- DFW Ultraground
- Posts
- Richardson City Planning Commission
Richardson City Planning Commission
1/7/25 | Full Report
Welcome to Ultraground. We send you market-rate data.
CPC January 7, 2025
District: 1 | Northeast Richardson
443-Unit Multifamily | 250 E Arapaho Rd | Approved
District: 1 | Central Richardson
275-Unit Multifamily | SWC of S Greenville Ave & E Polk St | Approved
You saved: 3h 33m
DISTRICT: 1
Legacy Arapaho 250 E Arapaho Rd
Northeast Richardson | 10.39 Acres | 443 Units | Approved
Deal Overview:
Location: South side of E. Arapaho Road and west of N. Grove Road in Richardson, TX.
Size: 10.39 acres.
Current site: Vacant 156,000 SF two-story office building (Richardson Commons).
Proposed: 443-unit market-rate multifamily development.
Density: 42.5 units per acre (meeting minimum requirement of 40 units/acre).
Legacy Partners, Brian McNally LinkedIn.
U/ Product
Product
Unit Mix: Approximately 70% one-bedroom units.
Parking: 1,132 spaces (1.4 spaces per unit).
Building Types: Mix of 3-4 story buildings including:
4-story wrap-style building with integrated parking garage (234 units).
3-story U-shaped building.
Townhouse-style units along Grove Road (2-story).
Additional 3-story building along special site area.
Sentiment
Commissioners viewed Legacy Partners’ local market performance metrics as a strong indicator. Legacy's nearby Ovation at Galatyn Park deal (361 units) hit 85% occupancy in just 10 months, which the Developer called "outstanding" in the current market environment where "most places can't say that." When commissioners asked about broader market performance, the Developer indicated area apartments are maintaining approximately 90% occupancy rates, though exact figures weren't provided.
The Commission expressed strong support for the project's catalytic potential. Chairman Marsh, drawing on his experience chairing the Collins/Arapaho TOD task force, strongly endorsed the project. The 42.5 units/acre density, while exceeding the 40-unit minimum, is notably lower than the 90 units/acre typical of other transit-oriented developments in the area.
‟This is exactly kind of what we were looking for, especially with the station area was to see this transition away from underutilized Office Flex buildings industrial to other uses... certainly I think this is the catalyst like we heard in terms of kind of kickstarting that station area.
The deal is designed as an institutional investment and long-term hold. Commissioner discussion highlighted the investment approach, with Legacy Partners confirming:
‟Everything is seen from an institutional lens, so there's no cutting corners and the buildings are built to last. Definitely intended and built to last... it's going to be there in 2050.
The project's timing aligns with the City's active pursuit of development proposals for the DART Arapaho station area, as noted by city staff.
‟We are about to launch on asking for development proposals for the Arapaho Center station. Having a good institutional partner kind of already coming into the area will lend some credibility to those efforts.
Key concerns centered on traffic and access. Commissioner Beach highlighted existing congestion issues on Grove Road, noting traffic "backed up seven or eight blocks," while Vice Chair Southard questioned the lack of "real direct" pedestrian access to the DART station. Legacy Partners noted the project's main entrance aligns with an existing median cut on Arapaho Road allowing left turns, though they expect most traffic will use the Grove Road entrance near the parking garage.
The parking plan allocates 1.42 spaces per unit overall, with 300 garage spaces serving the 234-unit wrap building. Commissioner Beach strongly recommended covered surface parking given the Texas climate.
‟One thing I would encourage you to consider is putting on that surface parking make it covered parking. I mean when it's 104 outside you know that's just not a good situation.
The Developer emphasized their parking ratio of 1.1 spaces per bedroom is "healthy" based on their experience.
The Commission particularly favored the project's diverse unit mix and preservation of 40-year-old trees. While one public comment raised school capacity concerns, staff noted 70% one-bedroom units would limit impact. The project received unanimous approval with institutional-quality construction standards emphasized.
Notable Points:
No discussion of affordability requirements or affordable units.
Strong city support for redevelopment of older office properties.
Project designed for institutional investment/long-term hold.
City prioritizing residential density near transit.
Existing mature trees preservation viewed favorably.
Developer: Legacy Partners, Brian McNally Phone: (650) 571-2250 Email: [email protected] LinkedIn
Owner: Thompson Oil, Suleman Bhimani Email: [email protected]
Staff Report: ZF 24-34 SR
Project Plans: ZF 24-34 Plan
DISTRICT: 1
Polk Street Residences SWC of S Greenville Ave & E Polk St
Central Richardson | 3.02 Acres | 275 Units | Approved
Deal Overview:
Joint deal between Trammell Crow (High Street Residential, Joel Behrens LinkedIn) and the City of Richardson.
