Richardson City Plan Commission Meeting April 16th, 2024
Six of the seven regular commissioners are present, Chairman Marsh, Vice-Chair Southard, Commissioner Roberts, Commissioner Costantino, Commissioner Bohnsack, and Commissioner Keller. One alternate, Gary Beach, is also present and will participate. Commissioner Walraven is absent.
Minutes of the previous meeting are approved unanimously.
Two public hearings are scheduled. Both involve the same applicant, Richardson ISD (RISD). ZF 24-04 is for a property at 401 S. Sherman St. ZF 24-05 is for properties at 600, 610, and 616 S. Sherman St. Both are requests for amendments to the respective subdistricts, Railside and Gateway, within the Main/Central Expy PD to allow for manufacturing and warehouse uses. RISD is requesting a change in zoning to make the properties more attractive to sell. While this area used to be primarily zoned for manufacturing and industry, the visions for both areas now include adaptive reuse, new residential development, mixed-use, office, and hotels. While approving this would make the properties more attractive and help RISD to sell them, it would also extend the nonconforming use and delay achievement of the vision for the area.
Staff provides a background of the request. Chairman Marsh asks questions clarifying his understanding of the surrounding zoning. Commissioner Beach asks, if approved, how long the approved uses would be allowed. Staff answers that the uses would be allowed by right indefinitely. RISD Asst. Supt. Sandra Hayes steps to the podium as the applicant’s representative to answer questions about the request. She clarifies that they intend to sell the 401 S. Sherman property. While they don’t currently have plans to sell the 600 block S. Sherman properties, she acknowledges that their budget situation may deem it necessary in the future. A representative from RISD’s real estate broker explains that 401 S. Sherman is under contract to sell but that will fall through unless these additional uses are approved. He attempts to convince the commission that these uses do not stray from the vision, and he states all four uses are allowed in industrial zones. This is directly contrary to staff’s comments on the requested uses. This area is no longer an industrial zone.
Commissioner Keller asks if the applicant is open to putting a time limit on the nonconforming use. The applicant states that a time limit would prevent potential investors from having flexibility, affecting the viability of the property. Commissioner Costantino asks if the by-right allowance would extend to future owners if sold. Staff confirms that the zoning stays with the property, not just the current tenants. This is a request to amend the subdistrict, not a special permit request. Vice-Chair Southard asks the applicant to categorize the current prospective buyer for the 401 S. Sherman property. The applicant answers that the prospective buyer is a real estate investor who does not have tenants in hand.
One speaker is present. He is a neighboring property owner. He expresses a desire for the same additional uses to be allowed for the neighboring properties on S. Sherman. He explains that they can’t sell their own properties without these additional approved uses. He asks for fairness.
Commissioner Roberts states that RISD’s current financial situation is reason enough to approve the request. Commissioner Beach is hesitant to allow these uses indefinitely. He asks about the possibility of putting a 25-year time limit on the additional uses. Vice-Chair Southard understands the imminent sale of the 401 S. Sherman property though he does not think the 600 block properties should have the same considerations since they are not pending sale. Commissioner Keller agrees with the imposition of a time limit. He is not comfortable with approving the uses indefinitely. Commissioner Costantino also agrees. Chairman Marsh is sympathetic to the public education funding issue but sees these properties as too essential to the stated vision to allow these exceptions. He proposes denying without prejudice so the applicant doesn’t have to wait to return with another proposal.
The CPC recommends denial without prejudice for both ZF 24-04 and ZF 24-05 6-1 with only Commissioner Roberts opposed to denial of the requests. Meeting adjourned.