Source: ZF 26-08 (enhanced by ChatGPT).
On June 8, 2026, the Richardson City Council approved a special development plan and special permits for the motor vehicle body shop and motor vehicle storage lot in the Interurban District, including all City Plan Commission conditions such as fence screening so vehicles are not visible from public view and completion of required improvements within 180 days of the ordinance's effective date. The vote was unanimous.
I probably should have foreseen this disappointment. In 2013 Richardson published its "Main Street/Central Expressway Study", which contained this vision: "The Interurban District could become a vibrant, mixed-use district that builds upon the existing block structure and buildings in the area." But each time since, when the City Council has to choose, it chooses in favor of automotive businesses and against the City's own "Envision Richardson" Plan. Every time council does this, it reduces the probability of mixed-use redevelopment because it extends the economic life of the existing automotive ecosystem. It's time to stop, but I'd accept a defined timetable for transitioning away from the overconcentration of automotive uses we have today. Absent such a timetable, every new special permit becomes another vote to postpone the vision rather than implement it.
Let's examine the thinking of each council member. Most of their arguments are repetitive and overlap. That's what happens when you have a 7-0 vote. I could organize this post by argument: the Small-Business Argument, the "Edgy Mixed Use" Argument, the Temporary-Permit Argument, the Future-Redevelopment Argument, and the Market-Signal Argument. But I want to give each council member the floor at least once.
Council member Curtis Dorian: "I understand that someone has given back to our community for 14 years, and I understand what it takes running a small business to make payroll and to have to relocate and set up shop again, so I totally understand that, and I have complete respect for it, and that's one of the things I do support. Do I support this being long term? Not really. I really want the vision to come to fruition, depending on the market."
In other words, Dorian says he supports the vision, but he is unwilling to deny special permits for automotive uses. He doesn't set conditions on what he'll need to see in order to deny the next request. He doesn't communicate what strategy he wants the City to follow to achieve those conditions.
Council member Jennifer Justice: "I don't think the argument that automotive uses are entirely inconsistent for this district, that argument doesn't carry water with me... I can appreciate for sure that we don't want an entire district of automotive uses."
Justice turns the argument on its head. The fact that automotive uses are not prohibited does not mean they should be routinely approved. Saying that's OK as long as we don't have "an entire district of automotive uses" doesn't hold water for me, either. According to a quick glance at Google Maps (which might be out of date), just from Greer to Arapaho, the Interurban District is already home to Clay Cooley Volkswagen, Weldone Window Tinting, Solow Garage, Quality First Auto Service, Reliable Chevrolet, Caliber Collision, Premiere Autohaus, Premiere AutoSports Collision Center, Brakes Plus, VMaxCars, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, Zepco Speedometer Repair, Auto Dent Hail Repair, U-Haul, and Presto Dent Repair. There's no danger of Interurban running out of automotive uses if we start rejecting special permits for automotive uses. At what point does Council conclude the district has enough automotive uses? If we're not there yet, when will we be? If we are there, what are we doing about it other than wishful thinking that the market will eventually meet our desired outcome on its own?
Justice: "I'm in favor of this particular use because I think that it is consistent with the edgy mixed use part of the vision." Really? "Edgy" is doing a lot of work there. It's so edgy that the tenant put a black screen around the entire lot at 907 Interurban St to shield the view from the public, a view that the chair of the City Plan Commission called a "junkyard" "that doesn't help the character of the district." That car storage lot is still there. It's just shielded better from public view.
Council member Dan Barrios: "In all honesty, coming in today, I wasn't a big fan of this idea, because I believe in consistency, and I was a very outspoken opponent to what Clay Cooley was doing in this area because of the vision for the area. I did everything Councilwoman Justice said. Compared to what the options are, I'd much rather have this...If we tighten up the language about maintaining that screening wall on the fence...keeping the cars in the back out of vision for those on Interurban, so behind the fence, so we tighten that up, add an automatic staff can approve tie of five years, I see no reason why this can't go through."
