Richardson plan commission recommends PD for Apollo Junior High after traffic debate

The Richardson City Plan Commission voted unanimously Dec. 16 to recommend approval of a plan development (PD) rezoning for Apollo Junior High School, approving a proposal that would expand the school campus and grant a set of exceptions to zoning rules while adding traffic‑management conditions requested by staff and commissioners.

The commission considered zoning file 25‑18, a proposal from the Richardson Independent School District to enlarge Apollo Junior High at 1600 Apollo Road from about 126,900 square feet to roughly 206,000 square feet to accommodate the district’s conversion to a 6‑7‑8 middle‑school model. The school district and its architect said the project would add classrooms, a competition gym, a modernized cafeteria and library and comply with Texas Education Agency facility requirements, including a storm shelter. Construction is slated to begin in 2026 with completion expected in August 2028.

The PD asks for a set of exceptions from the underlying R‑1800M residential zoning, including a maximum building height of up to 42 feet in areas that contain gymnasium and penthouse elements, allowance for athletic‑facility and tennis fencing, and temporary placement of up to 10 portable buildings during construction. The district’s plan would provide 169 on‑site parking spaces and rely on a shared city parking lot that the staff said contains an additional 368 spaces available under a shared‑parking agreement.

Traffic emerged as the most contested issue. City staff and the applicant presented a traffic management plan intended to maximize on‑site queuing — the plan shows space for roughly 110 stacked parent vehicles and separates bus circulation from parent drop‑off — and proposed operational controls staffed by the district during peak periods. The PD as presented included a morning no‑parking restriction (07:30–09:00) for about 160 linear feet on the east side of Amherst Avenue and a left‑turn‑only exit from the campus at one driveway during peak hours to limit cut‑through traffic in the neighborhood.

Neighbors who live on Amherst said the plan would shift traffic and burden the first three houses on the block. “I didn’t buy a home there to jockey cars for the school,” said Chris Blackburn, a nearby resident. Another neighbor, James Ambergue, challenged the district’s enrollment projections and warned that parents would find ways to “cheat” traffic controls and park elsewhere if the queue is onerous. Joy Adams, who lives on Amherst, said the project is a “massive change” for nearby homeowners and criticized what she described as limited neighborhood involvement in earlier design discussions.

James Watson, the district’s senior executive director of operations, and Brian Nelson of HKS Architects responded that the design and traffic plan were developed with traffic engineers and city staff to reduce on‑street queuing and improve safety by routing more pick‑up and drop‑off activity onto the campus. “Our goal is to get as many cars off the street as possible so students can be dropped off on property and out of the public travel lane,” Watson said.

Commissioners expressed support for the school’s programmatic improvements — better classrooms, windows, a new library, competition gym and storm shelter — but pressed staff and the applicant for more justification of specific circulation choices and for contingency mechanisms. Several commissioners signaled concern that the proposed morning restriction would place a disproportionate burden on a handful of homes.

To address that concern, Commissioner Roberts moved to recommend approval of zoning file 25‑18 with staff‑proposed modifications to allow both left and right turns onto Amherst and to eliminate the narrowly targeted on‑street parking prohibition that had affected the three homes; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously by the five commissioners present. The PD also retains provisions requiring an updated traffic management plan and additional traffic impact analysis if queuing is observed to extend onto public streets or when enrollment approaches build‑out levels, giving staff authority to require adjustments after the school opens.

The commission’s recommendation advances the PD to Richardson City Council for final action; the council will receive the commission’s recommendation and may adopt, modify or refuse the zoning change. The plan development district as recommended permits the district to proceed with the concept plan and development standards attached to the PD if the council approves the rezoning.

Clarifying details from the hearing: the applicant reported an initial enrollment estimate of about 834 students when the facility opens in 2028, with an ultimate capacity near 1,000 students; the plan increases the building footprint from approximately 126,900 sq ft to about 206,000 sq ft; the PD shows 169 on‑site parking spaces plus 368 shared city spaces; the applicant seeks a maximum building height up to 42 feet in limited areas (primarily competition gym and penthouse equipment); and the PD includes allowance for up to 10 portable buildings during construction. Several nearby residents opposed restrictions that would remove on‑street parking for a short morning window and asked for more study of alternate circulation options.

Next steps: the commission’s favorable recommendation will be forwarded to Richardson City Council for a public hearing and final vote; the council schedule and any additional study requests by council or staff were not set at the plan‑commission meeting.