Memo
Staff has received multiple communications regarding the
proposed multi-family development. Communications address opposition to increased
density as proposed per Z-05-14-04. Staff recommended denial of the proposed
density increase as discussed in the staff report.
Some communications further oppose multi-family development
that is “marketed to KU students.” The previous development plan for a
multi-family senior housing project was approved in 2002 but never executed.
The zoning approved for the site establishes a maximum density
cap. This does not guarantee that that density can or should be developed. The
Planning Commission could through the development plan further limit the
development including building type such as single-family, duplex, triplex,
etc. per authority granted in Section 20-1004.1 stated as follows:
20-1004.1 RESTRICTION OF USES
AND BUILDING TYPES.
As a condition of approval of a PRD, PCD, PID or POD zoning
district, the Planning Commission or City Commission may designate by ordinance
or as a note on the face of the development plan, any specific use, structure
or building type which shall be restricted and excluded as part of the planned
unit development zoning district. (Ord. 6745)
Communications have been received from the following
individuals in opposition to the request:
|
1. Zeiki Oral
|
4400 W. 25th Place
|
|
2.Rob and Jamie Hulse
|
4403 Gretchen Ct.
|
|
3. Morley Bregman
|
4404 W. 25th Place
|
|
4. Scott Carlson
|
4324 Helianthus Drive
|
|
5. Bill Bump
|
4214 Tamarisk Ct.
|
|
6. Don Cushing
|
2620 Red Cedar Drive
|
|
7. John Johannes
|
4205 Tamarisk Ct.
|
|
8. Troy and Andrea Hodapp
|
4308 Helianthus Drive
|
|
9. Jim Long
|
4428 W. 25th Place.
|
|
10.Melissa & Chad Hoffman
|
|
|
11.James and Angela Evers
|
4218 Tamarisk Ct.
|
-------- Original
Message----
From: scott carison
[mailto:kumpa@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 8:21 AM
To: d-buress@ukans.edu;
jhaase@sunfiower.com; lfinger@ci.lawrence.ks.us Subject: NO to Kegends at KU
I live at
4324 Helianthus Drive immediately south of the proposed Phase II of the Legends
at KU. I am NOT in support of the higher density levels that are requested by
the developers. Our part of town is saturated with multi-family units that
erode the character
of our neighborhoods. We have invested significant financial resources in home ownership and pay significant
property taxes.
We are here to stay and take pride in our neighborhood.
Please deny any request to increase density in the area.
Thank
you for your consideration of this request. Scott B. Carlson
------- Original
Message---
From: Bill Bump [mailto:bbump1945@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 1:42 PM To: bhauschild@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Subject: legends at KU, Phase II
Dear Brad-‑
We are writing in opposition to the zoning
request change for the now vacant 12.55 acre tract at the SE corner of 24th P1.
and Inverness. We live in the neighborhood, at 4214 Tamarisk Ct., and Iwe
desire to maintain the integrity of our neighborhood. We are NOT in support of
the higher density levels that are being requested.
Bill
and Marcy Bump
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
MORLEY
BREGMAN
4404
W. 25TH PLACE
LAWRENCE
KS 66047
USA
June 15, 2004
Sandra L. Day, AICP
Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan
Planning Office P.O. Box 708
Lawrence,
Kansas 66044-0708
Dear Ms. Day:
Re:
The Legends at KU, Phase II
I would
like to state my opposition to the request by the Peridian Group, Inc. to
rezone the tract of land south of 24th Place between Crossgate
Drive and Inverness Drive. I am also opposed to the Preliminary Development
Plan for The Legends at KU, Phase II.
My
opposition revolves around the following points:
1. My detached single family residence
is at 25th place just west of Inverness Drive. My wife and I have
lived there since April of 2000. Prior to purchasing our home, I checked with
the City Planning Office to find out the plans for the tract of land across
Inverness Drive. I was told that the zoning approval and the development plan
called for Senior's housing, ranging from low density "patio homes"
at the western end through two storey apartments in the middle section to
"assisted housing" at eastern end near Crossgate Drive. Given the
character of the existing neighborhood and the plans for single family detached
housing to the south of the tract, this plan seemed quite compatible, and,
accordingly, I completed the purchase of my home.
