Jul 21, 2026 City Planning Commission Meetings

[00:00:22]

BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THERE ARE SEVEN REGULAR MEMBERS AND TWO ALTERNATES ON THE COMMISSION.

ONLY SEVEN MEMBERS WILL VOTE ON AN ISSUE, ALTHOUGH ALL MEMBERS WILL PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSIONS AND DELIBERATIONS. TONIGHT, WE'VE GOT SIX COMMISSIONERS IN ATTENDANCE, SO EVERYBODY IS VOTING. THIS MEETING IS A BUSINESS MEETING AND WILL BE CONDUCTED AS SUCH IN THAT REGARD, AS A COURTESY TO THOSE IN ATTENDANCE, WE REQUEST THAT ALL DEVICES THAT EMIT SOUND BE TURNED OFF OR ADJUSTED SO AS NOT TO INTERRUPT THE MEETING. OUR PROCEEDINGS ARE RECORDED, SO PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD WHEN ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION TONIGHT ON THE AGENDA, WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. EACH PUBLIC HEARING IS PRECEDED BY A STAFF INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST. THE APPLICANT IS THEN PERMITTED 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION. THEY MAY RESERVE ANY PORTION OF THIS TIME FOR A FINAL REBUTTAL.

TIME SPENT ANSWERING QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE COMMISSION IS NOT COUNTED AGAINST THE APPLICANT.

SPEAKERS ARE REQUESTED TO COMPLETE A PUBLIC COMMENT CARD, WHICH YOU FIND AT THE DESK AT THE IN THE LOBBY AND SUBMIT THOSE TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES EACH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. WHEN THE TIMER BEEPS, THE SPEAKER SHOULD CONCLUDE THEIR COMMENTS PROMPTLY. SPEAKERS MUST NOT PHYSICALLY APPROACH MEMBERS OF THE CPC OR STAFF, AND SHOULD REMAIN AT THE LECTERN DURING THEIR COMMENTS. SPEAKERS WITH HANDOUTS MUST PROVIDE THEM TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY FOR DISTRIBUTION. IF THERE ARE ORGANIZED GROUPS IN ATTENDANCE, WE SUGGEST YOU SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO PRESENT YOUR OBJECTIONS. THE COMMISSION IS INTERESTED IN GATHERING NEW AND RELEVANT INFORMATION. WE ARE NOT INTERESTED IN REPETITION. PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, NOT TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE. AFTER A BRIEF REBUTTAL BY THE APPLICANT, THE HEARING WILL BE CLOSED AND NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WILL BE PERMITTED. SO THOSE ARE THE RULES OF OUR MEETING. AND THE FIRST ITEM WOULD JUST BE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA. DO WE

[1. Approval of the minutes of the regular business meeting of July 7, 2026.]

[2. Zoning File 26-14 – 200 S. Cottonwood: Consider and act on a request to rezone approximately 0.32 acres located at 200 S. Cottonwood Drive, on the west side of Cottonwood Drive, south of W. Belt Line Road, from O-M Office District to PD Planned Development District with a base zoning district of O-M Office District with amended uses and development standards. Owner: Almas and Junaid Farooqui, Cottonwood Park Business LLC. Staff: Christine Ross.]

THIS IS ZONING FILE 26-14 FOR 200 SOUTH COTTONWOOD. AND MISS ROSS WILL TAKE US THROUGH THIS.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS CHRISTINE ROSS. I'M A PLANNER.

TWO HERE IN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. THIS IS ZONING FILE 261 FOR A SORRY, A REQUEST FOR A REZONING FROM OMH OFFICE DISTRICT TO PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT WITH THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT OF OM OFFICE LOCATED AT 200 SOUTH COTTONWOOD DRIVE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH COTTONWOOD DRIVE AND SOUTH OF WEST BELTLINE ROAD AND IS CURRENTLY ZONED OMH OFFICE. THE SITE IS SURROUNDED BY OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL USES ON THREE SIDES, AND COTTONWOOD PARK IS LOCATED TO THE EAST. THE PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED IN 1968 WITH A 5353 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING. THERE ARE 11 PARKING SPACES LOCATED ON SITE, WITH FIVE PARKING SPACES LOCATED ON SOUTH COTTONWOOD DRIVE THAT RUN ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE LOT.

THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THE BUILDING IN 2015 AND STATES THAT IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT TO ATTRACT TENANTS. THEY CURRENTLY HAVE ONE TENANT, WHICH IS A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION WITHIN THE OMH OFFICE DISTRICT. THE FOLLOWING USES ARE PERMITTED BY. RIGHT. AND I'VE LISTED THEM HERE ON THE SCREEN. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REZONING FROM OMH OFFICE TO PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT WITH A BASE ZONING OF OMH OFFICE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL OF THE EXISTING OMH OFFICE USES, AND TO ALLOW THREE ADDITIONAL USES TO BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT. THOSE USES ARE A BAKERY, A BARBER, OR A BEAUTY SALON, OR A RETAIL STORE, OR RETAIL ACTIVITIES. AS PART

[00:05:01]

THERE ARE TWO ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITH ASSOCIATED WITH TONIGHT'S REQUEST. THE FIRST IS THAT THE PROPERTY SHALL BE REPLANTED AND WILL INCLUDE HALF OF A SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY PLATTED IN 1962, AND AT SOME POINT THEREAFTER, ALL OF THE LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH COTTONWOOD DRIVE, BETWEEN WEST BELTLINE ROAD AND STAGECOACH DRIVE WERE WERE SUBDIVIDED BY METES AND BOUNDS. AS A RESULT, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY INCORPORATED APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, WHICH CAUSES THE EXISTING BUILDING TO STRADDLE THE PROPERTY LINE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH CURRENTLY SHARE AN ACCESS DRIVE AISLE. HOWEVER, NO SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT WAS WAS EVER DEDICATED.

SO CONSEQUENTLY, IN ORDER TO ACCESS EITHER OF THE PROPERTIES, YOU HAVE TO CROSS ONTO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. SO REPLATTING WILL ADDRESS BOTH THE ISSUE OF THE BUILDING BEING LOCATED OVER THE PROPERTY LINE, AND WILL PROVIDE RELIEF SO THAT HALF OF THE ACCESS EASEMENT IS DEDICATED. IF AND WHEN THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH MAKES SITE IMPROVEMENTS, THEN THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO REPLAT AND CLEAN UP THEIR LOT LINES, BECAUSE THEY WERE ALSO SUBDIVIDED BY METES AND BOUNDS AT SOME POINT, AND THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO DEDICATE THE OTHER HALF OF THE ACCESS EASEMENT. AND THE SECOND DEVELOPMENT STANDARD IS THAT THE FIVE ON STREET PARKING SPACES LOCATED ON SOUTH COTTONWOOD DRIVE, FOR THE WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY, MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE ON SITE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. AND AGAIN, THIS IS TO PROVIDE FOR FLEXIBILITY. HERE'S A PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN. SO I'VE OUTLINED THE BUILDING IN PINK AND IT'S SHADED IN GRAY. AND THE PURPLE AREA IS THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE HALF OF THE SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT. SO THE SITE IS ACCESSED FROM THAT SHARED DRIVE APPROACH AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OFF OF SOUTH COTTONWOOD DRIVE. AND THEY ALSO HAVE ACCESS FROM AN ALLEY TO THE WEST. AND THEN ALSO ON THIS GRAPHIC HERE, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE STRADDLES THE BUILDING RIGHT HERE. HERE ARE SOME SITE PHOTOS. THE TOP PHOTO IS THE EAST ELEVATION TAKEN FROM SOUTH COTTONWOOD DRIVE. AND THE BOTTOM PHOTO IS THE SOUTH ELEVATION FROM THE PARKING LOT. AND HERE ARE THE NORTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS FROM THE PARKING LOT IN THE ALLEY.

ENVISION RICHARDSON DESIGNATES THIS AREA AS PART OF THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL PLACE TYPE, WHICH ALLOWS FOR RETAIL, RESTAURANT, OFFICE AND ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AS PRIMARY USES. THIS REQUEST ALIGNS WITH SEVERAL PRIMARY USES, MOSTLY THE OFFICE USE AND THE RETAIL AND RESTAURANT USES, SO THEREFORE THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT. THIS WAS A PUBLIC HEARING AND STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS. AND SHOULD THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST TONIGHT, THE MOTION SHOULD INCLUDE THE CONDITION THAT THE SITE MUST BE DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PD STANDARDS AND IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN. THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE TONIGHT AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS, GOOD EVENING. YOU MENTIONED THAT THE PROPERTY LINE WAS GOING THROUGH THE BUILDINGS. YOU SHOWED US A GRAPHIC OF THAT BY METES AND BOUNDS. THAT TO ME SAYS TYPICALLY, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY A AFTER THE FACT SURVEY OR SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE. DO YOU KNOW HOW IT WAS THAT WHAT TRANSPIRED OR. YES. CORRECT. YEAH. I BELIEVE THE SURVEY WAS DONE AROUND 2015 WHEN WHEN THE APPLICANTS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND THEY PURCHASED THIS AS IS. SO ALL THE BUILDINGS THERE WERE CONSTRUCTED, BUT NOT ON THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINES, NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINES. WE BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINES THAT WERE ORIGINALLY PLATTED IN 1962, AND THEN SOMETIME THROUGHOUT HISTORY, THEY ALL THE LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE WERE SUBDIVIDED BY METES AND BOUNDS. BUT YEAH, ALL THE BUILDINGS WERE CONSTRUCTED IN THE LATE 60S, EARLY 70S. SO THE PROPERTIES WERE MOST LIKELY SUBDIVIDED AFTER THAT. ACTUALLY, IF I COULD ADD MAYBE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION WITH SOME OF OUR RESEARCH, IT APPEARS THE WEST SIDE OF COTTONWOOD MAY HAVE

