June 4, 2018 Mayor Olin Lane, Jr.and City Council Members City of University Park Dear Mayor Lane, In reference to Agenda Item 18-112, Dallas Cothrum, representing Highland Park Presbyterian Church (HPPC), has applied to amend the existing PD-36 with a Concept Plan to demolish the existing Hunt Building and construct a 3-story building above an underground parking facility that will provide for up to 150 additional parking spaces. Generally speaking, the neighbors are supportive of change that enhances the value of the neighborhood and we support HPPC’s plans to update their campus on their own footprint, the 3800 block of University and McFarlin. Like any good neighbor, we support any member of our community that updates their home in a reasonable way and enhances the value of the UP community. However, in the PD-36 Concept Plan, Dallas Cothrum stated in his application filing that HPPC is going to pursue a “private development agreement” (PDA) between the developer and UP City Council to effect what he attempted to accomplish by his “temporary rezoning” ploy of incorporating two residential houses (3909 University Blvd and 3908 McFarlin Blvd) and the permanent closing of Shannon Lane during the 30-plus month construction period. This unprecedented and unorthodox request of using a private development agreement gives the immediate neighborhood major concerns as to the true intent, as the neighbors do not have to be consulted as part of the agreement. P&Z Commission Chairman Bob West agreed by stating at the beginning of their April 10th meeting (1) a PDA does not exist relative to a PD application, (2) a PDA approval is with City Council, not P&Z and (3) there would be no discussion relative to a PDA at the P&Z meeting and that the PDA would not be a part of the PD-36 Concept Plan as approved by P&Z to be forwarded to City Council for consideration. Absent of the PDA referenced in the PD-36 Concept Plan application, we believe that HPPC has met P&Z’s April, 2010 and April 10, 2018 requirement that HPPC develop its property within its own footprint, with a few noted exceptions that we have identified (i.e., porte-cochere on Shannon Lane, a public street). We further believe the Concept Plan as presented should not allow the exception to the established setbacks to allow a porte-cochere on Shannon Lane – we believe the porte-cochere should remain on the front of the Hunt Bldg. to reduce the number of traffic conflicts that will be created by the new underground parking garage on Shannon Lane. The attached provides more detail as to some of the immediate neighborhood concerns that we would like to share with you and for your consideration in your decisions on the PD-36 Concept Plan. Since there is limited time at the City Council meeting on June 5th, we would like to address the City Council at the meeting with summary statements of the attached detail information we have provided you prior to the meeting. As you know, we live in a unique community and it’s worth fighting for. The undersign thank you in advance for taking the time to review our comments and we look forward to seeing you on June 5th. Kevin & Denise Didion Jason & Karen Cohen Chris & Lissi Roy Stephen & Christy Barnes Chris & Suzanne Jones Chris & Elaina Peterie George Collins Henry Billingsley Pete & Donna Lempert Sissy Sparkman Daniel Hagood Ed & Carole Lynch Walter Elsee Travis & Cheney Goldammer Tandy & Maureen Freeman David & Elizabeth Vice Bob & Ellen Dill Bill & Jessica Jesse Andrew & Rachel Hairston Ryan & Maleiah Rogers John & Mary Fleischi Dorothy Simpson Karen Vandermeer John & Pat Harloe Joe & Tori Mannes Judge Roark Fritz & Mary Lee Duda Rebecca Biggers Libba & John Massey Members of HPPC have been told that the neighbors do not want change – this is not true and HPPC members have been misled. To the contrary, the immediate neighbors welcome change if it enhances the value of our neighborhood and is within UP standards. HPPC will state that it has listened to its neighbors and honored our concerns. This is not true, they were forced to concede to our concerns. The only reason HPPC gave in was they were about to swing for a strike 3 at bat with P&Z (over a 15-year period and 3 attempts of infringing into a residential neighborhood) and knew they were about to lose again at P&Z, with $75 million pledged for Campus Vision in the bag. Why the neighbors are against two residential houses being used as construction offices and other uses: 1. No historical precedent for HPPC’s request. To our knowledge, this has never been done before in UP. 2. HPPC’s request invites aggressive developer bonanza. 