Richardson City Plan Commission Meeting March 18th, 2025
OPENING
Four of the currently five regular commissioners are present: Chair Marsh, Commissioner Keller, Commissioner Beach, and Commissioner Bohnsack. Alternate Rebecca Poynter is also present and will participate. Commissioner Roberts is absent. Notably, the CPC webpage now shows the seats formerly occupied by Vice-Chair Southard and Commissioner Costantino as vacant.
CPC meetings are typically preceded by a work session to catch commissioners up on the details of the zoning cases before them. These work sessions are not recorded. Tonight’s preceding work session includes an interesting item, a “Drone Workshop”. A memo describes this workshop as a briefing on the various types of drones and drone operations, commercial drone delivery characteristics, types of drone facilities, the regulatory framework regarding drone operations, background on other cities’ regulations, definitions related to these uses, and recent and pending zoning items related to drones. Three drone operators looking to activate in the city also presented the specifics of their operations. Commissioners were allowed to ask questions and have concerns addressed. The first 25 slides of the handouts for tonight’s meeting include information shared in this workshop: https://www.cor.net/home/showpublisheddocument/42957/638779177036753329
Zipline and Amazon Prime Air were among those that presented at this workshop. Slide 3 shows a table that estimates dBA levels of drone takeoff. It’s important to note that dBA is a weighted calculation that emphasizes frequencies that the human ear may perceive more. It is not a measure of raw decibel levels. The chart shows an estimated 81 dBA produced at takeoff, which translates to roughly 88 raw decibels at 300 Hz. This is equivalent to a blender or lawnmower level of noise.
(Though these work sessions are open to the public, I also wish this one was recorded.)
Minutes of the March 4th meeting are approved unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING – CHICK-FIL-A ADDITIONAL DRIVE-TRHU LANE
Three public hearings are scheduled tonight. The first is on ZF 25-03. This is a request to amend an existing special permit for the Chick-Fil-A drive-thru at 106 W. Campbell Rd. to allow an additional drive-thru lane for mobile orders and reduce the landscaping area. Staff presents a background of the request.
Chair Marsh asks if this will require a replat. Staff answers that it will eventually because they will need to acquire about 5 ft. of property to the north. The applicant steps forward to answer questions. Chair Marsh asks if there is a bypass lane in the drive-thru for anyone who enters the drive-thru but wants to exit without placing an order. The applicant confirms there is no bypass lane. They would have to manage traffic in the drive-thru to move someone through in this situation.
No public speakers are present for this hearing. The CPC unanimously recommends approval of the request.
PUBLIC HEARING – AMAZON PRIME AIR DRONE DELIVERY
The second public hearing is on ZF 25-04. This is a request to amend an existing planned development at 3051 Research Dr. to allow the Amazon facility to start utilizing drone delivery. The agenda documents note that MK30 drones will be used. These will lower to 12 ft. upon delivery and produce a sound level of 91.2 dBA, which translates to 98.3 dB at 300 Hz. This is roughly equivalent to the sound produced by a farm tractor. This will be loud for the seconds it takes to conduct the delivery. Agenda documents also note that an environmental assessment will be required before the FAA issues approval permits. The agenda packet also includes one letter in opposition to the request submitted by Kathryn Nguyen. She is opposed because of the noise this use would generate for nearby residents.
Staff presents a background of the request. Drone launch pads will be installed on existing unused parking areas. At a flight elevation of 200 ft., these drones would emit roughly 64 dBA of noise, which translates to 71 dB at 300 Hz. This is equivalent to a dishwasher.
Commissioner Beach asks how many drones will be a part of this operation. Staff answers that there will be four launch pads, but staff defers to the applicant to answer how many drones will be utilized. Chair Marsh asks what mechanism the city would utilize to address the use if issues arise. Staff answers that the city would have to rezone the property. Staff also clarifies that PD zoning is attached to the property, not the user/owner. Chair Marsh asks if the city can enforce noise ordinance compliance. Asst. City Manager Charles Goff answers that the city could regulate noise while drones are on the ground, but it’s out of the city’s purview as soon as it takes off from the ground. The FAA regulates it at that point. Commissioner Keller asks if the city has any purview for operations while drones deliver within the 7.5-mile radius. Staff answers that the city has no purview for regulating flights and these drones do not touch ground while delivering.