[00:10:02]

AND I HAVE SOME RECALL THAT THAT'S WHAT THAT BUILDING WAS. DO YOU KNOW THAT FROM DOING THE RESEARCH? YEAH. I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHO THE TENANTS WERE PREVIOUSLY. I DO KNOW THERE IS A DALLAS. NO, IT'S ACTUALLY NEXT DOOR. I JUST SENT A NOTE TO SOMEBODY. SO. OKAY, SO MAYBE THE BUILDING TO THE NORTH USED TO BE THE COUNTY BUILDING. I CAN DOUBLE CHECK, BUT YEAH, SO SOME WERE MEDICAL, BUT ONE WAS THERE BEFORE I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE THAT ONE BECAUSE IT LOOKED A LITTLE OLDER. OKAY. VICE CHAIRMAN THOMASON I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN SEE IT IN THE PICTURES, BUT THIS LOT. I THINK IT'S THE I GUESS IT WOULD BE TO THE NORTH, THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. YOU CAN'T REALLY ACCESS IT REAL WELL, BUT THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF PARKING. YEAH.

AND SO I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS IN A PARKING CONTEXT. THAT'S THE MAIN GIST OF THIS, THAT THEY'RE UNDER PARKED. AND SO IS THERE A VIEW. AN ELEVATION VIEW. IS THAT. YEAH. SO THE NORTH ELEVATION, I DID TAKE THAT PHOTO FROM THE DALLAS COUNTY COURTHOUSE PARKING LOT. SO AND YOU ARE CORRECT, THOSE SPOTS THERE ARE NOT PART OF THE COUNT, RIGHT. BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT PROPERTY. YES. BUT THEY'RE ALL LIKE RIGHT NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY. YES. AND SO THEY'RE NOT EVEN INCLUDED IN THE EASEMENT DISCUSSION BECAUSE THAT'S THE SOUTH SIDE, RIGHT? YES. THAT'S CORRECT. SO THE WAY I WAS JUST TRYING TO RATIONALIZE, HEY, THIS IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER ONE OF OUR FUN PARKING DISCUSSIONS. THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF PARKING. IT'S JUST NOT DEEDED TO THIS PARTICULAR PLAT. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. AND THE, THE APPLICANT IS, IS WELCOME TO AND THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEEK A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT WITH A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD THEY DESIRE TO HAVE MORE PARKING. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, FILE AN EXECUTED AGREEMENT IN OUR RECORDS AND KIND OF LET THEM HANDLE THAT BETWEEN PROPERTY OWNERS. RIGHT. OKAY. THANKS. COMMISSIONER. POINTER. DO YOU KNOW, WOULD IT BE DIVIDED INSIDE OR HOW WOULD IT WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF WHERE A STORE WOULD BE OR WHERE A BARBERSHOP WOULD BE? YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANTS. YES. OKAY. I HAD A QUESTION MORE ON THE USES. AND OBVIOUSLY IT'S PART OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO HAVE RETAIL AND ENTERTAINMENT AS A PRIMARY USE IN THIS DISTRICT. SO. IT DOES. THE REQUEST SEEMS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE

[00:15:09]

ON THE LEFT. AND SO B IS IN THE MIDDLE AND C YES. MORE TO THE RIGHT. YES. OKAY. AND SO IT BECOMES B AND C ARE THE ADDITIONAL PIECES A, B AND C? YES. YES. CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY.

DID YOU AND AND WHAT'S THE STATUS. DO YOU HAVE A BAKERY IN MIND OR IS THIS JUST YOU'RE HOPING THAT BY CHANGING THE ZONING YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO ATTRACT A BAKERY? WELL, IT COULD BE BOTH. WE WERE WANTING TO GET A TENANT THERE FOR A BAKERY. THAT WOULD BE IDEAL.

AND. OR IT COULD BE. I WOULD, I WOULD SAY IDEAL FOR A TENANT. YES. OKAY. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE ANYBODY THAT'S READY TO SIGN A LEASE RIGHT NOW. THAT'S A BAKER. WELL, IMMEDIATELY. NO, NOT.

