Richardson City Plan Commission Meeting January 7th, 2025
OPENING
Six of the seven regular commissioners are present. Both alternates are also present. Commissioner Costantino is absent. Since eight are present, Commissioner Purdy will vote on approving the minutes and ZF 24-34 (Legacy Arapaho). Commissioner Poynter will vote on ZF 24-31 (Polk Street) and ZF 24-33 (Drone Facility Use).
Minutes of the December 17th meeting are approved unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING – POLK STREET RESIDENCE
Three public hearings are scheduled tonight. The first is on ZF 24-31. This is a special development plan request for a 275-unit multifamily development, Polk Street Residence, within the block surrounded by Texas St., Kaufman St., Polk St., and Greenville Ave. The Future Land Use Plan designates this area as Neighborhood Mixed-Use. This calls for low-rise residential with ground-floor retail. This area is part of the Main St./Central Expy Form-Based Code PD District. The staff report notes that 300 feet of right-of-way will be closed and abandoned on McKinney St. from Polk to Kaufman. Two alleyways will also be abandoned to be included in the proposed development. This would be a four-story development with a parking garage. The staff report does not mention ground-floor retail, which means this does not align with the Future Land Use Plan.
Requested exceptions to code include building height, block length, doors, and open space requirements. The code allows three-story buildings with a maximum height of 45 ft. This would be a four-story building with a maximum height of 54 ft. Code also limits the block face of a building to 350 ft. Any block lengths of 500 ft. or more require a pedestrian cut-through. This would have a block face of 580 ft. with no pedestrian cut-through. Door exceptions relate to the lack of ground-floor retail in this request. Finally, code requires 15% of the lot to be open space if private and 8% if publicly accessible. This request includes 9% private open space and only 3% public open space. (These four areas of exceptions greatly impact the walkability and connectivity to the rest of the area. I hope the applicant could at least consider ground-floor retail and a proper pedestrian accessway where McKinney St. is. A recently approved retail development, The Nest will be located directly to the South of this development. It’s important not to cut off these destinations from the rest of the area.)
Staff presents a background of the request. The office building at the corner of Greenville and Kaufman is the only building that would survive this redevelopment on the block. Two letters in opposition and two letters in support have been received regarding this request. Only one of those letters is included beginning on page 40 of the agenda packet: https://www.cor.net/home/showpublisheddocument/42229/638715238125200000 .
Chair Marsh asks about the parking differences between the approved Nest development and this one. Staff clarifies that the Nest will have head-in parking while this development will have parallel parking along Texas St. Chair Marsh also asks if the public parking lot next to Staycation was calculated as part of the parking plan for the Nest development. Staff confirms that this lot was included in that parking plan and that this request eliminates that parking. Staff states that the on-street parking provided by this development would seek to serve as public parking in place of the existing lot. Chair Marsh corrects staff and clarifies that the on-street parking in this request will be calculated for use by residents, not the public. Staff admits that some of the on-street parking will be for this complex’s use. Asst. City Manager (ACM) Charles Goff states that the excess on-street parking should be sufficient to meet The Nest’s needs. (That math works out to 16 spaces for the public by my count.)
The applicant steps forward to present their request. The applicant states that they have tried their best to comply with zoning requirements. (They are requesting four significant exceptions to zoning requirements.)
Chair Marsh asks if ground-floor doorways would open to the sidewalk. The applicant answers that they will. Chair Marsh also asks if there are any alternate locations for trash pick-up besides Kaufman. The applicant answers that they would look at alternate locations. Chair Marsh asks where the area for moving trucks and deliveries would be. The applicant answers that the parking garage entrance would likely be utilized for those needs. Chair Marsh asks if they have spoken with any neighbors about the project. The applicant confirms they have not. (Yikes) Part of this development would be on city-owned land. Chair Marsh asks if the applicant has reached an agreement with the city for land acquisition. ACM Goff answers that if Council approves the request, they should approve the land acquisition. Chair Marsh asks how much bicycle parking will be provided. The applicant answers that they are providing 83 bicycle spaces, which is too many in their opinion. They don’t expect them all to be utilized.
Commissioner Roberts asks how long construction would take. The applicant answers that it shouldn’t take longer than two years. Commissioner Roberts asks why they didn’t talk with any of the existing businesses along Polk St. and to the north. The applicant answers that they have spoken with the law firm. He also clarifies that the land seller has spoken with those businesses. Staycation will apparently relocate but those details are still being finalized. Commissioner Roberts doesn’t see how this request increases walkability and connectivity in this area. (Neither do I.) He states that there is a vision for this area and this request doesn’t advance that vision. The applicant brags that they have developed thousands of units in Carrollton, and they believe those units support the existing retail. (And wouldn’t this request displace existing retail?) Commissioner Roberts isn’t buying it.