The applicant steps forward to present their request. These drones will be roughly 5 ft. x 5 ft. and weigh roughly 80 lbs. These will operate autonomously. Delivery will be done by lowering to 12 ft. and then dropping the package. The FAA will solicit community feedback as a part of its environmental analysis and licensing process. The applicant is unable to provide an estimated number of drone flights per day because that will be driven by customer requests.
Commissioner Keller asks how this will be conducted in areas with large canopy trees. The applicant answers that homes with overhead power lines and tree coverage may not be eligible for drone delivery. Commissioner Keller asks how that determination is made. The applicant answers that delivery addresses will be analyzed as they are requested. Commissioner Keller also asks if apartments are eligible for drone delivery. The applicant answers that currently, they will only deliver to single-family residences. They will look to expand to apartments and businesses in the future.
Commissioner Poynter asks about their current operations in College Station. Apparently, the mayor of College Station has put out a statement that they will not continue their relationship with Amazon Prime Air delivery in College Station. Amazon has currently paused operations for a software update. The applicant explains that College Station was a new site developed solely for drone delivery. It was also located closer to residences. This site in Richardson already exists as a same-day delivery hub and is further away from residences. Commissioner Poynter also asks about the community engagement they are conducting in Richardson. The applicant answers that they have met with city staff and Council. They have also reached out to the Creek Hollow Estates HOA. They also have plans for community presentations but will be unable to demonstrate flight/noise without FAA approval.
Commissioner Poynter also asks if they can vary flight paths for frequent destinations. The applicant answers that they can. Commissioner Poynter asks how many drone operators will be employed. The applicant answers that they will employ 10-15 drone operators. Existing employees will be utilized to load drones.
Chair Marsh asks if the customer has to choose drone delivery or if that will be determined by Amazon. The applicant confirms that customers will choose to opt in or opt out of drone delivery. Chair Marsh also asks what the flight time for deliveries will be. The applicant answers that drones will travel at 60 mph. Hours of operation will be based on daylight hours and will range from 7 am – 10 pm based on the season. Current ground deliveries take place between the hours of 9 am – 9 pm.
Three speakers are present for this hearing. The first speaker is Dante Lopez. Dante is a nearby resident just down the road from this proposed facility. He is concerned about the route of drone flights going through nearby neighborhoods, especially considering a likely no-fly zone for the nearby hospital. He is also concerned about the noise impact on residents. The second speaker is Eric McMurry. He shares Dante’s concerns. He is especially concerned about the projected noise levels. The third and final speaker is James Danen. He suggests reaching out to other cities that have this operation in their city to learn about issues they have faced.
The applicant returns to address the concerns expressed. They will ensure they don’t interfere with the nearby hospital.
Commissioner Keller notes that, while this could have a greater positive impact, this use also has potential negative impacts such as noise. This could affect people’s enjoyment of their properties. There’s also still a lot of uncertainty. Commissioner Poynter calls this an innovative opportunity. Commissioner Beach asks if there are any other zoning mechanisms that don’t tie this use to the land but to the owner/operator. Staff answers that they could pursue a special permit process. They could also insert a special condition attaching the use just to Amazon.
Commissioner Bohnsack asks why this wasn’t submitted as a special permit request. Staff answers that a PD amendment was used to try and reduce the number of zoning process steps this request would have to go through. If it were a special permit request, as with the recent IQ amendment, they may have to amend the zoning to add the definition before a special permit could be requested for the area.
Chair Marsh is in favor of the request knowing that the FAA will allow public comments in their environmental analysis process. He would like to define that drones will be battery-powered and restrict hours of operation to 7 am – 7 pm or daylight hours. Commissioner Poynter asks to add a requirement for formal notification to development services if any changes to methods/operations are implemented.
Commissioner Keller is more wary of the FAA review process. He asks what that process looks like. Staff isn’t sure how notification takes place. Chair Marsh moves to recommend approval of the request with the additional conditions of defining drones as battery-powered and hours of operation being sunrise to sunset. The CPC approves this motion 3-2 with Commissioner Keller and Commissioner Bohnsack opposed. This request has a tentative Council hearing date of April 14th.
The CPC takes a brief recess before the final public hearing of the evening.