OKAY. AND HOW ABOUT THE BARBERSHOP? DO YOU HAVE A. YES? YES. YOU DO HAVE A PROSPECT FOR THAT. YES, YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER RETAIL USES THAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THAT MIGHT BE GOING IN THERE? YES. OTHER RETAIL THAT COULD BE I, IT COULD BE ANY I WOULD SAY MAYBE A SMALL STORE FOR LIKE CLOTHING FOR RETAIL, SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF A THRIFT STORE, IF YOU WILL. SO HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN VACANT? THOSE UNITS, I WANT TO SAY MAYBE, MAYBE, MAYBE A YEAR, MAYBE LESS, ALMOST A YEAR, MAYBE LESS THAN THAT. AND YOU HAD OFFICE USES BEFORE PREVIOUSLY. YES, YES. OKAY. AND IT'S ANYTHING ELSE RELATED TO A BAKERY THAT COMES TO MIND FROM MY SON. SO I JUST FEW QUESTIONS. PROBABLY HE DOES NOT KNOW. SO IF YOU, IF YOU JUST WANT TO STEP UP THE MIC AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF. ALSO, MY NAME IS JEANETTE FAROOQUI. I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. OKAY. YES, SIR. AND WHAT WAS YOUR COMMENT? SO THE COMMENT WAS LIKE THAT. WE HAVE ALL THE TIME INQUIRIES REGARDING RETAIL, COFFEE SHOP OR, YOU KNOW, BARBER SHOP OR BEAUTY SALON, YOGA CENTER, EXERCISE PLACE. BUT DUE TO THE RESTRICTION, WE COULD NOT EVEN RENT THESE SPACE. AND WE HAVE THIS PROPERTY FOR VACANT FOR A LONG, LONG TIME. I MEAN, WE ARE STRUGGLING WITH THIS THING AND THE TAXES KEEP GOING HIGH AND EVERYTHING AND WE CANNOT EVEN AFFORD TO RENT IT. WE HAVE ONLY ONE CHURCH UP THERE FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS.

SO IT WILL BE HIGHLY, HIGHLY APPRECIATED FOR YOU GUYS IF YOU CONSIDER THIS THING. OKAY.

[00:20:06]

I THINKING OF OVENS AND YOU KNOW, COOKING. YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT'S DIFFERENT. DO WE RUN INTO ANY SPECIAL USE CASES WITH THE BAKERY THAT'S MAYBE DIFFERENT THAN OTHER RETAIL USES THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER. IN TERMS OF BAKERY VERSUS RETAIL. I GUESS WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY EVALUATE IT FROM THAT STANDPOINT. WE VIEWED BOTH USES AS POTENTIALLY APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATION. WE DID HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT REGARDING RESTAURANT. WE HAD SOME CONCERNS REGARDING RESTAURANT JUST BECAUSE OF THE FACT WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PARK THE RESTAURANT, BUT ALSO THE POTENTIAL INTENSITY OF THE USE. I KNOW THE APPLICANT HAD SPOKEN TO MAYBE LIKE A POSSIBLE COFFEE SHOP, BUT WE DON'T DISTINGUISH A COFFEE SHOP SEPARATELY. FROM OTHER RESTAURANTS. IT'S ALL GROUPED TOGETHER AS RESTAURANT. I THINK ONE OF THE ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THE PROPERTIES ALONG THE AREA IS THEY'RE VERY MUCH SO OFFICE IN NATURE GIVEN HOW THEY WERE CONSTRUCTED.

RIGHT? SO WE WORKED WIHE APPLICANT IN TERMS OF WHAT BASE ZONING DISTRICT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE. YOU KNOW, WE EVALUATED WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD HAVE A RETAIL BASED ZONING DISTRICT IN THE PD. BUT WE WERE CONCERNED THAT GIVEN HOW THE AREA IS DEVELOPED, SOME OF THE OTHER OFFICE PRESENCE PRESENCE THAT WAS THERE, WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO RETAIN THE OFFICE BASED ZONING AND THEN WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON SOME OF THE USES THAT THEY HAD EXPRESSED INTEREST IN BASED UPON PAST INQUIRIES. SO HENCE THE RETAIL USES THE BAKERY, THE I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T HAVE THEM IN FRONT OF ME. THE BARBER, THE BARBER BEAUTY SALON. I KNOW THEY PREVIOUSLY HAD A TENANT IN THERE THAT WAS A BARBER. WE WORKED WITH THEM TO THE BARBER HAD TO CEASE OPERATIONS BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE THE PROPER OR THE APPROPRIATE ZONING. AND SO HENCE WHY THEY WERE SEEKING TO HAVE THE THE BARBER SHOP USE THERE. SO WE FELT LIKE THOSE ADDITIONAL REQUESTED USES COULD POTENTIALLY WORK WITH THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY, THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY CONSTRAINTS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PARKING NEARBY.

