Richardson City Plan Commission Meeting June 18th, 2024
Six of the seven regular commissioners are present, Vice-Chair Southard, Commissioner Costantino, Commissioner Roberts, Commissioner Keller, Commissioner Beach, and Commissioner Bohnsack. Both alternates, Byron Purdy and Rebecca Poynter, are also present. That makes eight commissioners present so the alternates will alternate the items each votes on. Chair Marsh is absent so Vice-Chair Southard assumes the duties of running this meeting.
Minutes of the previous meeting are approved unanimously.
The only item on tonight’s agenda is a public hearing for ZF 24-11 (listed incorrectly as ZF 24-08 on the agenda), an amendment request for an existing planned development in Cityline, east of N. Plano Rd. and north of the shopping center. The applicant is requesting an increase in the allowable residential units from 1,925 to 3,100. They are also requesting adjustments to the areas planned for open space.
Vice-Chair Southard notes that the agenda incorrectly labels this as ZF 24-08. This request is actually ZF 24-11. ZF 24-08 was the Waterview Apartments request.
Staff presents a background of the request. Commissioner Beach asks if any letters have been received on this request. Staff answers that one piece of correspondence was received in favor, noted in the agenda packet. He also asks how many stories these buildings would be. Staff answers that they are planned to be five stories.
The applicant steps forward to present their request. He explains that the work-from-home culture changes the dynamics of the Cityline development. More residents would ensure the development’s completion and success. He states that there are currently 40,000 sq. ft. of retail space that has never been occupied in Cityline. Much of the area covered in this request still exists as undeveloped fields. The residential units are needed to support retail uses. He also notes that DART ridership at the Cityline station is 50% of pre-pandemic levels. Additional residential units would also support increased DART ridership.
Vice-Chair Southard asks if they are planning to build more office buildings. The applicant answers that the market currently prevents them from building for office uses. If market trends change, they will build what will be successful. Commissioner Roberts asks if they are considering any additional retail with regional attraction such as the existing Whole Foods-anchored shopping center. (The comprehensive plan update calls this Community Commercial.) They do not currently have plans for additional Community Commercial. Commissioner Beach asks what the probable mix of units will be. The applicant answers that roughly 75% will be 1-br and studio units.
Former Mayor Paul Voelker is present to offer a public comment. He expresses concern over the remaining land being developed as 5-story multifamily. He asks the developer to consider live-work units and multi-story high-rise apartments or condominiums. He also states that the development needs entertainment options. He closes by encouraging landowners to be patient with the office market.
Commissioner Costantino now expresses that he wants to consider future opportunities for the land that may be lost if the request is approved. Commissioner Beach states that this request would keep the development viable in the existing market conditions. Commissioner Bohnsack now offers comments echoing the sentiments of the former mayor. Commissioner Costantino reminds the commission that they are considering a recommendation for the current request. They are not able to restructure the request and ask the developer to build some specific alternative. Commissioner Keller encourages commissioners to consider if the development will even be built if the current market conditions and zoning make the development unviable.
The motion by Commissioner Beach with a second from Commissioner Costantino to recommend approval of the request fails after only receiving three votes in favor. Commissioner Roberts is the third vote in favor. A second motion is made by Commissioner Beach to “recommend approval without prejudice if it fails”. (Spoiler Alert: This is an improper motion.)
This is seconded by Commissioner Bohnsack. Five commissioners raise their hands when asked for votes in favor of the motion (Costantino, Roberts, Beach, Purdy, and Bohnsack). The commission is completely confused now, and Vice-Chair Southard clarifies that this is for the newly made (improper) motion. They vote again. The new vote is now the same result as the first motion made, failing with only three votes in favor. The commission is under the impression that this failed motion means that the request is recommended for denial without prejudice. However, the (improper) motion that states those conditions *just failed*.
* A phone call to the city will hopefully yield answers as to the result of this vote. This item is listed again for the July 2nd CPC meeting.
Meeting adjourned. (Somebody help us.)
* Well, a phone call did provide some answers. Secretary Nemer directed me to Asst. City Manager Charles Goff’s office to explain what the result of this vote was. Charles explained that, since both votes failed, no official action was taken on ZF 24-11. The meeting was adjourned with no action taken on the item. I’m not sure if this is the first time this has ever happened but it’s certainly the first time I’ve ever seen it. The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance requires the CPC to make a recommendation before the item can be heard by Council. In this unique situation, the city treated the item as ‘continued’ until the July 2nd CPC meeting. I expected a simple vote on the item to be the first item of business at the next meeting. I’ll explain more about what occurred in the July 2nd CPC summary. In short, the item was reheard, presented again by the applicant, discussed for an hour and a half, and then the CPC recommended denial without prejudice 5-2 with two of the original voting members changing their votes since this June 18th meeting.
My understanding of the difference between denying with or without prejudice is that denying with prejudice prevents the item from returning for at least one calendar year. Denying without prejudice means the item can be brought back sooner.