Richardson City Plan Commission Meeting May 21st, 2024
OPENING
Five of the seven regular commissioners are present, Chairman Marsh, Vice-Chair Southard, Commissioner Roberts, Commissioner Beach, and Commissioner Bohnsack. Both alternates, Byron Purdy and Rebecca Poynter, are also present and will participate. Commissioner Costantino and Commissioner Keller are absent.
The minutes that were continued from the last meeting in addition to the last meeting’s minutes are now unanimously approved.
The consent agenda, containing only a replat request for utility easements at 201 S. Plano Rd., is also passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING – WATERWOOD VILLAS
The first public hearing is on ZF 24-07, a rezoning request for a multi-family planned development (Waterwood Villas) at 2251 N. Glenville Dr. The land is currently zoned as industrial. The property is currently undeveloped despite previously approved planned developments. This will be a five-story apartment development with 210 units and a parking garage.
The applicant steps to the podium and presents their plans. The average unit size will be roughly 800 sq. ft. Commissioner Beach states that he has a closet that is larger than 500 sq. ft. (the minimum unit size described in the packet) and asks who the market for a 500 or even 800 sq. ft. apartment would be. The presenter had already clarified in her initial presentation that only 10% of the units would be 500 sq. ft. The applicant politely answers that she herself lives in an 800 sq. ft. apartment. But, to answer his question, people, either single or couples entering the housing market, will live here.
Commissioner Purdy asks how much the rent will be. The applicant answers that rent will range from $1,000 - $1,600. (That’s wishful thinking. I doubt a new build will actually be offering something in this range but I’ll be happy if I’m wrong.) The applicant admits that they are still analyzing market conditions which will ultimately decide the rent price. In other words, these will be market-rate apartments. This is not intended to be affordable housing.
No speakers are present for this hearing. Chair Marsh wishes this were a higher-quality development as he is worried about how this area will develop or degrade over the next decade. With no further comments, the CPC recommends approval 6-1 with Commissioner Beach opposed.
PUBLIC HEARING – WATERVIEW APARTMENTS
The next item is a public hearing on ZF 24-08. Mehrdad Mazaheri is requesting an amendment to his previously approved Waterview Apartments planned development at Waterview/Frankford. Two types of building areas were approved previously, one for purpose-built student apartments and one for market-rate apartments and retail/hotel space. He is now requesting the market-rate apartments be changed to more purpose-built student housing. This decreases the number of units but increases the number of beds. This also decreases the retail/coworking space by roughly 5,000 sq. ft.
Staff presents a background of the request. The CPC has no questions for staff. The applicant’s representative then steps to the podium to provide their plans and answer questions. The representative states this is definitely not a bait-and-switch. He states that it is impossible to get a loan for construction under the current conditions of the planned development. He claims they didn’t realize how much student housing was actually needed before. He also says they didn’t have much time to think through the phasing plan. This development will now have a shuttle provided to UTD’s campus.
Commissioner Purdy asks what other university-related amenities will be provided besides the shuttle. The applicant answers that study areas will be provided. Commissioner Beach recalls the last public hearing. (I do not. I believe this was in the second half of 2022. I was taking a break from watching meetings then, so I’ll have to take his word for this.) He states that the development consisting of primarily purpose-built apartments for students was a problem that they wanted to avoid. That was the reason for the market-rate apartments and phasing requirements. He further states that UTD didn’t want this to be all student housing and wouldn’t have supported it originally if it was. The applicant replies that they are advocating for student housing. Commissioner Beach says he is in favor of the phasing changes but they will have to agree to disagree on the student housing increase.
Commissioner Roberts asks if UTD has issued any official letter of support or opposition to the request. Staff answers they have not. Chair Marsh asks why they want to reverse the phasing. The applicant answers that it’s less expensive for them this way. Commissioner Poynter once again asks where the drones will go. “Will you be using robots?”, she says. She’s referring to the proposed retail space and asking about food delivery. The applicant doesn’t know what she means nor why she is asking them this question. (That makes at least two of us.) Dr. Mazaheri is in attendance and steps to the podium to address the question. He states that this is definitely in his plans as a possibility. Dr. Mazaheri refocuses his response to state that there is a great need for student housing. He states that this development will last 100 years. He feels shackled and held back. Chair Marsh appreciates Dr. Mazaheri’s patience. He is in favor of this request. He doesn’t want to see only market-rate apartments being built. Vice-Chair Southard encourages the applicant to work more directly with UTD.
Five speakers are present for this public hearing. The first speaker is a representative from Comets for Better Transit, a UTD student advocacy group advocating for increased mobility. He states that their organization supports this proposal. The second speaker is a former UTD student, now a Cityline resident. He also supports the request. The third speaker sounds like they are also a UTD student. They support the request. They also comment that UTD does not use drones for any delivery. They think robots aren’t necessary for this development. The fourth speaker, a UTD alumnus and Richardson resident well known for his civic advocacy, also supports the request. He states that the burden placed on the original approval of this planned development by Council was inappropriate. He sees this burden as equivalent to denial of the original request. The fifth and final speaker, a UTD alumna and Core District business owner, shares the difficulty her employee, a UTD student, has had finding quality housing in Richardson. She also supports the request.
Chair Marsh supports the mixed-use aspect of the project though this request reduces that space. He empathizes with the financing situation and is in favor of the request. Vice-Chair Southard heeds the feedback from the public speakers and now indicates his support for the request. The CPC recommends approval of the request with six commissioners in favor. Commissioner Beach requests to abstain from the vote. He is instructed by Chair Marsh and the Development Services director that he must vote for or against. He is recorded as voting against.
PUBLIC HEARING – RESTAURANT PARK (FORMERLY OLD 75)
The final item is a public hearing on ZF 24-10, an amendment request for the currently approved Major Modification at 740 S. Central Expy. The current Major Modification approved in 2020 allows drive-throughs that were never developed. This request is for four specific items, a brewpub, a Ferris wheel, neon signage, and lots with no street frontage. Staff presents a background of the request after a brief recess. The Ferris wheel will be a maximum of 45 ft. tall.
The applicant steps to the podium to present their plans. They state that this area will serve as a live music venue and food truck park with a brewpub. They have similar developments elsewhere in the metroplex. Chair Marsh asks who will operate the Ferris wheel. The applicant answers that their employees will operate it. Commissioner Roberts is concerned about the noise generated by the live music and how that will affect a nearby church. The applicant states that they will operate from 11 a.m. - midnight most days. He says they will be mindful of the noise and how it affects neighbors. They will abide by all noise ordinances. The applicant further states that leaders at the nearby church are supportive of the project.
Three speakers are present for this public hearing. The first public speaker is a nearby business owner. He supports the project. The second speaker is neutral to the request but highlights positive aspects of the request. The third speaker is a nearby resident. He has made several noise complaints about this location when it was the Old 75 Beer Garden. He opposes the request. He welcomes the food truck park. He is concerned about how the parking, noise, and lights will affect their peace and quiet. The applicant rebuts that there are plenty of provided parking spaces and the church lets them use their lot for overflow. This will help avoid anyone parking in the neighborhood. They are willing to work with neighbors to mitigate any issues with noise.
The CPC unanimously recommends approval, and the meeting adjourns.