Chair Marsh asks if the reason for the fourth floor is solely to make the development financially feasible. The applicant confirms this is the case. Chair Marsh, referencing a comment concerned about overloading local schools with more students, asks how many children they expect to reside in this development. The applicant answers that they don’t usually see many families with children in these types of developments. These are small units, mostly 1-brs, that average around 850 sq. ft. (Great, so no housing for families with children either, which by the way, would actually support local schools since they rely on average daily attendance funding.)
Commissioner Beach asks how far away the closest DART station is. Staff answers that the closest station is a half-mile away at Spring Valley Station. (So, certainly not a transit-oriented development either. And it’s actually .6 miles, or a 13-minute walk along a road with no sidewalks according to Google Maps.)
Vice-Chair Southard asks if these would all be market-rate apartments. The applicant confirms this is the case.
Commissioner Roberts asks how many units the nearby and newly opened Belt + Main development provides. ACM Goff answers approx. 350 units.
Three speakers are present. The first speaker is a neighboring resident. He has not been contacted by this applicant. He remarks that it’s been 10 years since the Main/Central Expy district was formed. He is concerned about the dumpster being located right across from his house. He is also concerned about the exception to building height codes, which are in place to protect existing residents. He also sees this as decreasing walkability in the area and encourages the commission to stick to the plan. The second speaker is also a neighboring resident. She is concerned about the lack of communication from the applicant. She is also concerned about the loss of McKinney St. and the public parking lot. The third speaker is also a neighboring resident. He represents the Kaufman Brownstones Neighborhood Association. He expresses concerns about what will happen on Kaufman St. He is concerned about encroachment on access and easements in front of their townhome development. He is also concerned about the location of trash collection.
The applicant returns to rebut the concerns expressed by neighbors. He states that trash collection will be within the envelope of the building. They don’t plan on having an external dumpster. He restates that the project isn’t financially feasible with only three stories. ACM Goff states that construction will take place along Kaufman St. to add sidewalks, on-street parking, and drainage improvements. Commissioner Roberts asks for clarification on construction plans for Polk St. ACM Goff answers that Polk will be reconstructed to bury utility lines and add bike lanes. Commissioner Poynter asks if any trees will be saved. ACM Goff answers that they aren’t yet sure if mature trees will be saved.
Chair Marsh asks why the applicant chose this site. The applicant answers that they view the use as appropriate for the area. (And I’m sure I’m not the only one who would agree that it’s the form, not necessarily the use, that is the issue with this request.) Commissioner Purdy asks if this would still be appropriate for the area 25 years from now. The applicant answers that he thinks it would be.
Commissioner Roberts sees the building height exception as problematic. He also reiterates that this would not improve walkability. Commissioner Beach asks if this should be continued to allow the applicant to meet with neighbors. Chair Marsh thinks this is a good project. He thinks this does improve walkability and fits the vision for the area. He mistakenly states that this fits the definition for the area in the comprehensive plan. (No retail and the exception to block lengths, among other reasons, mean that it does not fit the vision as written.) Vice-Chair Southard also supports the request. He thinks this will benefit the businesses to the north. Commissioner Roberts thinks the opposite. He thinks this will negatively affect the neighboring businesses. Commissioner Keller agrees with Chair Marsh. Commissioner Bohnsack thinks this would improve walkability in the area. She supports the request. Commissioner Beach also supports the request. He still encourages the applicant to speak with neighbors.
The CPC recommends approval of the request 6-1 with Commissioner Roberts opposed. This is scheduled for a Jan. 27th Council hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING – LEGACY ARAPAHO
The second hearing of the evening is on ZF 24-34. This is another special development plan request for a 437-unit multifamily development, Legacy Arapaho, at 250 E. Arapaho Rd. This area is identified as Innovation/Industry on the Future Land Use Plan according to the staff report. Multifamily is deemed appropriate as a secondary use. This area is also part of the Collins Arapaho Form-Based Code District, specifically the Station Area Sub-district. The vision for this area does call for new residential uses but also calls for walkability and connectivity. This request includes three and four-story buildings.