2. The zoning and plan now proposed is
not compatible with the existing land uses to the west and south of the site,
where we have detached, single family residences as well as Southwest Junior
High and Sunflower Elementary schools. I foresee conflicts in terms of noise
and traffic problems generated by the higher density and the fact that the
property will be marketed to KU students with quite different lifestyle
interests from those in the family oriented existing neighborhood.
3. The developer of the property would
be gaining an economic benefit from the added density beyond what was
originally proposed. Any such benefit should accrue to the community at large
and not the developer who had the original zoning and plan approved under a
totally different concept. If the original plan is no longer economically
feasible, as is claimed by the developer, that is really his problem and should
not become the problem of the surrounding neighborhood. Perhaps the land should
be dedicated as a local park.
Thank you for your consideration of my views.
------- Original Message-----
From: John Johannes
[mailto:mucomix@sunflower.com] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 7:59 AM
To: Ifinger@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Subject:
To Planning Staff:
Given the opportunity I would like to voice my opposition to
any increase in dwelling unit density in regards to "The legends at KU
phase IP"
Unlike some in Lawrence I personally
I do not embrace high density projects. There is a good chance of creating a number
of oversized rat holes in 40yrs.
John Johannes 4205 Tamarisk Ct Lawrence KS 66047
Zeki Oral
4400 West 25`h
Place Lawrence, KS 66047
June 17, 2004
Sandra
L. Day, AICP
Lawrence-Douglas County Metropolitan Planning Office P.O. Box 708
Lawrence,
KS 66044-0708
Subject: The Legends at KU, Phase II
Dear Ms. Day:
I am
writing to state my opposition against the request by the Peridian Group, Inc.
to rezone the land between Crossgate Drive and Inverness Drive just south of 24th
Place. I am also opposed to the Preliminary Development Plan submitted for The
Legends at KU, Phase II.
My wife
and I live in a single family dwelling on the corner of Inverness and 25th
Street. Before we purchased our home in July of 2002, I called the city
planners and asked about the zoning of the property across from our home as I
specifically did not want to purchase the property if apartments would be built
across the street. I was assured that apartments would not be built as the
property was zoned for low density patio homes on the west side. I purchased my
home based on this information. Had I known the property may be rezoned and had
I seen the plan for The Legends, Phase II, I would have purchased a home
elsewhere.
It is
my understanding the The Legends II are marketed toward KU students. I am
concerned for the safety of the nearby school children as a result of the
increase in traffic due to the higher density of persons in the area. Bishop Seabury
Academy, Southwest Junior High and Sunflower Elementary schools are all located
very near the proposed development. The initial zoning plan seems much more
compatible with this neighborhood and child friendly.
Recently
I attended the meeting held by the developers of the Peridian Group. After the
new proposal for The Legends II was unveiled, I asked the developers if the new
plan required new zoning. I was told Peridian group was not seeking rezoning.
It is my understanding that they are indeed seeking rezoning. I am very
frustrated that the information is being presented in such a misleading way to
me and neighbors.
During
the meeting with the Peridian Group, the developer claimed it is not profitable
to carry on with the original plan. The new
plan will be profitable to the Peridian Group at the expense of the
neighborhood and the families that live here. If the new plan is
approved the Peridian Group will gain profit while our property values
decrease.
I have
enjoyed the family atmosphere and sense of community in this neighborhood. I
trust that the city of Lawrence will make the correct decision.
Zeki Oral
Page
1 of 1 Amy Saker
From: Drew Hulse
[falcons284@sunflower.com] Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 10:54 PM
To: Troy and Andrea;
thomasjennings@hotmail.com; geichhorn@earthlink.com; dennis.lawson @fcbw.com; rschenewerk@
rjfs.com; suserikson @jerickson.com; rockdoc @ sunflower.com; bojojohnson @
hotmail.com; TRjordanmd@hotmail.com; jhaase@sunflower.com; D-BURRESS@UKANS.EDU;
cfolkmann@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bdyer@ci.lawrence.ks.us; rstains@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
bhauschild@ci.lawrence.ks.us; sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us; dgutert@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
kambler@ci.lawrence.ks.us; Izollner@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
asaker@ci.lawrence.ks.us; ppatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bahrens@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
jtully@ci.lawrence.ks.us; sstogsdill@ci.lawrence.ks.us; (finger@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Subject: Re: Ledgends at KU, Phase II Zoning
Change Request
We have been asked to send this email to you on behalf on
our Neighbor, Jim Long.
