"City council overrode a decision by plan commission in vote to supersize residential portion of massive mixed-use development." That's how TheRealDeal summarized the Richardson City Council's unanimous vote to allow a boost of 1,175 apartments at CityLine, for a total of 5,100. The City Plan Commission had previously denied the request 5-2, with one commissioner citing the desire to see "more creative retail or entertainment uses." City Manager Don Magner put his finger on the scale by saying the proposal "creates a path forward that's based in market reality," with the market reality being that right now, money is available for wood-frame apartments, so that's what we ought to build, tying up that land for the next fifty years. That's how developers think. That's not how City Councils should think.
The City Council unanimously approved the 1,175 new apartments. Why? Here are selected opinions they offered.
Councilmember Dan Barrios: "Sam [Chavez], can you please, for those watching at home who may be questioning, why this was denied by CPC?" Good question. The Council should thoroughly review the CPC's deliberations. But that's not what Barrios was after. He immediately clarified that he was asking about process, not reasoning. "Can you kind of explain an applicant's options." The process after denial by the CPC is that an appeal to City Council means a supermajority of 6 votes is needed to win approval.
Councilmember Joe Corcoran: "I was hoping for just a little bit more context...about some of the current allowed uses that have been been talked about..., things like more class A office space or more non-retail type recreational or entertainment venues or things like that." Corcoran was on the right track but he let City Manager Don Magner get away with an unsatisfactory answer. Magner said, "If a corporation located there right now, they want to be assured that there are going to be more housing options for their employees to live close by." Magner didn't talk about what makes people want to live in CityLine. That's going to take employment, retail, dining, services and entertainment options, not just more apartment buildings.
Councilmember Curtis Dorian spoke about if the Council approves this request: "They can still develop multifamily, they can still develop retail. So when the time comes two or three years from now, whenever it gets developed, in the event the market changes and it's more sustainable to either of those, they will still have the option to do that. Is that correct?" The answer is yes. Sam Chavez made the point earlier that with a form-based code, the use is largely up to the developer, not dictated by single-use zoning. But once the apartments are built, no developer is going to tear them down to build retail or entertainment. Probably not for fifty years anyway. But Dorian was satisfied that approving the addition of 1,175 more stick-built apartments doesn't preclude other uses down the road.
Councilmember Jennifer Justice: "What conversations have you had? Are there any concerns from a public safety standpoint?" Justice stole Councilmember Ken Hutchenrider's usual concern. The answer was predictable. Don Magner said, "Both PD and Fire were part of the development review team that looked at this as part of the pre-submittal process, and neither had any concerns with the changes." Staff really should include the answer to Justice's question in the staff report for each application. It would save everyone some time, allowing more time for important questions.
Mayor Pro Tem Arefin, pressing the developer on the possibility of building something higher than five-story, stick-built apartments, asked, "How tall, how many stories are you looking at?" The answer: "It's not possible today. We've reached this new little plateau where we got a five-story wrapped with interior corridors air conditioned, and then it'll just take that next bump, but it could be a couple years, could be four years." Or never, at least not on the land where any of those four- and five-story apartments are being built. But Arefin somehow managed to hear this as good news, saying, "Now that's great."
Councilmember Curtis Dorian, demonstrating that the Mayor Pro Tem was not the only one on Council to buy a pig in a poke, added, "So at this point, we don't have a timeline, we have no schematics, we don't have anything that has been pre-designed...Therefore, there's still a potential here... we could get office or a combination of office, multifamily, retail. So potentially that could still happen." The Council seems to be in agreement that they want more density than this application will provide. They ought to be deliberating what they can do to ensure that happens. Instead, they seemed to be engaged in groupthink, talking themselves into thinking that by approving more five story apartments now, they'll get denser residential later, that wishful thinking is their only power here,
Councilmember Dan Barrios: "I feel like this is one unique area of the city where we can include increased density." He's misstating the issue. No one is arguing against increased density. Barrios went on, "While it's not ideal and I would much rather see still something higher other than a stick-and-wrap building, I feel that this is something that if we're going to do anywhere, this is the place to do it." First, if he feels that way, he should reject the plan and tell the developer to come back with something higher and denser. And, second, CityLine is NOT the place for any more stick-and-wrap buildings. Almost anywhere else in Richardson is a better place. CityLine already has high-rise office buildings. It can benefit from high rise residential.
Councilmember Jennifer Justice: "I think what we're asking and what you're hopefully hearing from us tonight, is that we don't want a bunch of five story apartment buildings. We want taller apartment buildings that are denser." Then, contrary to what she just said, she voted to approve a bunch of five story apartment buildings. With that vote, the developer couldn't help but hear that the City Council is just fine with what Justice says they don't want. To communicate a different message, she too should have voted no and told the developer to come back with with something denser.
Councilmember Ken Hutchenrider based his opinion about entertainment options for CityLine on his 25 and 22 year old daughters. They "don't go to the movie theater. That's not their thing, if you will. I took four days off and I said to them on Saturday night, You want to go see a movie at a movie theater? No, Dad, let's see what's on Netflix." So much for deciding whether a $1.5 billion development needs entertainment options. To his credit, Mayor Pro Tem Arefin pushed back: "You know, we're talking about entertainment. It doesn't have to be movie theater." I wonder what Hutchenrider thinks those crazy people up in Frisco were thinking when they approved development of Universal Kids Resort in that booming City. Don't they know that Hutchenrider's daughters don't go to movie theaters?
