Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Developer warns setback restrictions would block retail at Newland Crossing

3850080 · June 17, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At the Parker Town Council meeting a developer representing 98 West Parker LLP said proposed retail setback restrictions would make the retail portion of the Newland Crossing project infeasible and asked council to remove the site from consideration.

John Segelke, general manager of 98 West Parker LLP, told the Parker Town Council during public comment that proposed retail setback restrictions under consideration would prevent development of the retail portion of Newland Crossing, a planned mixed-use development at the northeast corner of Main Street and Chambers Road.

Segelke said the developer sold the residential portion of the project in 2020 and still owns the retail land, which has not been developed. “If those restrictions are implemented, it will prevent the retail land at Newland Crossing from being developed anytime soon,” Segelke said. He said the town originally required retail uses at Newland Crossing and that the project partners worked with the town to create a development guide intended to enable a complementary mix of residential and retail uses.

Segelke told the council that economic and construction-cost changes have made retail development marginal and that “millions of dollars of on-site development costs on the retail land remain.” He said additional setback requirements would likely disallow the retail users that make the site feasible and asked council to remove Newland Crossing from consideration so the partnership can pursue further options with town staff.

Council acknowledged receipt of the written letter Segelke mentioned and said staff and council will monitor the matter. No formal action was taken during the meeting; the comments occurred during the public-comment period, which the council closed after hearing Segelke.

Because this was public comment, no motion or vote followed at this meeting.