My
name is Jim Long. I live at 4428 W. 25th Place.
I have seen your info on the request
for change of density status for the property just across Inverness. I have
also seen the notice posted on the property in the bright yellow sign. I'd like
to submit my opposition for the increased
density for the property but I'm not sure I'm technologically advanced to email
all the folks on the list. Can you get this to them for me?
I barely type worth a darn. It would
probably take me 2 months to get all those sent.
I'd just say I
feel the current density is adequate for the area and the traffic that already
exists and I'd thank them
for their time and consideration in the matter.
Thank you for your help. Jim Long
From: Troy and Andrea
[mailto:hodapp@sunflower.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 20, 2004 9:23 PM
To: thomasjennings@hotmail.com; geichhorn@earthlink.com;
dennis.lawson@fcbw.com; rschenewerk@rjfs.com; suserikson@jerickson.com;
rockdoc@sunflower.com; bojojohnson@hotmail.com; TRjordanmd@hotmail.com;
jhaase@sunflower.com; DBURRESS@UKANS.EDU; cfolkmann@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bdyer@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
rstains@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bhauschild@ci.lawrence.ks.us; sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
dgutert@ci.lawrence.ks.us; kambler@ci.lawrence.ks.us; Izollner@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
asaker@ci.lawrence.ks.us; ppatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bahrens@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
jtully@ci.lawrence.ks.us; sstogsdill@ci.lawrence.ks.us; (finger@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Subject: Ledgends at KU, Phase II
Zoning Change Request
Dear Planning Commission Members and
Planning Staff,
We recently received notice of a zoning change from 12
dwelling units per acre to 13.7 dwelling units per acre at the Legends at KU,
Phase II development. My wife and I are concerned about the increased density
request, and the impact it will have on our neighborhood. The higher density
would add approximately 30 units to the development, which I would estimate
would add about 40 to 60 vehicles due to this change. Our neighborhood is very
peaceful and tight knit, and we do not want the additional traffic to impact
the way we enjoy our lives, let alone the negative impact it will have on our
property values.
We bought our house 9 months ago, and at that time, were
assured that a retirement community consisting of 1 story villas was planned
for the vacant lot at the southeast corner of 24th Place and Inverness. You
might appreciate our surprise when we recently learned that the original plan
was scrapped and we would now be looking at 3 story apartment buildings just
beyond our back yard.
We understand that the current lot is
zoned for 12 units per acre, and there is not much that can be done to change that. However, we
want to maintain the integrity of our neighborhoods and are not in support of
the higher density levels that are being requested. Therefore, please consider
denying the request by the Legends at KU developers for the higher zoning
density.
Please feel free to email or call if
you have any questions or need further information regarding our concerns.
Thank you for your consideration,
Troy and Andrea Hodapp 4308 Helianthus Drive (785)
832-8930
Amy Saker
'"rom: Don Cushing
[Don.Cushing@FHLBTopeka.com]
ant: Friday, June 18, 2004 2:34 PM
To: D-BURRESS@UKANS.EDU;
jhaase@sunflower.com; TRiordanmd@hotmail.com; bojojohnson @ hotmail.com; rockdoc
@ sunflower.com; Suserikson @jerickson.com; rschenewerk@rjfs.com;
dennis.lawson@fcbw.com; geichhorn@earthlink.net; thomasjennings @ hotmail.com;
(finger@ci.lawrence.ks.us; sstogsdill@ci.lawrence.ks.us; dguntert@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
jtully@ci.lawrence.ks.us; sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bahrens@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bhauschild@ci.lawrence.ks.us; ppatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
rstains@ci.lawrence.ks.us; asaker@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bdyer@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
Izollner@ci.lawrence.ks.us; cfolkmann@ci.lawrence.ks.us; kambler@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Subject: Legends at KU Phase II
To the Lawrence/Douglas County Planning Commission
Members and Planning Staff,
I along with several
neighbors located on and around Red Cedar Drive (just South of the zoning
change request) would like to maintain what is left of the integrity of our neighborhoods and are not in support of the higher
density levels that are being requested for The Legends at KU, Phase II.