Mayor Bob Dubey: "What are we waiting on? We're waiting on another KDC to move to step up. We're waiting on the Silver Line to finish it up. We talked about the neighbors around us. That's the connectivity that we've been talking about. We are a regional hub. We're a regional destination and the Silver Line is going to do some of those things. We're looking at what's taking place at UTD that was mentioned. And those are just additional things they're going to add to this. It's going to happen and I really believe it's going to happen. So I'm very excited that the Council has a clear vision and can project that out to what it could be." The Mayor is a cheerleader for the City who urges patience. I get that. But he fails to show patience himself. We heard the City Manager say that current market conditions only allow stick-built apartments to be built, so that's what we ought to approve. We heard the developer say that market conditions could turn in a couple of years to make denser buildings feasible, but he doesn't want to wait, either. I understand his desire to make money now. But we've waited over a decade to reach this point. Why, if the future is rosy, can't the City Council wait a little longer before granting the developer the right to use up 62.5 acres of prime land for a use that everyone seems to agree won't be the highest and best use in the near future? Once it's gone, it will no longer be available for the denser development that some Councilmembers insist they are asking for. It just doesn't add up.
Two public speakers were noteworthy. Former Councilmember Scott Dunn, despite speaking from notes, made a rambling statement about uncomfortable chairs and bike racks before eventually speaking in favor of more five story brick-built apartments. "Couple of y'all served on COG and y'all keep seeing the increase in population. If they don't come here to Richardson, where will they go? And if they don't come here, this development will not survive. It needs the heads in beds for the economics to work." That's misstating the issue at hand. None of the discussion at CPC or at Council argued against increased density. Some argued that we need more density, high-rise residential, which would offer homes to even more people moving to Richardson than Dunn's preferred stick-built apartments. Along those lines, this development is already failing. Mayor Dubey let slip (Oops, "so maybe I said something wrong.") that there are prominent restaurants in CityLine that don't even pay the full rent for leasing the property that they're currently in so they can stay afloat. 1,175 more heads-in-beds is unlikely to make much difference. Instead, flipping the apartments as soon as they are built will supply some needed cash to KDC, just like KDC sold off the office towers to State Farm as soon as they were built. Don't look to a developer to have the long term best interests of a community at heart.
Former Councilmember and Mayor, Paul Voelker, in a rare appearance, reiterated what he said at the City Plan Commission (CPC) meeting. From the minutes of the June 18, 2024, CPC meeting:
Mr. Paul Voelker, ..., resident, and former mayor, stated he is a fan of Cityline and is a big believer of form-based zoning and transit-oriented development. He said this is the poster child for development around DART. He described a TOD as a four (4) legged stool, with one supporting element being employment, as well as retail and residential uses. He explained there is a nice mix here, but some elements are missing, so the applicant should consider options like live-work space, multi-story condominium, and high-rise apartments constructed of concrete and rebar, instead of the typical stick-built wrap-style apartments which would not age as well. He said the form-based zoning allows flexibility to meet market conditions, and it could even allow the repurposing of empty office buildings into a high-rise apartment. He then emphasized that the final supporting element is entertainment, which the applicant should focus on providing more activity which is needed to support the retail.Source: City of Richardson.That's consistent with what one CPC member said about their desire to see "more creative retail or entertainment uses." It's an old refrain, going back to the original vision for CityLine. Here's what I wrote way back in 2013:
Legacy Town Center is considered a successful mixed-use development. What's its secret? Retail. Dallas apartment developer Robert Shaw told The Dallas Morning News, "many mixed-use apartment and retail projects haven't had the success of Legacy Town Center. 'There are examples all over the country that haven't worked,' he said. 'Housing is an important piece, but the magic is all in the retail.'"Now that CityLine is actually in development, how does it compare to Legacy Town Center? ... Legacy Town Center is on 147 acres and has 600,000 square feet of shops and restaurants.
CityLine, at 186 acres, is a bit bigger than Legacy Town Center. CityLine plans 300,000 square feet of shops and retail, half that of Legacy Town Center. Is that enough for the "magic" to work?
Source: The Wheel.No, the "magic" isn't there at CityLine. And adding another 1,175 stick-built apartments probably isn't going to supply the magic, either. From Justin Neth's comprehensive notes from the July 2, 2024, CPC meeting, we learn that "When the State Farm buildings were fully occupied, 11,000 people were in the development on weekdays. Now, the highest occupancy is about 1,000 people and that only occurs a few times each month." Another 1,175 apartments won't make a dent in the 10,000 employees missing from the State Farm towers. Without them, and maybe even with them, something else is also needed (think services and entertainment) to draw people into CityLine from surrounding areas. The Town of Addison has only 17,000 people but supports more and better retail, dining, and entertainment options than all of Richardson with its population of 120,000. Adding another 1,175 residents in stick-built apartments is not going to solve the problem. But it is going to permanently remove 62.5 acres from the available space to develop uses that can solve the problem, if we weren't impatient.
If you are more than a little disappointed with the quality of the explanations by the Councilmembers for approving this request, come sit over here with me.
Quotes have been selected for relevance and lightly edited for clarity and brevity.
"Retail dreams now paused,
Entertainment? Forget it.
Apartments prevail."
—h/t ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment