The Richardson City Council continued the public hearing on zoning file 2424, a request to rezone about 4.08 acres at 601 East Main Street for a planned‑development townhome project with 38 units, after residents raised concerns about density and tree loss and councilmembers pressed the applicant on design and parking.

City senior planner Derek Peters summarized the application, saying the site — the former church parcel — is currently zoned R1500 temporary residential and the applicant seeks a PD to allow six buildings with rear‑alley garages, a new internal street (Valencia Drive) and 38 units. Peters said the developer proposes a minimum unit size of 2,000 square feet, two‑story buildings up to about 30 feet, alley access to two‑car garages, and one guest parking space per unit. A trip‑generation memo estimated roughly 18 additional morning trips and 22 evening trips; staff said no traffic improvements are warranted now but the applicant agreed to dedicate right‑of‑way for a future right‑turn lane at Grove and Main.

Why it matters: Neighbors and councilmembers said the case raises tradeoffs common to Richardson infill — tree preservation, building scale, driveway and parking impacts on nearby streets, and whether the project fits the character of the Highland Terrace neighborhood. Several residents said they want fewer units and stronger tree protections; the applicant and staff said the project preserves many perimeter trees, will meet the city’s new tree protection ordinance, and that the concept responds to the Envision Richardson comprehensive plan's “missing middle” guidance.

Council and applicant discussion, briefly: Council members asked about lot coverage and setbacks; Peters noted the applicant seeks exceptions to standard townhome zoning including smaller side yards (5 feet requested instead of 10) and up to seven units in some buildings (the fire marshal reviewed access and raised no objection). The applicant, engineer Jim Dewey, said the design was revised after staff review to an “enclave” layout with rear alleys to reduce curb cuts on Main Street and to preserve interior trees where feasible. Dewey and the applicant noted they will plant larger (6‑inch caliper) shade trees as mitigation and that the developer agreed to a masonry screen wall along Main Street after comments at the Planning and Zoning meeting.

Public comment: Two neighbors spoke during the hearing representing Highland Terrace Neighborhood Association. Sarah Marcellus Luganville, a neighborhood board member, said the proposal “does not align with who we are” and urged the council to reject the current plan and ask the developer to work with neighbors on a less intensive design. Tony Palagonia, who said he has been active in neighborhood preservation for decades, argued the proposal’s unit count is the central problem and said the association thought the developer had not meaningfully engaged the broader community.

Outcome and next steps: Councilmember Roger Ryder moved to continue the public hearing to Feb. 3 to give the applicant and neighborhood more time to meet and try to resolve outstanding concerns; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The case will return to council on Feb. 3 for further action unless the applicant files a different concept (which would require re‑notice and additional review).