AND THEN ALSO GIVEN THE FACT THAT THIS ALSO KIND OF LEADS INTO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD FURTHER TO THE SOUTH. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE? WE I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS THE WHOLE BELT, WHICH HAS ABOUT 6 OR 7 BUILDINGS OVER THERE, AND 90% OF THEM ARE VACANT BECAUSE OF THE SAME PROBLEM OF ZONING ISSUE. IT USED TO BE HEAVILY DOCTORS AND DENTISTS WHEN I PURCHASED IT. I HAVE LIKE A TWO DENTISTS AND ONE DOCTOR UP THERE. AND THEN SLOWLY, SLOWLY, THEY ALL PRETTY MUCH PHASED OUT. AND NO DOCTOR OR NO, I STILL HAVE RIGHT NOW ONE BUILDING WHICH IS BASICALLY FULLY EQUIPPED TO TO RENT A DENTIST. FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS WE'VE BEEN TRYING, WE COULD NOT RENT IT. SO NO DENTIST OR DOCTOR OR THAT TYPE OF OFFICE STAFF WANTED TO COME INTO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE'S A LOT OF INQUIRY FOR THE RETAIL JUICE BAR. YOU KNOW, LIKE SMALL RETAIL CENTER AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS ALL THE TIME COMES, BUT WE CANNOT RENT IT TO THEM. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO COME FORWARD TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST. AND I ASSUME WE HAVE NO SPEAKER CARDS. OKAY. SEEING THAT THERE'S NO SPEAKERS, THEN I'D MAKE A MOTION. WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SECOND MOTION, MOTION A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BEACH. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ANY DISCUSSION? DELIBERATION AMONGST THE COMMISSION. MISTER VICE CHAIRMAN. MY EXPERIENCE HERE IS COTTONWOOD RELATED BECAUSE THAT'S WHENEVER I'M THERE. AND IT'S ALWAYS A CHALLENGE, AND I'VE ALWAYS. KNOWN IT TO BE AN AREA THAT HAD MEDICAL, DENTAL. THAT'S HOW MY BRAIN IS CONDITIONED TO THINK ABOUT THAT AREA. I'M A LIFELONG RICHARDSON PERSON. I DROVE OVER THERE TODAY AND SORT OF SAW THE THE VACANCY, AND I THOUGHT TO MYSELF, WHAT COULD WE DO SHORT OF, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING DRASTIC OF, YOU KNOW, BULLDOZING EVERYTHING AND BUILDING SOMETHING NEW. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY A HUGE DOLLAR AMOUNT. SO IN THIS CASE, WHENEVER I WAS SORT OF LOOKING AT THIS REQUEST, IT DID NOT SEEM LIKE IT WAS IT WAS ALMOST LIKE CURING A HARDSHIP

[00:25:04]

SO THAT'S HOW I'M THINKING ABOUT IT. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS, I WOULD SECOND WHAT JEREMY VICE CHAIR HAS JUST SAID. I'M PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA, BUT ALL OF THE USES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED UNDER THE PD ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO I'D ALSO BE IN FAVOR OF IT. COMMISSIONER POINTER. OF COURSE I DROVE OVER THERE, HAVE THE SAME RECOLLECTION. I DID SEE ONE PERSON IN A MEDICAL UNIFORM, SO THERE MUST BE SOMETHING MEDICAL STILL LEFT. BUT WHEN THIS IS ONLY FOR THIS ONE BUILDING, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT, CORRECT.

BUT WHAT HE IDENTIFIES IS I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY SIX BUILDINGS. SO. SO OUT OF CURIOSITY, HOW HOW DO YOU HOW WOULD WE THINK LARGER ABOUT THOSE OTHER SIX BUILDINGS AND ARE. YEAH. TINA. GO AHEAD. SO THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, I THINK. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE COULD TAKE A LOOK AT IS WHAT IS THE THE LONGER TERM PLAN FOR THE AREA? OBVIOUSLY, WE START WITH THE COMP PLAN IN TERMS OF THE USES THAT ARE SUPPORTED THERE. I THINK THE CHALLENGES THE THE BUILDINGS WERE ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED PREDOMINANTLY AS OFFICE BUILDINGS, AND THEY HAD LIMITED PARKING PROVIDED ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. IF WE ARE TO ALLOW OTHER USES TO OCCUPY THOSE BUILDINGS FOR FROM AN ADAPTIVE REUSE STANDPOINT, THEN WE WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE TO GRANT SOME RELIEF TO OUR CURRENT SUBURBAN TYPICAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT THAT WE STRUGGLE THROUGH SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, THERE MIGHT BE OPPORTUNITIES TO, YOU KNOW, ENTER INTO SOME SHARED PARKING AGREEMENTS WITH THE NEIGHBORING RETAIL CENTER THAT IS TO THE WEST. BUT FROM WHAT I RECALL, WHERE THESE OFFICE BUILDINGS ARE MORE ADJACENT TO THAT, IT'S MORE OF A SERVICE AREA BACK THERE. SO IT'S, YOU HAVE TO HAVE USES THAT ARE WANTING TO BE ABLE TO GO WITHIN THAT CONTEXT AND, AND TO MAKE IT WORK FOR THEMSELVES AND HOW IT COEXISTS WITH THE SERVICE AREA THERE, YOU KNOW, LONGER TERM STRATEGY PLAY MIGHT BE LIKE COMPLETE REDEVELOPMENT IF IT WAS INVOLVING THE SHOPPING CENTER AND THEY CAME IN AND ACQUIRED THOSE PROPERTIES THAT FRONT ON COTTONWOOD. BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT REQUIRES PROPERTY ASSEMBLAGE AND YOU'RE DEALING WITH, YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, ABOUT SIX, SIX BUILDINGS AND YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE SIX WILLING PROPERTY OWNERS IF IT WAS TO GO INTO A REDEVELOPMENT SITUATION WITH THE ADJOINING PROPERTY. I THINK JUST THOSE SIX BUILDINGS, THE LIKELIHOOD OF THEM BEING COMPLETELY REDEVELOPED WOULD HAVE TO BE GIVEN THEM, GIVEN THEIR SHALLOW DEPTH, THEN IT'S PROBABLY A AN ANALYSIS OF WHAT OTHER USES MIGHT POTENTIALLY WORK HERE.

