Richardson City Plan Commission Meeting December 3rd, 2024
EASTSIDE MASTER SIGN PLAN
Tonight’s meeting barely has a quorum. Only four commissioners are present: Chair Marsh, Commissioner Costantino, Commissioner Roberts, and Commissioner Beach.
Minutes of the previous meeting are approved unanimously.
Four items are on tonight’s agenda. The first is considering a proposed Master Sign Plan for the Eastside development at the corner of N. Ctrl. Expy. & E. Campbell Rd. This is not a public hearing item. Staff presents a background of the proposed sign plan. Usually, the CPC would be the final approving authority for a Master Sign Plan. In this case, Council is the final approving authority. The CPC will make a recommendation. Three types of signs are proposed in this plan: monument signs, wall-mounted electronic messaging signs, and pedestrian directory signs with electronic messaging.
The applicant steps forward to present their plans. He explains that a previous monument sign was located in the median of the entrance to the development from Ctrl. Expy. This location experienced multiple vehicle collisions due to the location. The new location for this sign will be further south along Ctrl. Expy. to avoid any collisions. This sign will be 200 sq. ft. The wall-mounted electronic messaging sign will be located on a tower that faces U.S. 75. This sign will be 140 sq. ft. Three pedestrian directory signs are proposed to be located on the interior of the development. These will have digital touchscreens.
Chair Marsh asks if the occupancy issues correlated with the pandemic. The applicant answers that the pandemic was a contributing factor, yes. Commissioner Roberts asks if the lack of signage has contributed to occupancy issues. The applicant says that the former ownership may not have valued individual tenants as much as the current local owners. The former owners were quicker to lock tenants out instead of working with them to ensure success. Commissioner Beach asks about the reliability of pedestrian kiosks. He cites Dallas receiving pushback against their kiosk plans as a concern. The applicant answers that these kiosks are manufactured by a reputable company. He will ensure they are well-maintained and functional.
Chair Marsh asks staff to describe the sign code exceptions that will apply to the wall-mounted electronic sign. Staff states that a table has been provided that explains the specific exceptions to code. Chair Marsh asks for an explanation since the table does not in fact appear to explain exceptions to code. (I hope staff reads these documents and tables before presenting them to the CPC. Reading the table, I can confirm that it does not describe what staff says it does. It simply describes the signs proposed. No code exceptions are explained.) Chair Marsh is concerned about signs ending up blank and aging into eyesores. He’s considering what the signs will look like 5-10 years from now. The applicant says that he shares these concerns. He ensures that these will be properly maintained to ensure tenant success. He’s open to any suggested additions to the plan to ensure that.
Chair Marsh is torn on the need for the wall-mounted electronic messaging sign. He is concerned that approving this would set a precedent. Commissioner Costantino moves to recommend approval of the Eastside Master Sign Plan. Commissioner Roberts seconds that motion. The CPC votes 3-1 to recommend approval of the request with Chair Marsh opposed. (Since only three members voted yes, I’m unclear on whether this actually counts as a recommendation for approval from the CPC.)
PUBLIC HEARING – PILLARS CHILDCARE
The next item is a public hearing on ZF 24-29. This is a special permit request for a new owner of an existing childcare center at 3501 Murphy Rd. The proposed new owner is Pillars Childcare. The existing ownership, according to the rights of the previous special permit granted, is Whistlestop Childcare. This request doesn’t just change the ownership. It also raises the maximum enrollment to 248 from the currently allowed 235. I also want to note that it appears Pillars Childcare may already be operating at this address. Their website lists this as a location of operation. If they are currently operating at this location, that would be a violation of Special Condition 1 of Ordinance 3199. This special condition makes the existing special permit terminable and subject to review by Council if ownership is transferred.
Staff presents a background of the request. The applicant steps forward to present their request. This is a Christian faith-based daycare. The applicant estimates that their actual enrollment capacity could top out at 200. No speakers are present for this request. The CPC has zero questions and no discussion before unanimously recommending approval of the request.
