Richardson City Council/City Plan Commission Joint Meeting August 12th, 2024
JOINT MEETING OPENING
Mayor Dubey and Chair Marsh of the City Plan Commission both call the joint meeting to order. All councilmembers are present as well as City Manager Don Magner and City Secretary Aimee Nemer. Eight of the nine city plan commissioners are present. Commissioner Roberts is absent. This is the second joint meeting on the comprehensive plan update that he has been absent for. This is the most important task this commission is charged with. His contributions to these meetings have not been insignificant. It’s a genuine shame that tonight’s deliberations will not benefit from his participation.
Public comments will be heard after this joint meeting concludes. This meeting begins with a review of the third round of community feedback on the comprehensive plan update. Mark Bowers with the Kimley-Horn firm presents. This feedback was collected in June. 640 online survey results were collected. Six meeting-in-a-box discussions were conducted. The two open houses had a total of 90 people participate. Mark explains that a draft plan report will be presented in the fall.
ENVISION RICHARDSON - SECONDARY LAND USE
A majority of the proposed placetype secondary land uses were agreed to by participants. Mark highlights three that require further clarification. Mark states that the wording on the question of Office use in Neighborhood Residential could have confused respondents. 53% of respondents disagreed with this use. On the question of Single-Family Attached as a secondary use in Community Commercial placetypes, 40% of respondents disagreed with the use, 38% agreed with the use, and 22% were neutral. On the question of Multi-Family as a secondary use in Innovation/Industry placetypes, 46% disagreed, 32% agreed, and 22% were neutral.
The CPC offers feedback first. Chair Marsh states that Office belongs on the outskirts of neighborhoods, not within the neighborhood. Commissioner Costantino doesn’t see a problem with allowing small office uses within neighborhoods. He does suggest limiting it to smaller individual offices and not agencies with 10+ employees. Commissioner Beach agrees with allowing home officing but not places of employment in neighborhoods. Mark gets the conversation back on track by reminding the commission that an Office use in this setting would be considered a doctor’s office or insurance office, not someone working out of their home.
Councilman Dorian begins the Council portion of feedback. He states that they should decide how much of a retail center could be allowed to convert to office uses when they neighbor a residential neighborhood. Councilman Barrios asks for clarification on the question. City Manager Don Magner attempts to explain that the question is “Should Office be allowed in Community Commercial or Neighborhood Service retail placetypes?” Councilwoman Justice points out that the question asks about Office use within a Neighborhood Residential placetype, not retail placetypes. Mark states that the goal would be to allow Office within walking distance of neighborhoods, not to allow any residential home to be converted into a place of business.
Councilman Barrios states that he is leaning towards not allowing Office use within Neighborhood Residential. Councilwoman Justice agrees with Councilman Barrios. She doesn’t want Office by-right in neighborhoods. If key areas could be identified on the edge of some neighborhoods, she is open to considering those areas. Councilman Corcoran also agrees. He also supports Single-Family Attached as a secondary use in Community Commercial and Multi-Family as a secondary use in Innovation/Industry placetypes.
Councilman Hutchenrider agrees that the placement of offices neighboring residential is important. Then, he addresses the question of Single-Family Attached in Community Commercial. He asks if this is the same type of proposal as The Palisades. He advises that, if neighborhoods are against including multi-family or single-family attached and mixed-use in their neighborhood, they should be cautious that they have heard and considered all of that feedback. Don states that, yes, it is a transition environment, but that it is much less dense of a use than was proposed for The Palisades. Councilman Hutchenrider again urges caution. Councilwoman Justice disagrees with the urge for caution. She says these uses complement each other (Single-Family Attached as a buffer between retail and Neighborhood Residential placetypes). She also sees Innovation/Industry as a great place for missing middle housing. Councilman Barrios agrees with Councilwoman Justice on these points.
ENVISION RICHARDSON – MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING
Mark now presents feedback on the question of where to put Missing Middle Housing. At a neighborhood leadership workshop, 79% of individuals agreed that Richardson needs this housing. But, only 24% of those individuals supported putting it in their neighborhood. Of the Missing Middle Housing options presented for public feedback, 21 were agreed to by most respondents, 11 were disagreed to, and 8 require further feedback from Council and the CPC since the results were mixed. Notably, every placetype column has at least one green check indicating that respondents support some type of Missing Middle Housing in each placetype. (See slide 36 of the handouts.)
According to results, ADUs belong in Neighborhood Residential. The three missing middle housing types that require further discussion are Fourplex, Multiplex, and Townhomes. First up is the question of Fourplex housing in a Neighborhood Mixed-Use placetype. The second question is on Multiplex housing in Compact Residential, Community Commercial, Innovation/Industry, and Regional Employment placetypes. The third question is on Townhomes in Neighborhood Residential, Neighborhood Service, and Community Commercial placetypes.