ONE THAT COMES TO MIND IS, YOU KNOW, DOES IT GET REDEVELOPED AS AS TOWNHOME USES OR SOME SORT OF RESIDENTIAL GIVEN GIVEN THEIR SIZE? BUT WE WOULD REALLY HAVE TO DO A MUCH MORE IN DEPTH ANALYSIS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT JUST TO KIND OF SEE WHAT MIGHT THE MARKET SUPPORT AND COULD POTENTIALLY BE DEVELOPED THERE. AND, AND I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOU RIGHT NOW ON WHAT THAT POTENTIALLY COULD BE FOR A LONGER TERM SOLUTION. OKAY. I WANTED TO BRING THAT UP BECAUSE WHEN WE MAKE THIS DECISION, THAT'S GOING TO OPEN UP FOR THE OTHER REMAINING BUILDINGS THAT THAT YOU. ET CETERA. SO YES, I DROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YES, THE USE HAS CHANGED. YES. THERE'S A TENANT REQUESTING, BUT THAT'S THE ONE PIECE THAT WE HAVEN'T SAID. IF WE. THIS IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THOSE BUILDINGS. AND THAT'S GOING TO.

YOU KNOW, I WAS I WAS THINKING WE DID. THE CITY RECENTLY APPROVED. WHAT A GREAT DOG, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, WITH WITH SOME, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE, THAT WAS A TENANT THAT SPECIFICALLY SOUGHT OUT THAT PROPERTY AND IDENTIFIED THAT IT WOULD THAT IT WORKED WELL FOR THAT FOR THEIR PARTICULAR USE, THERE COULD BE OTHER TENANTS THAT COULD SEEK THESE BUILDINGS OUT, ESPECIALLY IF THEY WERE MAYBE LOOKING TO TAKE THE WHOLE BUILDING VERSUS SOME SORT OF JOINT TENANCY. BUT I THINK THE THE ABILITY FOR SOMEBODY TO COME IN AND ACQUIRE ALL THOSE PROPERTIES AND REDEVELOP THOSE, ESPECIALLY NOW THAT WE HAVE, WHAT A GREAT DOG KIND OF RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE, YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE THE VIABILITY WOULD BE ON THIS. YOU KNOW, WE KEPT THE OFFICE SPACE ZONING DISTRICT, TRIED TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO, TO SEE IF WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET SOME ADDITIONAL USES IN THERE THAT MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT PROPERTY. IF THE MARKET IS TRULY STEERING THEMSELVES IN THAT DIRECTION OR STEERING ITSELF IN THAT DIRECTION. BUT OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE IT'S A CHALLENGING SITUATION GIVEN JUST HOW THAT AREA HAS DEVELOPED AND WHAT WE'RE

[00:30:02]

