Commission split but approves six‑building Inner Urban plan amid parking concerns

The Richardson City Plan Commission recommended approval of zoning file ZF26‑12 on July 7, approving a special development plan for approximately 2.25 acres at 500 North Interurban Street that would allow six one‑story commercial buildings with flexible tenant bays and limited outdoor storage. The motion passed 4‑2 after extended debate over parking and long‑term management.

Planner Christine Ross said the proposal is located in the Inner Urban Design District and is consistent with the Innovation/Industry place type; the plan would add roughly 41,000 square feet of new commercial space across six buildings, provide 31 parking spaces (10 on‑site, 21 on the street), and request a trio of reliefs including 8‑foot landscape islands (code: 10 ft) and reduced internal screening between platted lots. Staff noted that, because the property is being presented as a unified development, on‑street parking along the development frontage is being counted toward the project’s total parking supply.

Steven Graham of Simple Development Partners, the applicant, described assembling multiple contiguous lots to create a financially feasible redevelopment of a constrained corridor hemmed by DART easements. Graham said the plan is intended as a catalyst: stabilize existing buildings, lease up space, then build new structures. He told commissioners he anticipates building the project in one phased effort and emphasized that the project would be marketed to tenants that match the parking and loading configuration presented.

Much of the hearing focused on parking liability if the property is subdivided. Commissioners and staff agreed that while the plan works as a single, unified development, two of the proposed buildings (Buildings 1 and 6) would not meet off‑street parking requirements if carved into separate lots and sold individually; staff said the code allows counting immediately adjacent on‑street parking when the site is treated as one development but cautioned that separate ownership could create future noncompliance. The applicant said shared parking easements, converting outdoor storage to parking, or administrative site‑plan adjustments during permitting could address future tenant needs, but did not withdraw the proposed individual platting of the six buildings.

Pete Cope, a nearby business owner, spoke in favor of redevelopment and urged the city and developer to consider creative parking solutions—angle‑in parking, shared parking areas or a future parking structure—to support business activity in the corridor. Commissioners divided on risk versus reward: Chairman Marsh and the vice chairman voted against the motion, citing concern about future individual lots that would lack sufficient off‑street parking; Commissioners Beach, Pointer, Purdy and Quirk voted to recommend approval, with Commissioner Beach moving and Commissioner Pointer seconding.

The commission encouraged staff and the applicant to pursue parking easements or other binding measures to mitigate the parking risk before final council action. The recommendation will move to City Council for final action.