Chair Marsh states that detached housing should be protected in Neighborhood Residential. He has an issue with allowing ADUs. He doesn’t want to see institutions come in and convert lots to maximize housing profits in neighborhoods. He also thinks Multiplexes might not make sense in Compact Residential or Regional Employment but would make sense in Community Commercial and Innovation/Industry. He says the first two placetypes need more density than Multiplex offers. Commissioner Purdy asks for Missing Middle housing in Yale Park.
Councilwoman Justice thinks Townhomes make sense on the edge of neighborhoods but maybe not within neighborhoods. She also thinks Multiplexes and Fourplexes make sense in all of the placetypes in question. Councilman Barrios indicates that he agrees with all of the placements in question except Townhomes in Neighborhood Residential. Councilman Hutchenrider asks about HOAs banning ADUs. Don answers that HOAs could still prohibit ADUs even if the city changes their zoning ordinance. Councilman Hutchenrider, Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul, Councilman Dorian, and Councilman Corcoran agree with all of the placements in question. Commissioner Beach then cautions everyone to consider the impact of ADUs.
Mayor Dubey says that the vision from the 2009 comprehensive plan update has been lost and is not applicable to Richardson today. He wants to see a flexible vision that doesn’t box Richardson in 20 years from now. (So, he disagrees with past visions deciding anything for the city today. He references the zoning cases being heard later tonight and how the vision no longer applies.)
ENVISION RICHARDSON – REINVESTMENT AREAS
Mark continues the final portion of his presentation on the Reinvestment Areas. Roughly 70% or more of respondents agreed with the vision statements for each of the five reinvestment areas.
Chair Marsh says the vision statements all sound alike for the five areas. Councilman Corcoran asks if Townhomes are considered low-intensity or high-intensity. Mark answers that they could be any level of intensity. Councilman Corcoran agrees with the lower intensity uses in the vision statements. He states that he will need justification for eliminating any existing apartments in these five areas. Councilman Barrios comments on the Bowser/Belt Line area. He emphasizes the need for mixed-income housing. He does not want to see existing residents displaced. Councilwoman Justice, Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul, and Councilman Hutchenrider support the recommended vision statements. Commissioner Beach thinks Bowser/Belt Line is an ideal area for workforce housing.
Mark explains that the complete summary of feedback is available at the EnvisionRichardson.com website. Another joint briefing will take place on October 21st. (Looking forward to seeing full attendance at this one.) This comprehensive plan is scheduled for adoption in December. A CPC public hearing on the plan will take place on October 29th. The Council public hearing will be held on November 11th. (We only heard feedback from four of the city plan commissioners in attendance. We didn’t hear a peep from Vice-Chair Southard, Commissioner Keller, Commissioner Bohnsack, or Commissioner Poynter, and that is such a shame.)
The CPC and Council adjourn their joint meeting.
OPENING & PUBLIC HEARING – GOOD SHEPHERD CHILDCARE CENTER
Council reconvenes and begins their regular meeting. All councilmembers remain in attendance.
Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul leads a prayer and the pledges.
Minutes of the previous meetings are approved unanimously.
City Manager Don Magner acknowledges one neutral written comment received on the Clay Cooley zoning case and sign case being heard this evening. No speakers are present at this time.
The first public hearing is on ZF 24-15. This is a special permit request for Good Shepherd of North Texas childcare center at 1006 Hampshire Ln. This was also covered at the July 16th CPC meeting. Staff presents a background of the request. The CPC unanimously recommended approval of the case. The applicant steps forward to present their plans. No speakers are present for this hearing. Council unanimously approves the case with no discussion.
PUBLIC HEARING – CLAY COOLEY VW BODY SHOP/STORAGE LOT
The next public hearing is on ZF 24-16. This is the Clay Cooley VW special permit request to operate a body shop, vehicle storage lot, and repair shop within the Interurban subdistrict of the Main St./Central Expy Planned Development. As a reminder, the currently applied vision for this subdistrict is “to create a vibrant, mixed-use district at the heart of the City which focuses on supporting infill development to create an ‘address’ in the region via a pedestrian-oriented, more walkable environment.” This was also discussed at the July 16th CPC meeting. The CPC unanimously recommended approval of the case without ever discussing land use.
Staff presents a background of the request and the Interurban subdistrict. In 2022, Clay Cooley was allowed a new car dealership and this use was added by-right to the subdistrict. (Item 7 at the June 13th, 2022 meeting if you want to view that discussion.) Councilman Barrios asks if a car wash will be on the site, and if so, will it include environmental mitigation? The applicant now steps forward to present their case. The applicant, the dealership's general manager, apologizes for Mr. Cooley’s absence. He is out of the country. The applicant states that detailing services will include buffing, window tinting, and interior vehicle cleaning. He states that everything in the facility is already set up to be environmentally safe since this property was previously used as an automotive shop. He states this dealership is the largest VW dealership in the state and they have a vision to grow.