Barrios goes from a "very outspoken opponent" two years ago to a supporter with only a few minor conditions added to support the flip-flop. Like Barrios himself says, in all honesty, I am not a big fan of this idea. His reasons are too flimsy.
Council member Joe Corcoran: "I don't think this is the perfect use, but I also do distinctly remember in the discussions surrounding this initial visioning, Mayor Voelker, I don't even think he was mayor at the time, saying that, if we had sort of a specialty body shop, that would be one of the ideal exceptions that would go in here. In this case, he was talking about Harleys, but BMW is pretty specialty as well, so, ... on this specific use case, I'm okay with it."
Corcoran was one of three council members who voted against this same use at the same location in 2024. If I understand him, he was against Clay Cooley VW, not Solow Garage. Clay Cooley did more to refinish his auto dealership, more than just wrap a car storage lot with black plastic, so I don't know why Corcoran is willing to give Solow a pass here. Why not oppose both? Neither fits with the vision of the Interurban District of "Envision Richardson."
Council member Arefin: "It doesn't make sense to even restrict how it looks like, but I would be comfortable putting like three to five years term, so that we can see how the market works, and then how things evolve, because sometimes he can promise certain things. I realize that those promise doesn't have to be kept, so even those picture that we see today, it could be, well, big picture next 20 years, so there is no guarantee for anything. So, by considering everything, I think I would be comfortable next three or five years, I will be okay. Last time, I did not support the body shop. This time, with that, considering everything, I would probably be okay just for a limited time."
I found it puzzling how several council members just started talking like there was going to be approval of a special permit, but that it would be for a limited time. It sounded as though the concept had been discussed beforehand, even if the exact duration had not been agreed upon. Justice even brought up the novel idea of letting staff renew special permits automatically. "I think staff should be able to renew special use permits, so long as those conditions are being met." It's bad enough that council was going to give a special permit at all, but to make it effectively open-ended seems to have completely missed the mark of transitioning the district to conform to the vision. Arefin wasn't the only one to take up this matter. Hutchenrider went further than Justice: "I would not want to put a time limit on this." Why? "It does finally look like we have a road map to get to the additional things that we wanted in the Interurban." So, make the special permit open-ended because we finally have a roadmap where such uses wouldn't be needed at all and allowing them would be bad policy? Make it make sense. But that's where the deliberations were.
Mayor Pro Tem Ken Hutchenrider: "We talk all the time about wanting to be incredibly supportive of our small businesses. I think we have an opportunity to be able to show that." So, put him in Dorian's corner. Support the local business person who has to be told to shield his car storage lot from the public. Don't support the vision expressed by residents all across Richardson and captured in our "Envision Richardson" plan.
Hutchenrider: "I realize it's a leap of faith. We've been burned in the past. I hope we don't get burned in the future, because this excites me. What I see here in front of us tonight, and I realize we're not talking about this particular case, but it's the closest that we've seen any kind of a vision for this area." Hutchenrider is right. We're not talking about ZF 26-08. The property owner flashed some pretty pictures of what could be built down the block and across the street and used those pretty pictures to get Hutchenrider to support what was before him. In the end, that's all that is ensured. Everything else is a pig in poke.
Mayor Amir Omar: "I don't want to pass this. I don't think it's what's going to be good for the district personally. I think Sal is a fine gentleman, and frankly, you know, I'd love to be able to create an off ramp for him that is a little bit more comfortable than us saying today you got to move out in three months or you got to move out in six months. I think you know something like a three year would be right off ramp, and it would give him enough time."
Omar is the only council member who didn't want to pass this. But even he eventually came around to voting for it. So, a vote that was 4-3 in favor two years ago and looked like it was going to be 6-1 in favor this year, ended up unanimously in favor. And, in all honesty, with unconvincing reasons for what's changed to cause three of the "no" votes to turn into "yes" votes. What's more the "yes" votes looked like they were headed in the direction of giving the property owner a special permit without expiration. Ironically, even though Omar was against the special permit, he gave the best reasons why this could all turn out well anyway.