PUBLIC HEARING – DENNIS COLLINS RESIDENCE
The final public hearing of the evening is on ZF 25-05. This is a rezoning request for a single-family home planned development at 1025 Point North Pkwy. The current zoning allows this tract to be developed as a country club since it is adjacent to the Canyon Creek Country Club & Golf Course. The Future Land Use Plan designates this area as appropriate for open space with public facilities as an appropriate secondary use. Single-family and other types of residential neighbor this property to the North, East, and West. This land was given to RISD in 1987 who then sold it to the current owner in 2017. This planned development will include only one single-family, 5,377 sq. ft. home with an exception that reduces the front yard setback requirement by 10 ft. Since Prairie Creek is included in the southern portion of the property, this request also includes plans to rechannel the creek and construct a retaining wall.
(Does rechanneling the creek to build someone a 5,400 sq. ft. feel weird to anyone else but me? The protections against rechanneling the creek exist to protect this creek and those further down the creek that might feel the effects of a rechanneling. What if we designated this land as a park like the Future Land Use Plan calls for?)
Staff presents a background of the request. Chair Marsh asks how much space will be between the front driveway and the sidewalk. Staff answers that roughly 3 ft. of space will be between the sidewalk and the front driveway. At least half of the frontage will be driveway. Commissioner Poynter points out that this area receives a lot of pedestrian activity. Chair Marsh asks staff for their take on the creek and floodplain data. Staff answers that velocity is analyzed as part of these considerations. None of the erosive velocities were increased from this model. Chair Marsh asks for clarification on which areas these studies considered. Staff answers that sections within this property were considered. Upstream and downstream conditions are also part of these studies. Staff also states that there is a gabion wall protecting properties at the southward bend of the creek channel.
The applicant now steps forward to present their request. The applicant is Dennis Collins. Dennis starred in a Discovery Channel TV Series titled Fast N’ Loud. He does not have a presentation to give. He’s just here to answer questions.
Chair Marsh asks Dennis to address the lack of space between the public sidewalk and the driveway. Dennis answers that the hike and bike trail is actually located across the street from the property. This area is currently under water pipe construction. Staff clarifies that the current water pipe project across the street should finish construction by October of this year. Pedestrian connection improvements will also be done to connect sidewalks to the hike and bike trail. (Current zoning for this area where the hike and bike trail is located seems to allow a variety of office/retail uses, so I’m a little confused about what the future of this tract of land will actually be.) When asked if he has any plans to install a landscape buffer between the public sidewalk and his massive driveway, Dennis answers that there will be grass.
Chair Marsh asks Dennis’ architect about the vision for the north-facing façade. Some parts include a 10-ft. wall and appear pretty monolithic. The architect answers that Dennis wanted a buffer to ensure his privacy. Chair Marsh asks what the maintenance area and driveway will be for. Dennis answers that these two acres of land will require a lot of landscaping and maintenance. He has removed trees from his property that were non-native, under 4 caliper inches, or dead or dying.
Chair Marsh alludes to submitted public comments suggesting that the studies relating to the rechanneling of Prairie Creek are using outdated data. Dennis’ engineer responds that they use the 2009 data because it’s the latest data available. Chair Marsh states that he understands the concerned comments since this data is 14 years old. Dennis’ engineer disagrees. Chair Marsh notes that he lives off of Spring Creek and he’s noticed increased erosion to the banks in recent years. Dennis’ engineer again states that they are using the best available data. Chair Marsh asks Dennis’ engineer directly if he thinks this project would have an impact on the surrounding area, especially the creek and those downstream. Dennis’ engineer states that he doesn’t foresee any impact. Based on the existing data, FEMA has issued a similar conclusion.
Chair Marsh asks if the retaining wall has been dictated by the desired finish of the home or the drainage study. Dennis’ engineer answers that they desired to achieve as much home footprint as the limits ultimately allow. The retaining wall will be near vertical.
The public hearing now opens. Chair Marsh notes seven written comments submitted in opposition to the request. The first speaker is Canyon Creek resident Lane Cardwell. He supports the request. The second speaker is Rance Jones. He is also a nearby Canyon Creek resident. He states that this property was intended to be a buffer for the neighborhood and an area for nature. Otters and other animals live in this creek. He opposes the request and encourages this natural area to be preserved. He hopes this commission will prioritize the needs of the community over the needs of this individual. The third speaker is Bill Koch. He lives only a few houses down the creek from this site. He states that this development would increase the velocity of water in the creek. He is concerned about the requested exceptions that go against the character of the neighborhood. This would have a major impact on the neighborhood. This land was never intended to have a home developed on it. He claims this land was sold by RISD to Dennis Collins for $15K. He also states that the requested front setback isn’t fair to the existing neighbors. He opposes this request.
