Richardson City Plan Commission Meeting October 3rd, 2024
OPENING
All seven regular commissioners and both alternates are present. (Hooray!) Alternates will contribute to discussions but not vote tonight.
Chair Marsh notes that Item 4 on tonight’s agenda has been requested for continuance until Nov. 19th by the applicant. This leaves one variance request and one public hearing on tonight’s agenda. The public hearing for the continued item will still be opened tonight to allow for any public comments to be given. At this time, someone from the audience rises to speak on the continued item. Since he is not in front of a microphone, we cannot hear what he says.
September minutes are approved unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUANCE – VALENCIA VILLAS
Now, Item 4 is moved up. The public hearing for ZF 24-24 is opened. This is a rezoning request for a 38-townhome planned development, Valencia Villas, at 601 E. Main St. The audience member who rose previously now steps forward to make a public comment. Asst. City Manager Charles Goff states that the applicant requested a continuance due to concerns expressed by neighbors. They wish to have more time to meet with neighbors to address their concerns. The speaker states that several neighbors have expressed opposition to the development. They are concerned about traffic, parking, green space issues, and noise. A second speaker also steps forward. She asks for clarification on what neighborhood leaders the developer is talking to. She and her neighbors have not been reached out to by any developers. Chair Marsh advises the speaker to ask staff after the meeting or reach out to the applicant directly to get clarification. She asks those in attendance for this hearing in the audience to stand to indicate their opposition. Several members of the audience stand. She also expresses concerns about traffic and parking. She and others are opposed to the request, and she plans to have more neighbors present to oppose the request on Nov. 19th.
The CPC unanimously continues the public hearing until Nov. 19th.
BRAND DENTISTRY VARIANCE REQUEST
Now, the CPC considers Variance 24-02. This is a request by Brand Dentistry at 501 W. Campbell Rd. to reduce the separation requirement for the side of the building by five feet. This requirement addresses the separation required between the side of a building in a nonresidential district that abuts a residential district. This request would reduce the 46-foot separation requirement to 41 feet. This is not a public hearing item.
Staff provides a background of the request. If approved, this request would go before Council on Oct. 21st.
Commissioner Roberts asks where the screening wall will be installed. Staff answers that it will be installed on the north side of the alley. The applicant steps forward to present their plans. He states that they have support from neighboring residents. Chair Marsh asks questions about layout and parking. The applicant explains their reasoning. The CPC unanimously recommends approval of the request with a requirement to bring back a replat request to make the development one lot.
PUBLIC HEARING – LENNOX R&D CENTER
The final item is a public hearing on ZF 24-21. This is a rezoning request for a planned development for Lennox Innovation R&D Center at 2140 Lake Park Blvd. This facility will be used for testing climate control equipment. Four areas of development exceptions are requested for this planned development. The first is the use. The regulating ordinances, No. 3079 & No. 3153, do not list research laboratory and facility as an approved use. The second exception is parking. This request reduces the required parking by 217 spaces. The third exception is building height. The property is allowed up to eight standard stories. The request is for a single-story 36 ft. structure. The fourth exception is residential screening. There is a townhome development to the west and a single-family development to the north. The comprehensive zoning ordinance requires a 6-ft masonry wall. The request is to exempt this requirement and keep the existing 8-ft. tubular steel fence to the west and 8-ft. wooden fence to the north.
Staff presents a background of the request. This building would be built on an area that is currently a parking lot. One piece of correspondence has been received from a neighboring property owner. That correspondence included an alternate site plan proposed by the neighbor. Vice-Chair Southard asks about that correspondence and if any of the concerns raised would be within the purview of this commission. Staff answers that the first concern raised regards the use. The second concern raised regards air quality. The applicant will address that concern. The third concern raised regards who to contact in the event of an emergency spill.
The applicant steps forward to present their plans. Lennox is looking for a new R&D facility because they are experiencing growth. This facility will be used to test air conditioning and other climate control devices. The applicant attempts to address the three concerns expressed in the aforementioned correspondence. He skips the first concern about the location and exact changes occurring since he feels this was addressed during the presentation. The second concern about air pollution, he addresses by explaining that no toxic chemicals will be a part of this research. This is something regulated by federal law. A refrigerant leak would be the worst scenario that he can think of. This is also something homeowners have to deal with in their own A/C units. They would take that situation seriously and handle it according to laws and guidelines.
They will use hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants and A2L refrigerants. A2L refrigerants are the new standard according to the International Code Council. Hydrofluorocarbon refrigerants contribute to global warming. A2L is a classification given by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers. A is the non-toxic category. 2 is the flammable category. L is the low-burning velocity category. A2L refrigerants are the second safest refrigerant category. He addresses the third concern regarding inappropriate construction activity or who to contact in an emergency spill situation by pointing out that Richardson regulates construction hours. He encourages the neighbor to contact them or the city directly if anything inappropriate is occurring on the site. The applicant also states that they will be organizing a community meeting with neighbors to address their concerns.
Commissioner Roberts asks what the process would be during a disaster recovery situation. The applicant explains that they have processes in place and designated personnel roles for disaster situations. They would coordinate with other organizations as needed for disaster recovery. This is something they regularly prepare for. Vice-Chair Southard asks what type of testing would be conducted. The applicant answers that they will conduct safety, performance, and reliability testing. This will not be factory testing but development testing of representative product. They are also seeking to relocate for proximity to their existing headquarters across the parking lot.
Chair Marsh asks additional questions regarding layout, screening, parking, exhaust, and setbacks. The public hearing now opens. Seven speakers are present for the hearing. The first speaker is the president of the neighboring University World Owners Association. This association manages the pond/lake near this site. He asks for clarification on any proposed changes to that pond since they manage it. He also asks if any generator noise will be produced from this request. The second speaker remarks that Lennox has been a good neighbor so far. She is neutral to the request but seeks more information and dialogue with the developers. She is concerned about noise from loading docks and traffic. She is also concerned about her property’s value if the use is more industrial than office. She is also concerned about damage to roadways due to increased traffic.
The third speaker expresses concern about their view of the lake being blocked and losing the existing trees on the site. He is also concerned about his property’s value. He refers to a site plan that he provided the commission. He proposes shifting the existing fire lane to the south and swapping parking to the north side of the fire lane. He says this would allow for the placement of tree islands. He also wants the impact of lighting on neighbors to be considered. The fourth speaker expresses concerns about noise, traffic, safety, and lights. She asks for a 12-ft. masonry wall to mitigate these issues. The fifth speaker expresses concern over an industrial use being so near to three residential developments. He is opposed to the request. He requests that the item be tabled until proper public engagement can take place. The sixth speaker expresses concern about the proximity of delivery trucks to existing residences. She says that existing conditions with trash and the pond need to be dealt with. She is opposed to the request. The seventh speaker asks for clarification on what days construction will take place. She also expresses concern about parking, noise, safety, maintenance of the site, and lack of notification due to being a neighboring Dallas resident. She is neutral to the request but requests more information and engagement. Lastly, she mentions that other neighbors were not able to attend this hearing because of the observance of Rosh Hashanah.
The applicant returns to offer their final rebuttal. He desires to address most of the neighbors’ concerns at the planned community meeting. He clarifies that Lennox did not own the property. The Norris family owned the property. He acknowledges they have a rather loud generator on the site currently. He likes the proposed site plan provided by the neighbor but says they need to coordinate with the entity that has rights to the utility easement. He says they will remove tower lights in the existing parking lot. He is also amenable to improving the timing of deliveries. He thanks the neighbors for attending this hearing and looks forward to meeting with them to continue the conversation.
Commissioner Costantino states that his biggest concern was building height. He mistakenly states that if it weren’t for the building height, they could build this today. Staff corrects his understanding. This use is not allowed under the current regulating ordinance. Chair Marsh acknowledges that this is a tough consideration. The area has now become residential mixed with office and retail. He questions if R&D is appropriate to add to that mix. He understands the business need for proximity. He states that neighbors aren’t guaranteed a development freeze after they move in. Development will occur and sometimes that will take away views. Vice-Chair Southard states that many of the neighbors’ concerns should have been addressed by the applicant in a community meeting before this hearing. The applicant now requests a continuance of the request to allow them to meet with neighbors. Chair Marsh says there should still be enough time between now and a Council hearing for a community meeting to be scheduled.
Commissioner Poynter suggests the applicant address comments about trees and generators. The CPC unanimously continues the item until Nov. 19th. (The public hearing was duly closed, so that may be something that the city will need to address.)
Meeting adjourned.