The requested exceptions in this request relate to the Collins/Arapaho PD. Rather than providing pedestrian access in the middle of the block, they are requesting to provide pedestrian access east/west along the southern property line. Rather than providing a landscape zone in between the sidewalk and road, they are requesting to keep the existing streetscape to preserve mature trees. They are also requesting an exception to the separation requirement for buildings greater than 250 ft. The final requested exception is to only apply the 75% primary building materials requirement to exterior walls that face public streets.
The staff report indicates that one letter of opposition was received concerning the impact on RISD. Staff provides a background to the request. Staff states that the Future Land Use Plan designates the area as Transit Village, but the staff report says Industry/Innovation. (That’s frustrating.) The existing vacant office building would be demolished and replaced with several multifamily buildings. Staff notes that this development would also have mostly 1-br units.
Commissioner Beach asks where vehicle entrances will be. Staff answers that entrances will be located off of Arapaho and Grove. Commissioner Beach is concerned about the traffic impacts on Grove Rd. considering other recently approved developments.
The applicant steps forward to answer questions. Chair Marsh asks questions to clarify parking ratios and open space areas. Commissioners Poynter and Purdy ask questions related to building longevity. The applicant ensures them that the goal is to develop buildings that will last longer than the existing office building. Chair Marsh asks for elaboration on the mix of unit types. The applicant answers that one building will have townhome-style units. Two buildings will have a mix of studio, 1-br, and 2 and 3-br units. The applicant finds this site appealing as it will establish a founding residential development that should encourage future development that will achieve the vision for the area. Housing options next to employment, a DART station, and walking trails are appealing.
Vice-Chair Southard asks if the proposed pedestrian access will be able to lead to the DART station. ACM Goff answers that pedestrians would have to use Grove Rd. to cross Arapaho and potentially use Woodall Dr. to access the station. ACM Goff states that the city hopes for redevelopment to occur north of Arapaho to improve pedestrian access.
No speakers are present for this hearing.
Chair Marsh supports the request. He states that this fits the vision, which he helped establish, for the area. Commissioner Roberts also supports the request. The CPC unanimously recommends approval of the request. This is scheduled for a Jan. 27th Council hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING – DRONE OPERATIONS NEW USE
The final hearing of the evening is on ZF 24-33. This is a unique item in that it is a city-initiated zoning change request. The city is seeking an amendment to the Collins/Arapaho District to define Drone Operations and Maintenance Center Use and allow this use in the Employment Sub-district, which is the majority of the IQ area. This is considered a zoning change request. The proposed regulation would require these uses to be located at least 300 ft. away from single-family residences. (I wish multifamily properties were also added to this regulation.) The staff report includes one letter in opposition to the request. This letter is from a neighboring property owner and expresses concerns about the general impact that drones would have on neighboring properties and their hours of operation. The regulation states that all maintenance operations would take place inside a building.
Staff presents a background of the request. Staff states that some companies have shown interest in establishing this use within this area, which is why they are asking for an amendment to add the use by right. Staff also states that any flight or noise-related issues are solely regulated by the FAA. Cities only have the ability to regulate land use considerations and ground-based operations. The state regulates any privacy concerns.
Commissioner Roberts asks if any code enforcement items would be added along with approving this new use. ACM Goff answers that anything in violation of the proposed regulations would be treated as a code violation. Commissioner Roberts also asks if they can regulate the size of the drones. ACM Goff answers that that would be regulated by the FAA.
Commissioner Purdy asks if the city will provide any outreach to educate residents about the proposed use. ACM Goff answers that private companies would likely conduct outreach and education. Commissioner Beach asks how a nearby Walmart is able to operate drone delivery without zoning approval. ACM Goff attempts to answer that these would be considered accessory uses to existing uses and might just require a special permit. (No one answers that this Walmart is located in Garland, which we do not regulate as the City of Richardson.)
Commissioner Poynter suggests that new multifamily developments consider where drone deliveries will occur. (Now would certainly seem like the right time to ask where the drones will go.)
Commissioner Roberts asks for more clarification on how drone deliveries from an existing grocery store would be handled. ACM Goff answers that if it took up parking spaces, that probably wouldn’t be allowed. Any additional infrastructure being built at these locations would likely trigger a special permit process. ACM Goff states that drone deliveries could not just start up at a given property without zoning approval.
Chair Marsh is hesitant to allow the use by right. He would rather see a special permit requirement. (So would I.) ACM Goff answers that they didn’t view this as potentially pervasive, thus the recommendation to allow it by right. Chair Marsh uses examples of current uses that require a special permit and states that these uses, though the impacts are better understood than drones, still are deemed as needing more careful regulation. We don’t yet understand the full impact of drones on residents (and wildlife, for that matter), so why would we allow their use by right without understanding the potential impact?
