Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Plan Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves large Fields PD amendment that reallocates housing units and alters park requirements, 4–1
Summary
The commission voted 4–1 to recommend approval of multiple amendments to the Fields plan development: increasing by‑right urban living units from 2,000 to 2,500, codifying 1,325 earned units, granting limited administrative flexibility for one lot, renaming a parkway, and reducing the number of required neighborhood parks from 12 to 8 while retaining an overall 72‑acre parkland requirement.
The Frisco Plains Zoning Commission on June 10 voted 4–1 to recommend approval of a broad amendment to Plan Development 280 (the Fields project) that adjusts unit allocations, clarifies exhibits, and revises certain parkland requirements. The amendment bundles multiple edits — from correcting subdistrict text to reallocating townhome units among subdistricts — and will be forwarded to City Council.
Key changes the commission considered include raising the number of by‑right urban living and multiplex units within the PD from 2,000 to 2,500 (the overall PD maximum remains 8,500), codifying 1,325 units that staff and the developer say have been “earned” through prior development activity tied to the Universal project, and giving the director of Development Services limited authority to approve one lot as front entry to address a surveying error rather than forcing demolition.
A major focus of public comment and commissioner discussion was the parks and trails language. The amendment reduces the required number of neighborhood parks from 12 to 8 while preserving the overall requirement of 72 acres of parkland; staff and the parks engineer explained that the 72‑acre count may include detention/retention areas and some utility easements but that those easements have long been included in the PD’s parkland accounting. Resident Jorgen Lisonbee urged the commission not to count utility easements as parkland because easements constrain active uses; Parks engineer Jackie Parker replied that many of the areas counted as parkland include drainage easements or electrical easements but that the city has used and counted such areas in the PD since adoption and that easement areas can still serve passive park uses, trails and open space even if vertical structures cannot be placed on them.
Commissioner Steve Cohn cast the lone nay vote, citing uncertainty about how much of the 72 acres would be constrained by easements and concern that the change could reduce publicly maintained park acreage close to existing neighborhoods. Other commissioners and staff said the PD retains multiple requirements protecting open‑space access, including a provision that a park shall be within 2,600 feet of the residential lot lines it serves and that exhibit maps identify park locations; staff said the Fields team and parks staff negotiated the changes and that several of the revisions are intended to reflect current development realities, including the Universal project.
The amendments also update nomenclature (for example, renaming Rock Hill Parkway to PGA Parkway) and include technical edits to tables about product types, minimum/maximum densities, and trail setbacks. The commission recommended approval 4–1; the vote and staff conditions will be forwarded to City Council.
