetary issue to record the rest of the Charter Commission meetings. He also confirms that we have the equipment and staff necessary to record these meetings if Council desires. Councilman Barrios states that the weight of this commission’s decisions are worth recording them for citizens. He also states that he heard someone in the community had a recording, but they refused to show him the recording when he asked. (This was not me by the way.) He views having a city recording as a way to protect commissioners and staff. He doesn’t see recording these meetings as putting commissioners on blast. He strongly supports recording these meetings.
Councilman Hutchenrider reads a definition of transparency that he got from Webster’s. “Sharing your thoughts honestly and respectfully in an open way without secrets.” (I have been unable to find a source for this definition.) He believes they are being transparent. He agrees that they shouldn’t record these meetings because commissioners don’t want to be recorded. He cites my own comment “in neutrality” to recording as another reason we shouldn’t record since there isn’t a strong enough ask from the community to record. (See my explanation at the beginning of this meeting summary.) He is strongly opposed to recording this 2025 Charter Commission. He emphasizes that they are being transparent.
Mayor Dubey states that some commissioners may be considering resigning if they are recorded. He also states that the average number of viewers for live-streamed Council meetings is 34. Many of those include city employees. He asks who would really look at it. He states that they should’ve decided to record from the beginning if they were going to record these meetings to be transparent.
Councilman Barrios asks if they have numbers for people who watch the city council meeting recordings after they are uploaded to the city website. CM Magner states that this includes viewers of the uploaded recordings. (These are shocking numbers to me. Only 34 people care about city council meetings?) Councilman Barrios asks if they could hold the charter meetings in a different room such as Council chambers. CM Magner answers that Council chambers are already scheduled for other events and meetings. Other rooms would be smaller than the Spring Creek Room.
Councilwoman Justice moves to leave things the way they are with no recording of the 2025 Charter Review Commission meetings. This is approved 4-3 with Mayor Dubey, Councilman Dorian, Councilwoman Justice, and Councilman Hutchenrider in favor. Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul, Councilman Barrios, and Councilman Corcoran are opposed to leaving things as they are.
CLOSING
The consent agenda is approved unanimously. It includes an ordinance adopting a supplement to the Code of Ordinances. It also includes four bid awards: $5.6M to DDM Construction Company for street and sidewalk construction, $1.2M to Texas Standard Construction for intersection improvements, $423K to WeBuildFun Inc. for playground equipment, and $450K to Falkenberg Construction for fence replacement.
Council discusses a meeting with a Cub Scout pack, a Library Board meeting, a Chamber of Commerce event, the North Texas Commission Inclusion Summit, a Parks & Recreation Board meeting, the new course at Sherrill Park, and several HOA meetings, and the meeting adjourns.
I am surprised Council gave unanimous approval for a zoning change to support a use that the surrounding community seems to oppose.
Thank you