Commissioner Poynter expresses that we should convey that we are open to new technology such as drones and not impede the new use. Chair Marsh notes that requiring a special permit does not prohibit the use. It just gives the city an opportunity to properly regulate the use as much as we can. ACM Goff states that requiring a special permit might cause a company to pursue a location in a city that allows the use by right over a city that requires a special permit. Plano requires a special permit. Chair Marsh also states that allowing this use by right could impact other types of businesses that might seek to open in this area.
Commissioner Roberts states that requiring a special permit is not an undue burden in his eyes.
Two speakers are present for this hearing. The first speaker represents a neighboring data center within the IQ. She expresses concerns about how drone operations will impact the operations of data centers. She agrees that exercising as much regulatory power as possible would be beneficial for Richardson. She wants existing investments to be protected. She is also concerned about accidental collisions and electromagnetic interference. The second speaker is a representative from a drone delivery company. She explains that they would intend to conduct maintenance operations, not testing. She confirms that they would attempt to conduct outreach to the community if they began operating in Richardson. She states that unlisted uses already automatically require a special permit so she’s not sure what defining the use and requiring a special permit for that use would accomplish.
Chair Marsh asks for clarification on what would happen if a company came in and requested the use. ACM Goff answers that it wouldn’t be allowed at all. He clarifies that certain districts allow a special permit to be requested for unlisted uses, but this area is not one of those districts. (So, the second speaker stands corrected.)
Commissioner Purdy advises the first speaker that she should invest in anti-drone munitions to shoot down drones that operate above her property if she is so concerned. (I mean…what? This is a totally inappropriate remark that attempts to belittle the legitimate concerns expressed by this stakeholder.)
Chair Marsh acknowledges that there are billions of dollars of investment in the area currently and he wants to ensure their property rights and operations are protected.
Commissioner Poynter moves to recommend approval of the request. She amends the request to require that the word ‘operations’ be clarified. Commissioner Beach seconds the motion. Chair Marsh asks what the requested clarification on the word would be. ACM Goff states that the clarification could be ‘without direct delivery service’. (This is so confusing now.) Commissioner Poynter states that operating a drone isn’t the same as delivering with a drone. (What are we even talking about.) Commissioner Poynter amends her motion to recommend approval of the request with the additions of maintenance and support of drone operations in the wording. (I have no idea what that means.) This motion doesn’t receive a second. (ACM Goff now has his head in his hands.) Chair Marsh now asks for a vote on the first motion. (I’m still not sure that was a proper motion.) Chaos ensues.
Commissioners Purdy, Beach, and Poynter are the only votes in favor of approving the now completely confused motion. (Mind you, Commissioners Poynter and Purdy are alternates tonight and aren’t supposed to vote on the same items. But where oh where will the drones go?!?) Everyone else is opposed and we now have eight commissioners voting on the item. They count the votes again and exclude Commissioner Purdy’s vote. What. A. Failure.
Chair Marsh suggests that the motion failed because it provided no direction or clarity to staff. Chair Marsh expresses his clear opposition to any motion that approves the use by right. The CPC is now frozen with confusion. ACM Goff attempts to summarize the comments. He states that the questions, based on the discussion, seem to be whether to allow delivery operations and whether to require a special permit. He suggests amending the definition to prohibit any direct delivery of goods. Commissioner Keller asks why that even matters. They could still fly out to deliver from existing stores. He doesn’t understand what that would change. Commissioner Keller states that this request is far too vague. Every commissioner seems to have a different understanding and interpretation of the wording. Commissioner Roberts agrees. Chair Marsh asks ACM Goff why the city is requesting this. ACM Goff answers that one operator is considering establishing this use. Vice-Chair Southard suggests a continuance. Commissioner Roberts suggests requiring a special permit citywide, which has been done with other uses. ACM Goff indicates that they would have to change the zoning for every existing PD.
Chair Marsh asks if any drones operate with something other than a battery. ACM Goff states that this is what the FAA regulates. Commissioner Beach suggests taking operations out altogether and just establishing a maintenance use. (This horse is dead…and beaten.)
Commissioner Roberts moves to recommend approval with the amended condition of requiring a special permit for the use. Commissioner Keller seconds the motion. The CPC passes this motion 4-3 with Commissioners Southard, Roberts, Keller, and Poynter in favor and Commissioners Marsh, Beach, and Bohnsack opposed. This is scheduled for a Jan. 27th Council hearing. Meeting adjourned.