Brad Fisher is the fourth speaker. He is basically a next-door neighbor to this site. His biggest concern is the effect on the creek. His property does not have a gabion wall. There is enormous erosion after the May storms. He explains that they lost land due to erosion. They also lost a tree to the creek very recently. Existing erosion needs to be properly addressed before adding anything that would exacerbate the issue. He is opposed to this request. James Danen is the fifth speaker. We heard from him earlier on the drone use case. He also lives just a few homes away from this site. He is concerned about the setback exception. This is unfair to existing neighbors. He opposes the request. Julia Koch is the sixth speaker. Again, the Kochs live only a few homes away from this site. She is concerned about the lack of enforcing requirements regarding the creek for this site when neighbors’ projects have been denied for reasons related to the floodplain. UTD development will impact water flows in this creek. The water tanks installed at “Point North Park” already have encroached on the open space in the area. Properties are already at risk of eroding now. This will only make these problems worse. She requests that the city complete an evaluation of current creek conditions, extend the gabion wall, dredge the Prairie Creek Marsh so it can retain water, and require immediate plantings of sod or ryegrass to prevent soil erosion on this site. She opposes this request.
Mark Manders is the seventh speaker. He is the closest neighbor to speak so far, being only two houses away from this site. He is concerned about the effect this development will have on the creek. Rechanneling this creek will cause greater erosion. He also suggests extending the gabion wall. He opposes the request. Former Councilmember Maryann Fraley is the eighth speaker. She, like others, lives only a few homes away from this site. She is also concerned about creek erosion. She speaks about the importance of protecting this waterway. She is opposed to this request due to the impact on neighbors’ properties. Patrick Fraley is the ninth and final speaker. Again, the Fraleys live only a few homes away from this site. He is also concerned about creek erosion. This development would make things worse at a time when neighbors are losing massive chunks of property to the creek. This is not the place to put this property. He can’t afford the expensive wall that Dennis wants to build to protect his planned residence. He opposes the request.
Dennis now returns to rebut the concerns expressed by neighbors. He begins by “thanking the neighbors for their warm welcome”. He proceeds to express that the city comes out every time one of the neighbors calls. He also addresses his remarks to the audience, which is supposed to not be allowed. Chair Marsh has to step in and ask Dennis to direct his comments to the commission. He then complains about the cost and effort of having to do an environmental study. He spends his time disagreeing with everything the neighbors expressed. He again claims that his development would not change the flow rate of this creek.
Commissioner Bohnsack asks staff if this would need to go before the Zoning Board of Adjustments. Staff answers that it would not since they are requesting their own special zoning district for this private development. Chair Marsh states that, while this is a beautiful proposed house, he has concerns about the pedestrian experience and the lack of enhancement to the neighborhood. When Dennis attempts to respond, Chair Marsh invites him to take his seat as the public hearing has been duly closed. Chair Marsh also shares the concerns expressed by the neighbors regarding the creek conditions. He wants to prioritize the existing homeowners, and he is opposed to the request.
Commissioner Bohnsack asks if there is any plan to address the current erosion conditions of the creek. Staff answers that there is a drainage assessment that will cover this area. They must balance the need to keep creeks as natural as possible with the need to protect properties from erosion. Commissioner Bohnsack states that she is in favor of the request since the retaining wall might improve current conditions. Commissioner Beach states that he is opposed to the request because of the concerns expressed by neighbors. Commissioner Keller is leaning toward approval because he thinks this would be a positive for the neighborhood. Commissioner Poynter is also leaning toward approval but doesn’t explain her reasoning.
Commissioner Keller moves to recommend approval of the request. Commissioner Bohnsack seconds. The CPC votes 3-2 in favor of this motion. Chair Marsh and Commissioner Beach are opposed. This is scheduled for a tentative Council hearing date of April 14th.
Chair Marsh then notes that this is Commissioner Bohnsack’s last meeting as a CPC commissioner.
Meeting adjourned.