3. HPPC has room on its current campus for construction trailers/offices that would be consistent to other major developers that maintain their construction trailers/offices on their own property without infringing upon a residential neighborhood. Since HPPC is building a new Children’s Bldg. between the Sanctuary and the Alexander Bldg., the construction trailers can be located somewhere on the University front yard of HPPC, rather than in a residential neighborhood, i.e., on their own footprint. This would make the construction office more convenient to all construction activity of HPPC, as all construction will span from Shannon Lane to Park Lane. 4. Allowing use of the two houses goes against P&Z request in April 2010 and April 10, 2018 that HPPC should develop its property within its own footprint. 5. Selfish convenience on the part of HPPC’s leadership would dislodge two staff member families from the two houses. We like our HPPC staff member neighbors and we do not want to lose them. 6. Misuse and/or unauthorized use of residential houses for HPPC’s use. 7. Disregard and/or disrespect of immediate residential neighbors. Why the neighbors are against permanently closing Shannon Lane during construction period. 1. Shannon is an active public street in UP, used by residents and non-residents on a daily basis. 2. No historical precedent for HPPC request. No other street in UP has been closed permanently for major construction period. Neighbors recognize that Shannon Lane must be closed on a temporary basis for public works activity associated with construction requirements to upgrade utilities, etc. However, Shannon Lane should be treated no different than Daniel/Haynie (Park Plaza project), Hillcrest (Tolleson Building project), YMCA project and the multiple HPISD projects conducted within UP. 3. With respect to the temporary closing and improvements on and under Shannon Lane, this is consistent with what the City has done with any property owner (Park Plaza, YMCA, Tolleson Activity Center, Bush Library, etc.) where City improvements (i.e. utilities) were being required in conjunction with remodeling/redevelopment. Thus, the City is requiring HPPC to upgrade the utilities under Shannon Lane (which will benefit not only HPPC, but also the immediate neighborhood) and then return Shannon Lane to its current or better condition upon completion. However, temporary is not 30 plus months or in compliance with other temporary street closings (i.e., Park Plaza Project, Daniels and Haynie streets, only required less than one month temporary closure for City Improvements). 4. Discourages HPPC from making Shannon Lane into a parking/street plaza per their renderings in HPPC’s Transform Brochure. 5. Discourages HPPC from erecting a porte-cochere upon a public street right-of-way, per their Concept Plan design, i.e., going outside its current campus property lines into a public street. The porte-cochere should remain on the north entrance of the Hunt Bldg., with entrance and exit lanes off/on University to reduce unnecessary traffic conflicts on Shannon Lane that will be created with the new Hunt Bldg. underground parking garage. 6. Shannon Lane should remain a public street for residential traffic and the additional traffic impact of adding up to 150 vehicles into the proposed underground parking garage under the new Hunt Bldg. Other issues with the current HPPC Concept Plan that the immediate neighbors would like City Council to consider: 1. It is our understanding that Dallas Cothrum is going to pursue a “private development agreement” (PDA) between the developer and UP City Council to effect what he attempted to accomplished by his “temporary rezoning” ploy 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Surrounding Land Use: Application Parking District 2. of incorporating the two residential houses and the permanent closing of Shannon Lane during the construction period. We believe there is a major concern by the neighbors as to what HPPC is attempting to do with a PDA. HPPC contends that the PDA was at the suggestion of the City, like the City entered into with the Bush Library. This is misleading as the City only stated that the Bush Library, Park Plaza, UP Library and other PDAs had used PDAs in the past for the convenience and construction efficiency of the City, not the developer. We would ask that if the City Council were to enter into a PDA with HPPC, it would be at the request and for the betterment of the City, not HPPC, so as to protect the rights of the residents of UP. Of all the major PD developments within the last several years, PD-36 is the only PD surrounded by residential single-family houses on three sides and a city park on the east side of the PD. Under Item C. Permitted Land Use, HPPC has stated “including, but not limited to”. We believe this should not be left open-ended and unambiguous, but should be specific and clear. As to permitted land use within PD-36, the current PD-36 provides in Section 2G that “All activities held on campus will be those of the Highland Park Presbyterian Church only.” Item C.3 Catering services under section C should not allow HPPC to have catering services operated by a third party on the premises. We agree that the City should request a Traffic Management Plan and/or independent Traffic Impact Analysis, as we have discovered many flaws in the traffic study conducted by DeShazo. Of particular note is DeShazo concluded that an underground parking garage would be a beneficial addition to the church and neighborhood. We are unaware of any immediate neighbor that believes the underground parking garage would be beneficial to our neighborhood, absent of a “parking district” within the neighborhood. The two current curb islands on the 3800 block of McFarlin should be removed and replaced with front-end parking spaces to eliminate the current safety issue of using these islands as drop-off and pick-up points for children. Drop-off and pick-up at these two points are illegal at the current time but are ignored, except when the traffic enforcement officer is present. Children pick-up and drop-off should only be allowed on Park Lane for child safety reasons, near the children’s buildings. As noted on the below chart, all major PD developments the last several years have warranted a “parking district” around the PD. In some cases, it provides a more restrictive no parking at any time. We believe dumping up to 150 additional cars into our neighborhood via the new Hunt Bldg. underground parking garage warrants a neighborhood parking district around PD-36. Existing Zoning on Application Current Zoning North South East West SF-2 SF-3 PD-31 SF-2 & 3 PD-36 PD-36 PD-17 PD-17 PZ 18-004 HPPC Church Expansion PZ 18-002 HPISD Natatorium PD-17 PD-17 MF-2 SF-4 PZ 17-001 HPISD Tennis Court PD-25 MF-2 MF-2 PD-25 SF-1 PD-25 PZ 17-002 HPISD UP Elementary SF-4 SF-3 SF-4 SF-2 PD-15 PD-15 PZ 17-004 HPISD HS New Parking Lot/Playfield PD-7 MF-2 GR MF-2 PD-33 * PD-33 PZ 17-005 HPISD Middle School PD-6 HP City Limits PD-6 PD-6 PD-6 PD-6 PZ 17-007 HPISD High School Addition PD-17 PD-17 MF-2 SF-4 PD-17 PD-17 PZ 17-009 HPISD HS - 6 vacant lots on Lovers PD-7 PD-33 PD-33 MF-2 MF-2 PD-33 PZ 16-004 HPUMC Tolleson Center (Biggers) MF-2 MF-3 UC-1,SMU MF-2 PD-8 PD-8 PZ 16-003 Park Plaza (Chase Bldg project) GR SFA & SF-3 UC-1,SMU MF-2 O-2 P MF-2 PD-26 PZ 12- Moody YMCA - Park Cities D-2 SF-A SF-2 PD-12 PD-12 * PD-33 w/MF use allowed PD Planned Development MF Multi-family D Duplex PD-1-R SF-2 SF GR UC PD-24 SF-2 Single-family General Retail University Campus O Office P Parking Exhibit A depicts a summary of the above comments highlighted on the HPPC Concept Plan Site Plan. We reviewed the Summary of Responses provided by the City and offer the results in a different set of lenses for your review. See Exhibit B attached to this letter. In addition to the above issues, the immediate neighbors remain deeply concerned about the increased traffic on McFarlin and University that will result from the Shannon Lane parking garage. The 2009 DeShazo traffic study showed Sunday Parking demand of 616 (April 2009). A subsequent study by DeShzo in 2017 showed demand was actually 590. In short, there has been no increase in demand in the last 8 years. Further, the DeShazo study did not demonstrate that a parking garage would significantly shorten members’ walk to church, but McFarlin and University will bear the brunt of the additional traffic. As a result of new underground parking garage on Shannon Lane, the immediate neighbors discourage HPPC from erecting a porte-cochere upon a public street right-of-way, per their Concept Plan design, i.e., going outside its current campus property lines into a public street. The porte-cochere should remain on the north entrance of the Hunt Bldg., with entrance and exit lanes off/on University to reduce unnecessary traffic conflicts on Shannon Lane that will be created with the new Hunt Bldg. underground parking garage. We further believe the Concept Plan as presented should not allow the exception to the established setbacks to allow a porte-cochere on Shannon Lane – we believe the porte-cochere should remain on the front of the Hunt Bldg. as noted above. Again, while we support HPPC’s plan to renovate their current PD-36, even though it may cause as long as 30-plus months of inconvenience to the immediate neighbors (remember, we are the same neighbors that endured the construction of the new McFarlin Bridge and its closure), we remain very concerned about the issues described above, which we believe are both unnecessary and which set terrible precedents for UP residents and taxpayers. We encourage City Council and City Staff to look further into these issues and to restrict any HPPC development or land use to their current PD. Once again, we thank you for taking the time to review our comments. cc: Mayor Pro Tem Taylor Armstrong, Jr. Councilmember Randy Biddle Councilmember Liz Farley Councilmember Gage Prichard, Sr. City Manager Robbie Corder Exhibit B: Summary of Responses Recap Within 200 foot buffer 5 Opposed 1 Kevin Didion 1 Cohen Family Trust (Jacon/Karen Cohen) 1 John & Mary Fleisdchli 1 David Vice 1 Karen Vandermeer w/attached letter 3 In Favor 15 counting 12 HPPC notices & Sparkman 1 Rob & Elizabeth Rogers 12 HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC 1 Lou & Susan Lebowitz w/attached letter 1 Mrs. Ben Sparkman (indicated opposed, then for. (Believe mailed 36 3819 3915 3901 3905 3907 McFarlin McFarlin McFarlin McFarlin McFarlin 3900 University See Note 1 3918 University 3905 McFarlin due to misleading wording of notice) Not Within 200 foot buffer received 149 5 Opposed All immediate neighbors vs. 2 immediate neighbors that were In Favor 1 Bob & Ellen Dill 3921 McFarlin 1 Pete & Donna Lembert 4006 University 1 Bill & Jessica Jesse w/attached letter 3921 McFarlin Bill Jesse letter to Chm. Bob West 1 Letter to Chm. Bob West signed by 28 immediate neighbor households & Henry Billingsley 1 Joe & Tori Mannes letter to Chm. Bob West 4016 University 108 In Favor 144 counting 6 HPPC notices & households double-dipping 6 136 HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC See Note 2 HPPC scripted canned letter sent by email, canned letter, and/or letter w/canned wording by HPPC by non-immediate neighbors 2 Immediate neighbors: Mrs Dan Bearid 6408 Williams Pky. and Dawna Hamm 4015 University Note: 18 instances of two letters sent per household to beef up numbers. Note 3 16 Hunt family members 4 HPPC letters sent by people living in HPPC-owned houses: Doris Wang, 3926 McFarlin, also notice signed by Mark Story Ginny/Josh Pack, 3928 McFarlin, also notice signed by Mark Story Charlie Dunn, 3837 McFarlin, also notice signed by Mark Story Erin Hicks, 3833 McFarlin, also notice signed by Mark Story 8 HPPC letters were sent between May 25 and June 1 Exhibit B (continued): Summary of Responses Recap Notes Note 1: 3829 3833 3837 3900 3908 3912 3916 3821 3821 3821 3907 3917 3800 and 3900 Block of University and McFarlin single family residents owned by HPPC McFarlin HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC McFarlin HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC McFarlin HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC McFarlin HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC McFarlin HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC McFarlin HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC McFarlin HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC University HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC University -Blks 5 & 6 HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC University -Lots 9 & 10 HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC University HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC University HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC Note 2: 3920 3926 3928 3647 3921 3929 3800 and 3900 Block of University and McFarlin single family residents owned by HPPC McFarlin HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC McFarlin HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC McFarlin HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC University -Sr. Pastor HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC University HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC University HPPC notices signed by Mark Story on behalf of HPPC Note 3: 3137 4301 4341 3705 3612 3509 3513 4425 4420 3611 4208 3844 3701 4045 6326 3725 3709 3508 Instances of two canned letters sent per household to beef up numbers Hanover Charles & Laura Cliff Stanhope Jay & Holly Hurley San Carlos Kent & Vallerie Krause Southwestern Morgan & Casey Hunt Marquette Van & Susanna Ogden Bryn Mawr Bill & Mimi Vanderstraaten Caruth Blvd Randall & Dixie Ann Wilson Druid Lane Jim & Jenny Castellaw McFarlin James & Patricia Porter Brinkley Ave Gerry & Polly York Larchmont Ave Keith & Kathleen Rothjen Southwestern Bailey & Jordon Hunt Centanary Dr John & Jean Walter Hanover Austin & Chelsea Hunt Westchester Schuyler & Lila Marshall Brinkley Ave George & Diane Wilkin Greenbriar Carter & Michelle Hunt Caruth Blvd Dale & Carole Walter