Omar: "I actually believe that when this is all said and done, you're going to have multiple restaurants in this area that we're looking at right now, and I don't just think it, I know it."
Omar went on to lay out a plan for opening up the parking lots between the buildings in question tonight and another three in line, making them all walkable and ripe for the property owner's vision of adapting all six to new uses, and not just another car use or three. Should we put our faith in the mayor? To my mind, it's a heckuva better bet than the rest of the council putting their faith in yet another property owner showing them pretty pictures. That property owner, with his money on the line, being supported by the mayor, with his reputation on the line, just might be a winning combination for Richardson. That car repair shop and storage lot will still be a challenge, but maybe one that will only prove to be a speed bump and not a roadblock. At this point, Omar's plan is the most plausible path I can see toward eventually realizing the Interurban vision.
My challenges to Council members:
- How many automotive uses are enough for you?
- What conditions would justify denial?
- What is the transition strategy?
- What metrics show progress toward the vision?
In 2024, six members of the public spoke out against granting this special permit. I was so taken by their logical and eloquent arguments that I reproduced them in full ("Council Recap: Sell Out for a Mural". This time, none of them returned. Maybe they concluded that it's a waste of time trying to persuade the council to implement the "Envision Richardson" plan. This time only one person spoke. It was Scott Ricamore. He was just as logical and eloquent as the others. And, as before, his arguments were rejected also.
Mr. Mayor and Council Members, tonight is a test whether Richardson's plans are more than just marketing. For years, the City has told residents and future investors, that Interurban is supposed to become an edgy, mixed-use district. So far, we've not seen that happen, but visions do not fail all at once. They fail one exception at a time, and that is why I'm asking you to deny Zoning File 26-08 tonight. While you cannot force the market, the market is listening and watching how you decide these cases. The applicant is asking you to allow a body shop at this location, not temporarily, but long term. But the past council who adopted the zoning is asking you, does this use make sense for this location, because council of the past thought it could be a bad idea. Richardson has spent years telling residents, businesses, and investors that Interurban is supposed to become something different. This is exactly the kind of location where Richardson should be encouraging uses that help the district transition, because that vision does not become real by approving a special permit for a storage lot or a body shop. There are also locations in Richardson that would be more appropriate for Solow. I spoke with a property owner less than five minutes away at 501 industrial that would be happy to lease their building to a 10,000 square foot body shop. It's available right now, and it has room to expand. The history of this case also matters. In 2024 Council approved a special permit for Clay Cooley at this location. That approval was justified with promises that the site would be greatly improved with paint, landscaping, and other enhancements to better fit the edgy, urban vision. The GM of Clay Cooley stood here and gave you his word, they would make it right. He said, "Quote, 'I'll go on record and say we're going to tear the landscaping out and completely redo the landscape.' But less than two years later, the paint job is looking bad. The landscaping never happened. Clay Cooley sold the property to a new owner. There is no way to hold any owner accountable for their promises of future landscaping or actual redevelopment once you approve this permit. Now, the argument for approval is that Solow has operated there for years, and denying this request would create a hardship for small business. I'm empathetic to that argument too. However, the applicant was there, operating without a required permit or a CO. In reality, Cooley should have ended their tenancy two years ago or asked you for a special permit for Solow, but they never tried. The new owner knew at closing the applicant was operating without the required special permit. The developer accepted the permitting risk and hoped you would approve this retroactively, but in reality, if it was important to their development plans, they would have secured this entitlement as a condition of their purchase of the property. Approving the special permit would send the wrong message. It would tell the public that Richardson's plans are flexible, but also uncertain. That is how our district vision disappears, not all at once, but one exception at a time. Richardson has already said what the Interurban District should become. Tonight, council has to decide if we are serious about that vision. Thank you.Source: Scott Ricamore.
Quotes have been lightly edited for clarity and brevity.
"Mixed-use on paper.
Motor vehicles in fact.
One survives the vote."
—h/t ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment