Park Cities YMCA Project Capped, Not Denied

The University Park City Council took an unusual step Tuesday night, altering the submitted plans for the renovated Park Cities YMCA instead of approving or denying the proposed 65,000 square foot project.

Prior to the meeting, Mayor Dick Davis indicated that the Council would — most likely — not approve the plans as submitted. He then added that he didn’t want the project to start from fresh, a move that would require the Y to return to the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission as well.

So the Council altered the submittal, approving a 52,000 square-foot building, roughly 20 percent lower than the Y requested. Y officials and neighbors both seemed somewhat confused by the decision.

For more info, check out this week’s Park Cities People.

By Bradford Pearson Sep. 4, 2012 | 7:16 pm | 25 Comments | Comments RSS
25 comments to "Park Cities YMCA Project Capped, Not Denied"
  1. HGW.Metromedia @ September 4, 2012 at 8:43 pm
    Seems like the council made a good faith step in promoting a compromise between what the neighbors and the Y really wanted. It will be good to see a smaller, more effective Y on that land, benefitting ALL in the community!

  2. hata @ September 4, 2012 at 10:13 pm
    what a bunch of idiots!

  3. peter griffin @ September 5, 2012 at 8:09 am
    for pete’s sake,
    who do they think they are,
    the client or the architect?

  4. Avid Reader @ September 5, 2012 at 8:40 am
    What about the Utility Tax?

  5. Frustrated @ September 5, 2012 at 9:08 am
    It is unfortunate that the Council did not provide any rationale for the size reduction. Why 80% of the proposed size? As much thought and discussion was provided, to have this arbitrary limit established sounds like politics as usual. The only voice of reason was Councilperson Moore who brought up the possibility of an approval of a somewhat larger size with some possibility for variance – it was unfortunate that she did not press further with her argument which was certainly more reasonable.

    At least have the cajones to come up with some reasonable support justify the size reduction. When that isn’t done, it just demonstrates the capriciousness of the Council and the perception that their decision is ALL political rather than reasonable.

  6. Rico @ September 5, 2012 at 9:26 am
    This type of decision is a trend resulting from the Council, P&Z, staff and everyone else in this city having to endure the serial filings from Legacy on the Chase bank project that were nowhere near what would be approved. They rejected the first 2 or 3 proposals, then started telling Legacy what they wanted and postponing a decision hoping Legacy would reciprocate. It is a difficult policy in my opinion, one that skates pretty close to quid pro quo. If they don’t like the proposal, it should be rejected. Then make the time period between filing new proposals longer and more expensive. That should ensure that developers are more ready to get on the same page with the community before wasting everyone’s time and resources.

  7. Frustrated @ September 5, 2012 at 10:29 am
    P&Z should have be more pro-active in assessing and recommending to Council a proposal that best reflects a compromise between the community and experts. A 20% reduction in physical space should be recommended by the department responsible for evaluating such items, rather than an executory body which should should be voting on proposals, NOT creating them.

  8. Spock @ September 5, 2012 at 12:32 pm
    The needs of the few outweighed the needs of the many!!
    It is illogical!!

  9. DIANE @ September 5, 2012 at 1:55 pm
    WE LIVE IN A SMALL TOWN. OUR COUNCIL MUST PROTECT ALL OF ITS RESIDENTS WHEN AN ENTITY OF ANY KIND, BE IT PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, WANTS TO OVERBUILD ON A LIMITED SITE. WE NEED MORE GREEN SPACE IN UNIVERSITY PARK AND THAT WILL ONLY HAPPEN IF THE P&Z STARTS SAYING NO! THE P&Z WAS NOT LOOKING OUT FOR US – THE RESIDENTS WHO WOULD BE IMPACTED BY A HUGE BUILDING AND INCREASED TRAFFIC DID NOT HAVE A PR MACHINE AS THE Y DID TO INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION, BUT THE COUNCIL TRIED TO FIND A COMPROMISE. THE YMCA MOVED FROM ITS FORMER SITE AT GOAR PARK; PERHAPS ITS TIME TO MOVE TO A LOCATION THAT WILL ACCOMMODATE THEIR ASPIRATIONS. THE “NEEDS OF THE FEW” IS EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND A COUNCIL WHO LISTENS TO ITS CONSTITUENTS. WHEN YOU CANNOT PARK IN FRONT OF YOUR OWN HOME AND CANNOT HAVE PLUMBERS OR ELECTRICIANS OR DELIVERY TRUCKS COME TO YOUR HOUSE WITHOUT BEGGING-PLEADING WITH Y MEMBERS NOT TO BLOCK ACCESS TO YOUR HOME, THEN YOU CAN TALK TO ME ABOUT THE “NEEDS OF THE FEW”!

  10. Look at the Big Picture @ September 6, 2012 at 1:43 pm
    Diane – The Y has been at its current location for over 50 years – probably longer than you have lived at your current location. Yours is hardly a small town – full of people who live in the Metroplex at large and probably work somewhere outside of your small town. When former city officials and well-connected business people are the ones being personally impacted, don’t think for a minute that their opinions didn’t influence the decision.

    Parking Districts will help out for ‘the few’ – then you can rely on your small town police force to enforce it. As for me, the Y will be providing benefits for MANY people – your small town and the neighboring towns as well. Think inclusive !!!

  11. bm @ September 6, 2012 at 3:45 pm
    They can do away with the P&Z and go strait to the council.

  12. CZ @ September 6, 2012 at 4:38 pm
    @ Diane – Why are you yelling? Will there be less green space with the proposed plan? I thought the soccer field was staying.
    Also, I have seen your neighbors benefiting from the Y parking by having hired valets (common everywhere in our area due to limited street parking) putting cones in Y spaces as people left to reserve them for you without the permission of the Y (I asked). Maybe more parking will be better for you too?

  13. DIANE @ September 6, 2012 at 4:46 pm
    I assure you that former city officials and well-connected business people were the ones supporting the Y’s decision to double its size, without increasing its land mass, and they have historically supported and contributed to the Park Cities Y; believe me, we, the residents on the west side of Preston, are the weaker team in this situation. Years ago, when we tried to get road-humps to slow down the traffic on our street, we were stymied by non-resident property owners on our block who believed our attempt to slow traffic was an affront to the Y. Parking Districts are a pain, both for residents and the police force! The real issue is how big is too big for a piece of land. I don’t understand why you say “think inclusive”. What does that have to do with overbuilding on too small a piece of property? Trust me, the cars parked in front of my house are not from “neighboring towns” (unless you mean Highland Park). Believe me, if the Y wanted to be more inclusive, they would have purchased Sym’s old location on Mockingbird and built a huge facility, had surface parking and still had lots and lots of green space left over. Remaining on its current landlocked site is far less “inclusive” and does not benefit nearly as many people. The Y wanted to move near the high school several years ago, but faced vocal and effective opposition. Even back then, they knew their 50-year-old location was insufficient.

  14. DIANE @ September 6, 2012 at 5:03 pm
    ps – I’m old – I didn’t know caps meant yelling…sorry.

  15. P&Z needs to step up @ September 6, 2012 at 9:55 pm
    @Rico and Frustrated – I agree with you. I am amazed that this proposal got past P&Z without more scrutiny. Clearly, the proposed building was (is) too large for the limited land size. We trust our P&Z to thoroughly consider such proposals and act in the interest of the homeowners (taxpayers), not commercial enterprises, no matter how beloved they are by the community. (I didn’t know they old Syms site was ever even considered. That would have been an ideal location, with plenty of space and tons of parking).

  16. Avid Reader @ September 7, 2012 at 9:17 am
    @CZ, I seriously doubt that the YMCA would allow neighbors having a party that uses valet to use their proposed parking garage.

  17. Piper Man @ September 7, 2012 at 1:21 pm
    Mind if I gloat a little here? I did predict within a hair of the 52,000 sqft. Maybe I should wait until the Y announces that the Rise school is no longer part of their plans? Gloat gloat gloat…..

  18. parkcitiesfriend @ September 7, 2012 at 5:53 pm
    PiperMan, what do you have against special need children? Are they are offensive to you, do you find yourself so superior to them that you don’t want to be bothered by them or are you just a bubble person who gives the Park Cities that stuck up reputation so many other folks talk about. There are 525 special need children in HPISD and the majority of those live in UP. The Y has 26 children in the present preschool program, would an extra 29 children cause such a problem, especially if they are special need children?
    What if the Y chooses to withdraw its application? What has been accomplished? It would seem nothing and the status quo remains. You and your neighbors will continue to have your driveways blocked by others coming to a facility that serves the needs of the community because the City of University Park will not step up provide these needed services to its community.
    Please watch me gloat, gloat when the Y pulls the project and leaves everything status quo leaving you to continue living with the parking and congestion.

  19. Spock @ September 7, 2012 at 9:52 pm
    Change is the essential process of all existence……except in the Park Cities!!!

  20. DIANE @ September 10, 2012 at 11:45 am
    park cities friend and spock – you missed the piperman’s point. the rise school was merely an elegant sleight of hand to get good people to look at the opportunity to help children as the reason for the ymca’s enormity. the rise school was not even mentioned until it appeared that there might be effective opposition to the ymca’s plan. using children was a pr move to make all who opposed their plan appear to be “bad people” and look at your comments – it apparently worked. what piperman was saying and, what several of us asked during the process was- if the ymca size is increased as requested, where is a written agreement that the rise school will really have a guaranteed place there and for some time, not just until the dust settles? as to needs of “many” versus “few”, the information requested and finally provided by the park cities ymca to the city council acknowledged that the park cities ymca membership has decreased in recent years, not increased.

  21. ParkCitiesFriend @ September 10, 2012 at 12:08 pm
    PiperMan, can you not answer the question about the Rise School? Many of us would really like to know what you have against children with special needs and why an additional 29 children in Pre School is so bad. Will they interfere with you personal workout plans at the Y as a couple of your neighbors suggested in testimony before P&Z? The proposal has a cap of 55 children. We really want to hear your response to the question since you seem to be the all knowing “Oz” and maybe your answer will enlighten us as to why the Y should not try and help children with special needs.

  22. Frustrated @ September 10, 2012 at 3:13 pm
    The influence of businessmen and a former city councilman rests on the East Side – who continue to try to create a private ‘enclave’. The west side just served to be the louder mouthpiece, allowing the East to work politically ‘behind the scenes’. No rationale reason was given for reducing the size – there ARE options to expand the garage and provide some onsite parking at the facility – where were any studies saying that the building was too big except for the ‘opinions’ of the immediate neighbors.

    If you think a 20% reduction equates to a comparable reduction of traffic, then OK. Now that the Y has been ‘forced’ to compromise by an arbitrary reduction in size, perhaps the neighbors should recognize that it is their turn to compromise. Hopeful that the Council looks at it this way.

  23. ParkCitiesFriend @ September 10, 2012 at 3:51 pm
    In reality, it didn’t matter whether it stayed the Rise School or not because the proposed Y plan and the P&Z approved plan capped the “student” number at 55 children. In order to change that number it would require a change in the PD which would call for the neighbors to be notified. Do you really think the Y would stoop so low as to use children with special needs as PR move to get their zoning passed? If those are your real thoughts on the matter then I feel sorry of you and your neighbors who some have served as board members. The enormity of the proposed Y building has a lower ratio of building per land square footage than UP Town Center, Snider Plaza, Preston Center East, Chirst the King, PC Baptist, HP Methodist, HP Pres and St. Michaels. And the Y has been on its site longer than 75% of the homes around it. Please answer the question of what happens should the Y not build a building? What happens to your property now or the traffic in your neighborhood?

  24. Spock @ September 10, 2012 at 10:11 pm
    The torrential flood of illogic that comes from PiperMan and DIANE is a sad commentary on just how narrow minded and cruel people can be without regard for the mission of the Y which is to put Christian values into practice through programs that build healthy spirit, mind and body FOR ALL.

  25. PC Res @ September 10, 2012 at 11:39 pm
    Diane, you say
    “. . . the city council acknowledged that the park cities ymca membership has decreased in recent years, not increased”

    No mystery there. Just like any other organization, Y utilization and membership fluctuates with the economy. And consistent with other program-based non-profits, it moves counter to the economy. This is clear in the 2000 – 2012 utilization data provided for the Freese & Nichols study. Over the last 12 years, membership increases when the economy is down, and decreases when the economy is improving. The recent changes you refer to are entirely consistent with this. But make no mistake; overall utilization & membership has significantly increased over the long term. To suggest that cyclical changes related to the economy should have any bearing on city zoning policy is silly.

Leave a Reply