Richardson City Plan Commission Meeting September 17th, 2024
OPENING & PUBLIC HEARING – BIRDIEBAY GOLF
Six of the seven regular commissioners are present, Vice-Chair Southard, Commissioner Costantino, Commissioner Roberts, Commissioner Keller, Commissioner Bohnsack, and Commissioner Beach. One alternate, Byron Purdy, is also present and will participate. Chair Marsh is absent.
September 3rd’s minutes are approved unanimously.
Three public hearings are scheduled tonight. The first is on ZF 24-22. This is a special permit request for BirdieBay Golf at 1002 N. Central Expy. This is a virtual indoor golf simulator. The area is within the Collins/Arapaho TOD (Transit-oriented Development) & Innovation District. This falls within the Station Area Sub-district.
Staff provides a background of the request. This business would operate virtual golfing bays indoors and provide a pro shop and bar with alcoholic beverages and light snacks. Hours of operation would be Sun-Th 10-10 and Fri-Sat 9 am – midnight. Two letters in support of the request have been received.
Commissioner Beach asks if this is the same area that Shredder Ski School is planned. Staff confirms that it is the same development but a different building so these facilities would be alongside each other.
The applicant now steps forward to present their plans. This business is Veteran-owned and plans to host Veteran networking events and offer a 25% discount to Veterans. Commissioner Beach asks an inappropriate question although in jest. He asks if the discount could also be given to CPC Commissioners. (Why? Why are we asking questions like this in a public hearing on the record in the City of Richardson? Why are we joking about bribery DURING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE RECORD??)
Commissioner Roberts asks what type of TABC license they are planning to have. The applicant answers that it will just be beer and wine. Commissioner Purdy asks if the simulators could be used for sports other than golf. The applicant answers that it will just be golf. The applicant states that the floors will even move as you travel through the virtual course. Vice-chair Southard asks if golf lessons would be provided. The applicant answers that they will allow third-party instructors to use the facility for lessons, but they will not have an instructor on staff. Commissioner Roberts comments that this type of business is great for golfing in the Texas heat.
The CPC unanimously recommends approval of the request.
PUBLIC HEARING – AUTOSAVVY
The second hearing is on ZF 24-23. This is a special development plan request for AutoSavvy at 101 E. Arapaho Rd. This would be a motor vehicle sales/leasing use in the Collins Arapaho Form-Based Code Planned Development, specifically the Station Area Sub-district.
According to the staff report, this is the vision for this sub-district: “The vision for the Station Area Sub-district is to position the DART Arapaho Center Station as a high density, transit-oriented, mixed-use gateway to the Innovation District by increasing flexibility to maximize development potential around the station. The Sub-district will encourage efficient, compact land use patterns and will be highly walkable and bikeable to connect residents and employers to jobs and amenities and further capitalize on the Subdistrict’s light rail and bus transit assets. Greenville Avenue will be redesigned to function as a multi-modal signature street with active ground-floor uses fronting the station. High quality building design and construction materials are encouraged that will support existing and new business uses, promote new residential uses, and bring a wider range of service, support and activities to the Sub-district.”
This request is for an interim use for five years since it does not comply with the vision for this sub-district. This request includes eight areas of development exceptions. They include noncompliance with allowed uses in the sub-district, noncompliance with build-to-zone requirements, noncompliance with surface parking prohibitions, noncompliance with landscape buffer requirements, landscape screening requirements and interior parking landscaping requirements, noncompliance with open space requirements, and noncompliance with window area requirements.
Staff presents a background of the request. Staff explains that this site is adjacent to the Arapaho Center Station and a future transit-oriented development. DART is also soliciting development proposals for their neighboring property. No correspondence has been received regarding this request.
The applicant steps forward to present their request. He explains their business model. Vice-chair Southard asks if salvage-titled vehicles relieve the original manufacturer of existing warranties. The applicant confirms they do. Vice-chair Southard states that he talked to his insurance agent brother to get a recommendation about this business. Commissioner Beach asks about how they inspect vehicles for resale. The applicant again explains their business model. Commissioner Purdy asks about electric vehicles vs. combustion engine vehicles, another business model question. The applicant shares their business model regarding electric vehicles. They do not currently resell electric vehicles.
Commissioner Roberts finally asks a land-use question. He asks what their plan is at the end of the 5-year time limit for the use. The applicant answers that he plans to renegotiate and try to extend the use beyond 5 years. (This request should be denied then, for that reason alone. This area cannot afford any additional rights for auto sales uses, especially not those who plan to extend the use beyond their requested 5-year period.)
Two speakers are present for this hearing. The first opposes the request. He plainly states that this request is opposite to the zoning and vision for the area. This area is growing in its potential for redevelopment, and he states that approving this makes no sense whatsoever. Commissioner Roberts asks this speaker a question, which is a little unusual. He asks if the property should be left vacant until redeveloped. The speaker answers that yes it should. Leaving this as an opportunity for redevelopment makes sense. Rolling back zoning and keeping this property unavailable for five years or more delays any redevelopment and does not make sense.
Commissioner Purdy now asks a question of the speaker. He asks if the problem is the use or the time limit for the use. The speaker answers that this request does not make any sense. (This speaker singlehandedly redirected this commission to consider what they should already be considering. Major kudos to this speaker for being there.)
The second speaker is a part-owner of this subject property. He bought the site in 2021 after the current zoning was in place to not allow car sales use. He states that he supports the vision of the sub-district.
The applicant offers no rebuttal.
Commissioner Costantino supports the request. Commissioner Roberts also supports the request. The CPC recommends approval 6-1 with Vice-chair Southard (surprisingly) opposed.
PUBLIC HEARING – EASTSIDE MASTER SIGN PLAN
The final public hearing of the meeting is on ZF 24-26. This is an amendment request to the current planned development at the SE corner of Central Expy & E. Campbell Rd. (Eastside Development) The request is to allow a master sign plan as part of the existing planned development. Restaurants, retail, office, and multi-family are uses within this planned development.
Staff presents a background of the request. This request would allow signs not in compliance with the city’s sign standards. These could include monument signs, pedestrian kiosk signs, wall-mounted signs, and roof-mounted signs. No correspondence has been received regarding this request.
Vice-chair Southard asks if any signs would be electric signs. Staff answers that, yes, that will probably be part of the Master Sign Plan request. No signage would be allowed offsite. Asst. City Manager Charles Goff clarifies that one sign might be slightly off-property due to the DART right-of-way.
The applicant steps forward to explain their plans. The applicant states they need the ability to create a sign plan to increase visibility and attract consumers to the existing businesses. Commissioner Roberts asks about the damaged monument sign. The applicant explains that a vehicle ran through this sign, and it was rebuilt. Then, another car ran through it. They plan to relocate the sign to a more protected area.
The commission discusses the dangerous location of the destroyed sign, which this request has absolutely nothing to do with. The CPC unanimously recommends approval of the request. Once the sign plan is formed, it will come back before the CPC. Meeting adjourned.