At its November 12 regular meeting, the city council rejected, by a unanimous vote, a plan to add condominiums, restaurant space, and further residential near the existing Home Depot. The vote surprised many in attendance, including the developer, who thought the only issue was from traffic concerns near the proposed restaurant space. The council stated protection of the neighborhood, density, and condominium size in its rejection. The developer expressed shock because the plan commission had approved the plan.

I want to tell part of this narrative like a story so I beg the reader to allow me this indulgence. I received a call, from a neighboring resident, about the proposed development and he expressed that there were concerns about traffic patterns near a proposed development. I was told the plans were afoot to install a Braum’s Ice Cream location bordering Campbell road. (Note the highlighted area in the overhead photograph below.) I was told a compromise had been reached that would limit left turns out of the property and address certain traffic flow concerns. I was told that the neighborhood association board had signed off on the compromise and a blessing was given to the residential part of the development. The City Plan Commission had approved the plan unanimously.

A little history lesson is in order here. Back in the 1980s, plans were presented to build high-rise buildings, a movie theatre, and other assorted large-scale development in the northeast quadrant of vacant land at the corner of Coit and Campbell Roads. This was long before the Lennox building, the Tom Thumb complex and the Home Depot, which currently resides on that site, were built or dreamed of. The land was primarily vacant and if my memory serves some small portion still had agricultural use.

The residents of the J.J. Pearce area rose up in arms when this large development was announced, and they fought the proposed plans. They won. The result of all of the battling was a set of covenants the J.J. Pearce Homeowners Association has with the city which gives them some serious leeway over what might be built there.

One example of that power goes back to the early 1990s. At that time, Richardson Heights Baptist Church (now know as Heights Baptist Church) was proposed moving from its then location at Belt Line and Floyd to the northwest corner of Waterview and Campbell Roads. The proposed building would have violated various zoning standards and would have required variances. That is to say the church plan stepped on the covenants the local association had with the city. Effectively the neighborhood association shut down the possibility of the proposed relocation and now Heights is at Renner and 75.

Why does this example matter in the case we are discussing today? It matters because the J.J. Pearce Homeowners association could have effectively shut out the restaurant development by not allowing “curb cuts” on Campbell Road. In other words, they could have said “no” to any driveways connection the proposed Braum’s directly to Campbell Road, which would have effectively stopped the development. The Braum’s development also required a zoning change for the land use to be moved from office to commercial. In addition to Braums there was a possibility of a Pei Wei location opening on the site.

So as the story goes I and other people thought that the only issue of dispute when this went before the city council might have been the traffic issue. I got several calls and I made a few myself. All the people I talked to mentioned the traffic issues and curb cuts. The other residential portions simply did not come up as a point of conversation.

And lets cut to the brute force end. The city council rejected the plan by a 6 to 0 vote. (John Murphy was not present being away for personal reasons.)

I will not go into the gritty details of the compromise involving the traffic concerns. However, the compromise came about because of meetings that were held between the developer and the homeowners association in which 35 to 70 people were in attendance (depending on who tells the story.) Pretty much anyone I talked to said that meeting produced little opposition and mostly support for the development. In the words of Mark Humpreys of Atticus Real Estate who was the sponsor of the zoning case, “There is a misnomer that a developer’s primary motivation is to get away with something. What we were trying to do here was meet demand.”

According to Humphreys the plan had the blessing of the Homeowners association board, its current president, and two past presidents. He said there was not much opposition when the plan was presented and reaction was favorable to all except a few people. My contacts from the homeowners association who were present at those meetings confirm that version of the story. Now this certainly is not a case of the people telling me this being “pro developer” because I can tell you some of those people have vehemently opposed certain developments near the J.J. Pearce area. Further, that a compromise concerning traffic had to be reached meant to me that the J.J. Pearce HOA was flexing its muscle.

So with all this agreement how did it come to unanimous city council rejection? My telling the story like this is not intended to cast this as a bad thing or a good thing for that matter. It is intended to give the reader a sense of surprise of those present that the council rejected the proposal. My telling also allows me to do something I don’t like to do too often – editorialize. We will get to all that later.

I first asked Mark Humphreys about his reaction to the rejection. His comments were rather stark.

“What I am baffled by, with Richardson, is how the planning department, plan commission, and home owners are on the same page then the city council comes to a 100% denial,” he said. “There was no hint of this at all. This is the first time I have seen something like this.”

He went on. “I’m in shock. Nobody told us the city council had a different thought process.”

He described to me the popularity of the proposal.

“After we met with the J.J. Pearce HOA two people called me to make reservations on the condos,” Humphreys said.

Humphreys has built the lake Park estates townhomes in the same vicinity. (Humphreys & Partners Architects provided the picture below.) He stated has had over 2500 people walk through their doors for the approximately 250 townhomes available and that the visitors are from surrounding zip codes. He says many are empty nesters looking for a different type of home. The townhomes, however, are multi story units and stairs present mobility problems, as people get older. Hence, the need for the condos, many of which are one story with smaller floorplans.

Former Mayor Gary Slagel first raised the concerns that ultimately lead to the rejection during the council meeting.

When I spoke with him he told me, “The Council and I were concerned about the proposed zoning change from commercial to condominiums. I believe our goal was to protect the surrounding neighborhoods, the retail and office developments. Generally, we would prefer the higher density residential developments be built around our transit stations, being a part of our transit oriented development strategy. On this specific request, there were issues with price points, size, density and the possibility of the condominiums becoming rental property. We all like the townhomes that are there now, but didn’t want to see something in a lower price point, smaller size and higher density being built. I would personally prefer another campus development like Lennox, but that may be difficult.”

Here is where I get to editorialize. Now there have been criticisms in the past and even in the present that paint the city council as more than willing to give out permission for any development. Some arguments go so far as to suggest all manner of “tin foil hat” conspiracy and collusion between developers, the Richardson business community and the city council. These criticisms have especially been laid at the feet of veteran council members with Slagel being only one of several. The council’s decision to reject this plan, for exactly the reasons outlined, puts a hard sobering reality on top of conspiracy theories and hopefully will give people a better perspective of what goes on in the minds of city council members and what they think is at stake. There was no blank check for a developer here.

I asked Slagel about the Humphreys surprise especially because of homeowner and plan commission support. He responded, “The plan commission does a technical review. Is the [condo portion of the] plan what we want from the area? From where I sit I don’t think so.”

He pointed out one concern was that of smaller condo units being so close to UTD might turn them into rental units quickly. That might make the condos a defacto higher density apartment complex.

One further thing to mention is that the master plan for the area calls mainly for office uses. The residential townhomes are actually a compromise and deviation from that plan.

Slagel said the traffic issue was there as well but my impression is that it was not the reason the plan came to ultimate rejection.

He said, “The traffic issue that was significant for residents in the area will need to be addressed no matter what development is ultimately approved. City staff will evaluate all full traffic issue in the area and hopefully identify solutions in advance of another zoning application. The residents and businesses in the area will need to be a part of that analysis.”

I allowed Mark Humphreys further opportunity to respond to Gary Slagel’s comments with Mr. Slagel knowing full well I would give him that opportunity.

Humphreys responds, “My thing is to supply something that the community is asking for. If they had this concern, why wasn’t it voiced earlier? We would have had an opportunity to address these concerns ahead of time just as we have addressed many others.”

Humphreys also notes that the units would sell for $180 to $200 per square foot. This is well above the price per square foot for single family homes in the area.

As contentious as this sounds, both sides gave me the impression they want to move forward with something else and told me repeatedly they bear no grudges or bad feelings.

Humphreys put it this way, “I want it understood that I have no ill feelings about any of this. I am just confused.”

Slagel noted that, “Mayor Pro Tem Townsend made the motion to deny the zoning file without prejudice, which will allow the applicant to come back with another plan.” For those of you not versed in the lingo of city planning if the council had rejected the plan “with prejudice” this would have prevented the applicant from returning with a plan for a significant amount of time. The fact that the rejection was explicitly “without prejudice” allows Humphreys to return much sooner if he and his associates desire to do so.

In the coming months we will stay on top of this and see if Mr. Humphreys returns to the table.