PUBLIC HEARING – DUCK CREEK TOWNHOMES
Next is a public hearing on ZF 24-28. This is a rezoning request for Duck Creek Townhomes near the corner of E. Belt Line/N. Jupiter Rd. The future land use plan deems this area appropriate for this type of housing as a primary use. Staff presents a background of the request. Access to the development will be from a private drive off of Belt Line. No access will be provided from Jupiter. Staff states that two letters of opposition have been received. One letter of support has been received from the neighboring HOA. The applicant steps forward to present their request. The CPC clarifies the negotiated access and other agreements with the neighboring HOA. Chair Marsh asks what the price of these townhomes will be. The applicant answers that they will start in the $400K range. These will be a minimum of 1,900 sq. ft.
One speaker is present. He is the president of the neighboring HOA. Commissioner Roberts asks how many people are on the staff of his neighboring HOA. The speaker answers that there are no staff. Chair Marsh states his support for the request. He acknowledges the traffic issues on Belt Line. Commissioner Costantino thinks this use makes sense for this location. Commissioner Roberts agrees. The CPC unanimously approves the request.
PUBLIC HEARING – VALENCIA VILLAS
The final item is a public hearing on ZF 24-24. This is a rezoning request for a 38-unit townhome planned development, Valencia Villas, at 601 E. Main St. This request was continued on Oct. 3rd and again on Nov. 19th due to pushback from neighboring residents. This will be the first time the CPC actually sees this presentation and considers the request. Though the future land use plan deems this area most appropriate for single-family detached homes, townhomes are among the possible missing middle housing types considered for this placetype. Agenda documents note that four letters in opposition have been received. The Highland Terrace Neighborhood Association is one of those letters. Two have spoken in opposition at previously announced hearings. The area was formerly occupied by a church that has now been demolished.
Staff presents a background of the request. The applicant steps forward to present their plans. Chair Marsh asks how meetings with the neighbors have gone. The applicant answers that they reached out to the neighboring HOA in September. They participated in one of their meetings and attempted to present their plans. The meeting venue was a bar, and it was difficult to communicate so the presentation wasn’t as effective as they hoped. Most of the responses they got from the neighbors were critical of certain details of the planned development (type of fence, layout, etc.). Most were concerned about density. The applicant states he is willing to meet with the neighboring HOA again if necessary.
Commissioner Roberts asks if they will plant native species to reduce watering needs. The applicant answers that yes, they are looking at that. Commissioner Costantino encourages a brick wall instead of a wrought iron fence to screen the development from the neighboring single-family homes. The applicant also clarifies that lot depth will be a minimum of 100 ft., not the 62 ft. noted on the agenda documents. The applicant also clarifies that they will provide 1 visitor space per unit, not the .5 per unit listed on the agenda documents.
Three speakers are present for this hearing. The first is a neighboring resident. She is concerned that this development will exacerbate existing traffic issues. She also doesn’t want anything above a single story. She is opposed to the request. The second speaker is also opposed to the request. He is a resident of the neighboring townhome development. He is concerned with green space, trees, and runoff. The third speaker is the communications chair for the Highland Terrace Neighborhood Association. He relays their opposition to the request. Most of the concerns are related to density and traffic. They would prefer a different housing type that is less dense.
The applicant returns to rebut. He states they are providing an excess of parking. Their lot sizes meet minimum standards. He states that this will be a quality product that is responsive to the city’s missing middle housing needs. He asks that the CPC consider a continuance if they think there are still issues that need to be addressed. Chair Marsh compliments the developer's willingness to meet development standards. Commissioner Costantino suggests amending the motion to make the south screening wall a masonry wall. Commissioner Roberts encourages the public speakers to advocate their position at the Council hearing. Commissioner Beach acknowledges that this might gentrify the neighborhood but that should be expected. He states that traffic concerns won’t be solved by denying development. With the population increasing, traffic solutions will need to be explored citywide.
Commissioner Beach makes a proper motion to recommend approval of the request. (Hallelujah. He must’ve practiced.) Commissioner Costantino suggests an amendment for the south screening wall to be similar in design to the existing masonry wall. Commissioner Beach accepts this amendment. The CPC unanimously recommends approval of the request with the added condition of a masonry wall on the south. Meeting adjourned.