OKAY, I REMEMBER THAT. YEAH. YEAH. I THINK THERE ARE TWO BUILDINGS TO THE SOUTH, MAYBE 3 OR 4 BUILDINGS TO THE SOUTH. COMMISSIONER BEACH. OKAY. NUMBER ONE, I BELIEVE THE OWNER HAD A COMMENT RELATED TO THIS, AND I'D LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, GIVE HIM AN OPPORTUNITY TO STEP FORWARD IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT WITH THE COMMISSION. AND THEN NUMBER TWO, BASED ON OUR RECENT HISTORY, DON'T YOU THINK WE OUGHT TO TEAR IT ALL DOWN AND MAKE IT A LOGISTICS CENTER? THAT WAS SARCASM. THANK YOU. YOU HAD A COMMENT? YES. THIS IS A TYPE OF AREA OVER THERE WHICH IS SO UNIQUE TO RICHARDSON. IF YOU LOOK AT NOWHERE ELSE, YOU CAN FIND A BEAUTIFUL VIEW LIKE, YOU KNOW, WATER AND A PARK IN SUCH A WAY. THE ROUND, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL HISTORIC AREA AND IT'S A SHAME THAT BASICALLY IT'S GOING DOWN AND IT'S REALLY, REALLY GOING DOWN BADLY, WHICH CAN HAS TURNED INTO VERY BEAUTIFUL PLACE. MY VISION, HONESTLY, THERE WAS A POINT LIKE MY BROTHER, MY COUSIN, WE OWNED THOSE 3 OR 4 BUILDINGS TOGETHER AND I WAS TRYING TO CONVINCE THEM, IF WE JUST CAN KNOCK DOWN THEM AND MAKE A NICE NEW TYPE OF AREA WITH SOME RESTAURANTS AND MAYBE SOME RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON TOP WOULD BE MAKES IT BEAUTIFUL AREA. IT WILL IMPROVE NOT ONLY THE CITY OF RICHARDSON, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE VIEW AND THE BASICALLY THE BUSINESS UP THERE WOULD BE AWESOME. IT CAN. IT'S A VERY CENTRAL POINT OF THE INTERSECTION OF COIT AND BELT LINE ROAD. SO THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC AND A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, THINGS CAN DEVELOP THERE, MAKE IT BEAUTIFUL, WHICH IS ULTIMATELY WE BRING MORE MONEY AND MORE TAX TO THE, YOU KNOW, THE CITY TOO. BUT WHEN WE APPLIED, I ASKED IF WE CAN APPLY FOR LIKE A COUPLE MORE BUILDINGS TO IN THERE, WHICH IS ONE OF MY COUSINS BUILDING NEXT TO ME. HE ALSO STRUGGLING BECAUSE HE HAS ONLY ONE DENTIST IN THIS WHOLE BUILDING, ONE DENTIST FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS AND NOBODY ELSE. SO HE'S ALSO VERY, VERY HE'S VERY, VERY FRUSTRATED. SO I WAS THINKING, IF WE CAN GET LIKE A FOR TWO BUILDING, BUT. STAFF ADVISED ME THAT WE CANNOT DO THAT. WE ONLY CAN APPLY FOR ONE. BUT IF WE HAVE THIS LIKE A ZONING LENIENCY, LIKE FOR THE ALL THE WAY THROUGH, THEN IT CAN REALLY PROJECT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND PEOPLE WILL SPEND THE MONEY TO MAKE THE PROPERTY LOOK BETTER BECAUSE THEY'RE MAKING MONEY.

SO I WOULD HIGHLY APPRECIATE IF YOU GUYS CONSIDER ON THOSE TERMS ANOTHER THING, PARKING IS REALLY NOT AN ISSUE. THERE ARE TONS OF PARKING THERE BEHIND AND AND ALL THE BUSINESSES BUSINESS SHARED THE PARKING TOGETHER. WE'VE BEEN SHARING FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS IN THOSE PLACES, NEVER HAVE A COMPLAINT OR PROBLEM. AND ONCE IN A WHILE WHEN YOU GUYS HAVE THAT, YOU'RE FAIR. YOU KNOW THAT HOW BIG THAT, YOU KNOW, TWICE A YEAR THAT WHEN WE HAVE THE COTTONWOOD PARK FAIR UP THERE, THAT THE THOUSANDS OF CARS COME THOUSANDS AND THEY NEVER HAVE A PROBLEM IN PARKING. SO PARKING, I THINK, IS YOUR STANDARD FOR THE PARKING. MAYBE PRETTY OLD.

IT NEED TO BE UPDATED AND CHANGED. THAT'S ALL. I JUST WANT TO REQUEST IT. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. IF IF CITY IS WILLING TO DO THIS THING, I CAN TALK TO THE OTHER OWNERS AND WE CAN WORK IT OUT. SOMETHING TO PUT SOME NEW BUILDING UP THERE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER ROBERTS. SO I HAD A QUESTION ALONG THE SAME LINES. I GUESS ANY KIND OF ZONING CHANGE WOULD HAVE TO BE INITIATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER. TYPICALLY, YES. THE CITY CAN INITIATE ZONING ON PROPERTY, BUT WE TYPICALLY DEFER TO THE APPLICANT FIRST OR THE PROPERTY OWNERS FIRST. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CLARK. WELL, I THINK THAT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, I THINK THAT WAS THE OLD TAX OFFICE. ACCORDING TO THE NOTIFICATION MAP HERE, THE COUNTY STILL OWNS THAT PROPERTY. ANY IDEA WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH IT? NO. AT THIS TIME I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS ARE. SO I MEAN, THAT'S WHERE ALL THE PARKING IS TOO. I MEAN NORTH NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY. SO JUST I WAS JUST CURIOUS. ALL RIGHT. WELL, I, YOU KNOW, I AGREE THAT WITH THE VICE CHAIRMAN, WE GOT TO DO SOMETHING TO HELP THE AREA. AND, YOU KNOW, EXPANDING THE USES IS AN EASY GIVE, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT MATCHES THE COMP PLAN, THE PARKING. WE'RE GIVING SOME RELIEF, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF ONE PER 250FT■!S, IT'S ONE PER 450FT■S. CERTAINLY HAVE A LOT MORE PARKING THERE THAN WE DID FOR OUR LAST CASE ON INTERURBAN