Councilman Dorian asks about plans for façade improvements. The applicant answers that the landscape will be cleaned up, but they are open to what the city wants for façade improvements. VW corporate ultimately controls the approval of how things look on their property. Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul asks about improving the building materials to create a more appealing property. The applicant answers that they’ve already invested millions so that would be too much. Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul appreciates the investment in the city but says we should be mindful of the bigger city plan.
The applicant then asks, pretty pointedly, what does this Council expect this facility to look like? Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul answers that what exists on the site currently is terrible. They want to see a property that is encouraging to potential developers and wouldn’t drive investors away from neighboring properties. He cites the existing fence and general site conditions as reasons the property is currently unattractive. He wants it to look like a downtown. City Manager Don Magner reminds Council that cities are prohibited from controlling building materials and aesthetic components. Don states that the question is about use, not what buildings look like. There is no legal zoning mechanism for the city to control how it looks. The applicant agrees that the site is ugly and says they will completely redo all landscaping and make the site presentable.
No speakers are present for this hearing.
Councilman Corcoran disagrees with the use because it takes this area further away from the stated vision. Mayor Dubey replies that, in his opinion, the vision is not exclusive of a car dealership. He doesn’t understand the vision as it currently exists. He then suggests including a requirement to call the use back up for consideration in a decade. Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul likes this suggestion. Councilman Corcoran answers that he doesn’t see that option as fair to the applicant or the city. Councilman Barrios adds that that would show other investors that they are delaying the vision by at least a decade. He agrees with Councilman Corcoran about this use being inappropriate for the area. He thinks residents and the vision they created for the area matter more than being business-friendly.
Councilman Dorian asks about continuing the request to allow the applicant to present a site plan. Councilwoman Justice agrees with continuing the request to see a site plan presented. She sees the use as appropriate for this Innovation/Industry area if the site is upgraded to be cohesive with surrounding developments.
(I want to point out something and direct you to look at this area on the proposed future land use plan. This area of Innovation/Industry is separated from the larger area of Innovation/Industry to the east. This area is surrounded by Neighborhood Residential, Community Commercial, Neighborhood Mixed-Use, and the Arapaho reinvestment area.)
Councilman Hutchenrider also thinks this use is appropriate for the area. He admonishes the rest of Council and says they should value this applicant’s investment and be supportive of the request. He says denying the request would mean they are not business-friendly. He supports continuing the request. Councilman Barrios responds to Councilman Hutchenrider’s admonishment. He says that being business-friendly doesn’t mean just giving businesses whatever they want carte blanche. He is insulted by Councilman Hutchenrider’s accusation that they would not be business-friendly if they denied the request.
Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul asks what the impact would be if they approved the request. Don answers that approval would likely result in more sales tax revenue. He also predicts higher property tax revenue after improvements are made to the site. He adds that, in his opinion, the investment in this property won’t be so large that it creates obstacles for future redevelopers. He suggests that Council sit down with staff to provide policy direction on economic development efforts for interim strategies while visions take time to develop.
Councilman Dorian moves to continue the request until Sep. 23rd. Council unanimously continues the request until Sep. 23rd.
CLAY COOLEY SIGN REQUEST
Now, Council considers Clay Cooley VW’s request for a 39 ½ ft. pole sign. As a reminder, this was an item that Council reviewed on July 22nd. They voted 6-1, Mayor Dubey opposed, to schedule the case for a hearing. The item is listed tonight, not as a public hearing, but as an action item. The city will hear from the applicant tonight but not the public. Building Official Brent Tignor presents a background on the request. Currently, signs are allowed to be a maximum of 20 ft., so this is a request for a height nearly double that.
Mayor Pro Tem Shamsul asks why the 20 ft. limit exists. Don explains that the sign ordinance was reviewed in 2012. The Sign Control Board adopted the most common height limit, 20 ft. The applicant steps forward again and explains their request. Councilman Barrios asks if neighboring property owners have given any feedback. The applicant states that he spoke to managers of some neighboring properties, and they had no objection to the sign height. Councilman Dorian is supportive of the request and doesn’t think it’ll block any other signs. Council unanimously approves the request.
CONSENT AGENDA & CLOSING
Council also unanimously approves the consent agenda. It includes two ordinances codifying the approval of ZF 24-13 and ZF 24-14. It also includes an ordinance and resolution codifying the updates to the Animals Ordinance and animal shelter fees presented at the July 22nd meeting. Three bid awards are also included: a $55K annual requirements contract to Exserv Inc. for moving services, $1.9M to Ratliff Hardscape for E. Prairie Creek Dr. improvements, and $105K to DH Pace Company for Eisemann Center security door upgrades.
Council discusses back-to-school season and a Corporate Challenge event, and the meeting adjourns after four long hours.