City owns 1.31 acres across 5 parcels plus ROW from alleys and McKinney Street.
Greenway Investment Company (Jerry Stool) owns remaining 1.71 acres across 6 parcels.
Public-private partnership leveraging city-owned land for downtown redevelopment.
The financial structure of this development relies heavily on a public-private partnership, with the City of Richardson contributing 1.31 acres of assembled land across five parcels plus right-of-way from existing alleys and McKinney Street. The private sector component includes Greenway's contribution of 1.71 acres spanning six parcels, creating the complete 3.02-acre development site.
U/ Product
Product
275 residential units on 3.02 acres.
Density of 91 units per acre (exceeding minimum requirement of 40 units/acre).
Average unit size of 855 square feet.
70% one-bedroom units.
Four stories (54 feet) tall, requiring variance from three-story height limit.
Total of 105,000 GSF (78,000 SF wood frame construction, 27,000 SF garage).
U/ Infrastructure
Significant public infrastructure investment accompanies the development, centered on a complete reconstruction of Polk Street. This infrastructure package includes extensive streetscape improvements with 12-foot-wide amenity zones, 6-foot bike lanes, and comprehensive underground utility upgrades. The timing of these improvements will align with the project's two-year construction timeline, with the Developer and City coordinating the infrastructure work to minimize disruption.
Sentiment
The Commission was notably divided on the project. Commissioner Nate Roberts strongly opposed, specifically citing concerns about density and walkability.
‟I'm not sure that adding the density here is the best use of the space. I'm not sure it promotes the walkability and the connectivity and all of the things that have been articulated in Envision and in the plan for the Main Street area.
Roberts also expressed significant concern about construction impacts on existing businesses.
Neutral Commissioner Sentiment
Commissioner Gary Beach took a more moderate position, focusing on community relations rather than opposing the project outright. He emphasized: "One of the things that makes for a good neighborhood is being good neighbors. One of the things that makes good neighbors is good communication."
Commissioner Sebrena Bohnsack's position reflected the complex balance many commissioners struggled with, supporting the overall concept while having reservations about specific elements: "I agree that the project would promote walkability and the spirit of the vision in the future... I don't really like the four-story, but overall I think it's a good project."
Commissioner Michael Keller acknowledged the inherent tensions in the development, noting: "Unfortunately we are somewhat limited just in terms of the area that we have to develop... I see kind of a push and pull and some trade-off there." Despite these initial concerns, he ultimately supported the project, stating the variances were "relatively minor."
Chairman Bryan Marsh strongly supported the development, arguing:
‟I think what downtown needs is more density, needs more residents, needs more pedestrian activity, and that's exactly what this will bring.
Community Sentiment:
The community response was overwhelmingly concerned, with no residents speaking in favor of the project as proposed. Pat Kinder, whose property directly faces the development, made a compelling argument about existing neighborhood character.
‟I would suggest that the Commission, rather than looking at what it is zoned for, look at what is there currently and provide protection to the current homeowners who do have single-story homes that have been there for decades.
Christina Sebastian offered a nuanced perspective, acknowledging development was inevitable while raising specific concerns:
‟We've known these lots are going to redevelop. I'm not surprised to see apartments as a use for them... I feel like with more time and more conversation with surrounding neighbors we could find something that might work better.
The project ultimately passed with a 6-1 vote, though the discussion revealed significant concerns about height transitions, community engagement, and construction impacts that would need to be addressed as the project moves forward to City Council.
Notable Points:
No affordable housing requirements were discussed.
The City appears supportive of higher density near transit.
The Commission was willing to consider parking ratio reductions in other cases.
Community engagement emerged as a crucial factor.
The project's location in a designated mixed-use area helped justify the density.
Developer: High Street Residential (Trammell Crow), Joel Behrens Phone: (214) 863-3308 Email: [email protected] LinkedIn
Owners: City of Richardson & Greenway Investment Company, Gerald (“Jerry”) Stool Email: [email protected], Todd Petty Email: [email protected]
Staff Report: ZF 24-31 SR
Project Plans: ZF 24-31 Plan
Recent Trammell Crow Deal: TCC Grapevine Mills 296-Unit Mixed-use
Thank you for being a part of Ultraground.
How was this report? |
Reply