Richardson City Plan Commission Meeting May 7th, 2024
OPENING
All commissioners are present, including both alternates! That makes nine commissioners in attendance so everyone might not vote on every item tonight. The city secretary has clarified that Gwen Walraven is no longer on the commission. Chair Marsh recognizes newly appointed Alternate Rebecca Poynter. He also recognizes the promotion of Gary Beach from alternate to regular commissioner.
Commissioner Beach notes one correction to his comments for the minutes of the previous meeting. He apologizes for bringing it up since it doesn’t amount to a material difference. The minutes up for approval for this meeting will now need to be delayed until the next meeting for approval. The commission unanimously votes to table the minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING - PARK HOLLOW TOWNHOMES
Next is a public hearing for ZF 24-06, a rezoning request for an 89-lot townhome planned development at 545 E. Buckingham Rd. This area is currently zoned office commercial and is currently owned by Sting Soccer Complex and developed as soccer fields. This area neighbors the site that was the subject of ZF 23-09, a request to build a water-efficient car wash. This request was denied by Council last October after pushback from the neighboring residents about traffic and environmental impact.
Staff presents a background of the request. Park Hollow is the name of the proposed development. They are requesting 3-story townhomes with minimum lot sizes of 1,500 sq. ft. and minimum unit sizes of 1,300 sq. ft. Requested regulations that differ from current zoning are smaller lot depth and width and shorter front and side setback minimums. Staff notes that these setback zones for these lots will be from the shared common space or “mews”, not the road/alley. A runoff detention area with some added park amenities is proposed for the undeveloped lot to the north (where that car wash was going to be built). Staff also notes that the “alleys” that look like roads will technically not be considered streets. They will be considered access easements.
Commissioner Purdy asks what a detention pond is. Staff explains it to him. Chair Marsh asks why these “alleys” are going to be considered easements. The distinction seems to matter only for frontage/setback requirements. Chair Marsh asks why the documents do not include building elevations. They typically attach those to any approved development. Staff explains that the developers simply aren’t at that stage of development yet.
The applicant steps to the podium to present their plans and answer questions. This applicant is under contract to purchase the property. They will also purchase the neighboring property to the north for the detention pond area. The applicant states that they will plant a total of 15 new trees (12 shade/3 ornamental) in the detention pond/park area. They will also install two benches and a walking path with lighting.
Vice-Chair Southard is concerned about the lack of similar density developments from this developer. Chair Marsh corrects Vice-Chair Southard’s math with his calculator. The number of units/number of acres is roughly the same as another development this applicant presented as part of their past work. The applicant points out that the detention pond planned area also already serves as a drainage path. They will improve the grade of the site to establish a flatter slope (10%) without ditches or hills. The HOA will maintain this detention pond. Chair Marsh asks if they will build the units. The applicant answers that they will contract with a different builder for the buildings. This applicant is a land developer.
Chair Marsh is concerned about the lack of building elevations in this request. Staff offers that the representative product slides could be added to the ordinance as a design standard. Commissioner Beach asks how big the garages will be. The applicant doesn’t know. He thinks they will fit standard vehicles but probably not modern pickup trucks. Chair Marsh points out that the visitor parking is roughly a football field’s length away from some units. The applicant responds that this is standard. Commissioner Roberts asks which HOA management company will be used. The applicant answers that Neighborhood Management Inc. will be used. Commissioner Beach asks if there are any playgrounds or amenities for families with children. The applicant answers that it is not part of the plans.
Commissioner Keller asks if the detention pond will be irrigated. The applicant answers in the affirmative. Newly appointed Commissioner Poynter asks where drone deliveries would go. The applicant suggests that it might go near the entrance. They haven’t thought about that since there are plenty of other things that matter before deciding where drones can land.
Commissioner Bohnsack asks what amenities will be added to the detention pond/park. The applicant repeats their earlier answer. Chair Marsh asks what the average size of each unit will be. The applicant answers that they will average around 1,600 sq. ft. and they are planning “probably” two-story units. (The packet states they will be allowed a maximum of three stories with a 55 ft. height.) The anticipated price range will be in the $500K range.
No public speakers are present. Chair Marsh wants to add elevations and design standards to the ordinance if they recommend approval. Vice-Chair Southard and Commissioner Costantino agree. Chair Marsh also shares concerns about the safety of the detention pond being located next to a daycare. Staff suggests attaching the representative product and mews product slides to the ordinance if they recommend approval. The CPC struggles to make an intelligible motion. Chair Marsh makes the recommended motion from staff. The CPC recommends approval with the addition of the representative products and mews slides 6-1 with only Vice-Chair Southard opposed.
PUBLIC HEARING - BICYCLE PARKING ORDINANCE
The final item is a public hearing on amending the comprehensive zoning ordinance to include bicycle parking standards. Staff provides a background of this item. This is a step in the process of attaining the Silver Level Bicycle Friendly Community designation. This regulation would apply to any non-residential new construction or building expansions. It will govern bike rack styles and layout/spacing. This new regulation would require one bike parking space for every 20 vehicle parking spaces. Any bike parking provided over the minimum allows for a reduction of vehicle parking up to a maximum of 5%.
Chair Marsh thinks the ordinance requires too much parking. He also critiques a lot of the wording of the ordinance. He asks if the city has data supporting 1 bike space per 20 car spaces. Staff answers that they don’t have that data. They compared other cities’ policies. Commissioner Costantino doesn’t see this requirement as a burden or excessive. Chair Marsh still thinks the requirement is excessive. He thinks it should be 1 bike space per 100 car spaces. Scratch that, he’s already changed his mind. Apparently, it should be 1 bike space for every 200 car spaces now. It sounds like he disagrees with this Council tactic.
One public speaker is present for this hearing. It is Commissioner Matthew Martin of the newly formed Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee. He speaks in favor of the ordinance. He states that creating more accessible bike parking standards will encourage more people to bike. Commissioner Poynter suggests changing the ordinance to require one bike rack per development. Staff answers that that minimum requirement is already included. Commissioner Costantino suggests continuing this item for a redraft. Staff answers that the bike-friendly community designation application is due June 25th. Chair Marsh is against recommending approval. The CPC awkwardly recommends approval 5-2 with Chair Marsh and Commissioner Keller opposed.
Meeting adjourned.