Richardson staff propose $900K–$1.1M unified development code rewrite; council debates public-engagement approach

City staff recommended launching a multi-year project to write a Unified Development Code (UDC) that would combine Richardson’s zoning, subdivision and sign rules into a single code and implement high-priority actions from the Envision Richardson comprehensive plan.

Tina Fergens, Director of Development Services, briefed the council on a phased approach that begins with issuing an RFQ for consultant support, conducting a diagnostic assessment of existing plans and codes, assessing five special enhancement areas, drafting the new UDC, testing regulations and proceeding through required adoption hearings. She said the project typically takes about 24 months and that the estimated cost is in the $900,000–$1.1 million range; staff suggested the work could be funded over two to three budget years from special project reserves.

Why it matters: The current Richardson zoning code dates to 1956 in some parts; staff told council a consolidated UDC could address redevelopment, adaptive reuse and residential adjacency issues while achieving economies of scale across multiple Envision Richardson action items.

Public input and a resident comment: Earlier in the meeting Stephanie Griffin had urged council to address inconsistent residential setback rules (she cited "Code of Ordinances Article 7 Section 4 gs" and said her permit revealed an unexpected citywide 25-foot rear setback), directly linking a public-comment concern to the UDC item. "The purpose, intent and appropriateness of the setbacks should be specified and should accommodate the ways that property owners use their backyards today," Griffin told the council.

Council debate: Members split over the engagement model. Some councilors wanted to replicate the broad public workshops used for Envision Richardson; others favored creating a smaller technical advisory/steering committee of community experts to work closely with the consultant and staff. Staff proposed an RFQ with a la carte options so council could see multiple engagement and cost scenarios before choosing. Several members stressed that adding an advisory committee should not reduce open public engagement and urged staff to return with options that clearly state the cost trade-offs.

Next steps: Staff will issue an RFQ for qualifications and return with negotiated scope and cost options (including variations for public engagement and advisory-committee involvement). If council approves, staff suggested the project could be staged across fiscal years to spread cost and staffing impact.

No formal decision was made at the meeting; council asked staff to return with RFQ-language options and clearer cost comparisons for engagement models.