[00:35:06]

YOU KNOW, WE REALLY NEED TO TREAT PEOPLE FAIRLY. AND SO ANYTIME I THINK WE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ONE SMALL PROPERTY, BUT THEN YOU COULD HAVE OTHERS THAT SAY, OH, I, YOU GRANTED THEM RELIEF ON PARKING TO ONE PER 450. THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO GET THAT NOW TOO. RIGHT. SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU ALWAYS GOT TO BE A LITTLE CAREFUL ON THE PRECEDENTS YOU'RE SORT OF SETTING WHENEVER YOU MAKE THESE DECISIONS, EVEN ON SMALL CASES. SO. COMMISSIONER POINTER SO I'M GOING TO GO BACK. OF COURSE I'M NOT AGAINST THIS USE, BUT I HEARD A DIFFERENT COMMENT FROM THE THE APPLICANT THIS TIME. HIS FIRST COMMENT WAS KIND OF FROM THE POINT OF VIEW, AS SOMEONE WHO NEEDS TO MAKE MONEY ON HIS INVESTMENT, HIS COMMENT JUST THEN WAS A LITTLE BIT LARGER. SO IS THERE ANY OTHER WAY, TINA QUESTION TO HAVE A LARGER CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR NOT TONIGHT, BUT IS THERE A WAY TO HAVE THAT? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HAVING A LARGER CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE OTHER PROPERTY? YES. OWNERSHIP IN AN AT ALL SITUATION. YEAH. YEAH. I MEAN, WE'RE HAPPY TO SIT DOWN WITH THE APPLICANT. IF THEY HAVE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS CONTACT INFORMATION AND WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH US. I MEAN, WE'RE ALWAYS HAPPY TO MEET WITH FOLKS. WE WE DO THAT DAY IN AND DAY OUT. SO. YOU KNOW, WE CAN DISCUSS KIND OF WHAT THEY HAVE IN MIND AND WHAT THEIR LONGER TERM VISION AND OPPORTUNITIES THEY SEE WITH THE PROPERTY. AND WE'LL BALANCE THAT WITH WHAT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAYS.

BUT YEAH, WE'RE HAPPY TO VISIT WITH ANYONE. OKAY. DID THAT HAPPEN IN THIS CASE, OR JUST WAS IT A SOLE, AS YOU'VE ALREADY SAID, HE INDICATED SOLE REQUEST. THE APPLICANT DID.

YEAH, THIS WAS THIS WAS THEIR REQUEST. AND REGARDING ONE PROPERTY VERSUS TWO, I WAS JUST TALKING WITH CHRISTINE AND SHE HAD SHARED WITH ME, I BELIEVE AT THE TIME, IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY DID NOT OWN THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. SO HENCE WHY WE JUST DIRECTED THEM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CURRENT PROPERTY THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED THIS EVENING. OKAY, I UNDERSTAND, I WOULD JUST SAY IF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS INTERESTED IN ASSEMBLING THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS FOR AN OVERVIEW CONVERSATION, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

NO OTHER COMMENTS. SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. COMMISSIONER ROBERTS, I MAKE A MOTION THAT. FOR ZONING FILE 2614 THAT WE APPROVE THE PD AS WRITTEN. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT'S UNANIMOUS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. GOOD LUCK ON YOUR PROJECT. ALL RIGHT. THAT BRINGS

[3. Staff report on pending development, zoning permits, and planning matters.]

[00:40:06]

AND SO WE'RE SUPER EXCITED THAT SHE WILL SOON BE HAVING ACP AFTER HER NAME. SO JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU ALL. AND THAT COMPLETES MY REPORT. SO THANK YOU. YOU SAID THAT YOU SAID THAT'S AUGUST, THURSDAY, AUGUST 6TH. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. SAME TIME, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THERE'S TWO TIMES PER YEAR WHEN OUR CALENDAR IS ADJUSTED TO THURSDAY NIGHT MEETING. THE ONE IS THE FIRST WEEK IN AUGUST. SO AND I BELIEVE IT'S DUE TO BUDGET RETREAT. BUT DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT. SO I THINK THERE'S A CONFLICT WITH THIS ROOM IS IS WHY THAT MEETING, WHY YOUR MEETING GETS MOVED TO THURSDAY NIGHT. AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS THE FIRST WEEK IN OCTOBER. I BELIEVE YOU'RE MEETING WOULD NORMALLY CONFLICT WITH THE NATIONAL NIGHT OUT. AND SO YOUR MEETING IS ON THURSDAY FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. SO BUT I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW IT IS KIND OF A UNIQUE SITUATION. IT'S A THURSDAY NIGHT. SO BUT WE DO HAVE THAT ONE ZONING CASE SCHEDULED. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT THEN. WE'RE ADJOURNED AT

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.