Maybe this is a little harsh
but I feel like this was the plan all along and that the developer just gave you the plans that they felt
you would agree too and now that they are well into the development are now trying to change the plans to what
they really wanted in the first place - I feel like we are being lead on
a leash. You are the people that are supposed to make sure the developer
follows the plan as originally designed.
To give
you an example, we bought a nice house that was not supposed to have any two
story houses
behind it but because of a zoning change my property value is not as it should
be because I now look out the back of my house and see a two story duplex - as
you can magine, I'm not happy that you have let me down.
My main concern is traffic
and the speeds these new residents will be driving around my neighborhood. We
have over 25 children under the age of five within a block of my house and we are constantly seeing kids, from Phase I,
driving too fast on Inverness, Crossgate, 24th place and 27th. I know
this from walks, bike rides and from driving in the area every day. Also,
please keep in mind this traffic will also be around and affect the Sunflower
Elementary and Southwest Junior High.
This higher density request
will add approximately 56 to 90 more people into the development if you take
28-30 units times two or three residents per unit. This does not include
friend, parties and other such gatherings. Anyway you slice it, I truly believe
this would be too much for the area and we are not in support of the higher
density request.
Respectfully Concerned Citizens,
Don Cushing
2620 Red Cedar Drive Lawrence, KS 66047 dcushing@sunflower.com
------ Original Message-----
From: Rob and Jamie Hulse
[mailto:rjhulse@sunflower.com]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 8:57 AM
To: Ifinger@ci.lawrence.ks.us; sstogsdill@ci.lawrence.ks.us; jtully@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
bahrens@ci.lawrence.ks.us; ppatterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
asaker@ci.lawrence.ks.us; Izollner@ci.lawrence.ks.us; kambler@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
dgutert@ci.lawrence.ks.us; sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bhauschild@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
rstains@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bdyer@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
cfolkmann@ci.lawrence.ks.us; D-BURRESS@UKANS.EDU; jhaase@sunflower.com;
TRjordanmd@hotmail.com; bojojohnson@hotmail.com; rockdoc@sunflower.com;
suserikson@jerickson.com; rschenewerk@rjfs.com; dennis.lawson@fcbw.com; geichhorn@earthlink.com;
thomasjennings@hotmail.com; Troy and Andrea
Cc: Mike & Beth Burghart; Chris and Megan King; Dennis
& Marsha Odgers; Dennis Odgers; Kueser;
Peter Chenouda; DEBORAH THOMPSON; Kevin Wickliffe; Maggie Fieger; Don Cushing;
Michelle Muiller; Steve Muiller
Subject: Legends at KU, Phase II
To: Planning
Commission Members and Staff of Planning and Zoning Office. From: Rob
and Jamie Hulse
Date:
6/20/04
RE: The
Legends at KU, Phase II
We recently
received a notification of the requested zoning change for the development of
The Legends at KU Phase II. We are strongly opposed to the
request for additional density in this area and ask that you "do not
approve" the developer's request as it has been proposed.
It seems that the original passing of the zoning was in
favor of a site plan for a retirement community. The retirement development
seemed appropriate at the time because much of the development would be for assisted care living, with those residences for
independent living to live in one-level patio townhouses similar to the
ones at Brandon Woods. The one-level townhouses were positioned to create a single family buffer to the neighbors
immediately to the West in Stone Meadows South #2. It was argued that
the residents of this development would be less mobile, not be a traffic burden
to Inverness, and live more quietly. The retirement community would be a nice
compliment to the large multi-family development to its East, The Legends at
KU. A retirement community would add diversity to the area and still allow the
developer to get the units per acre needed to make their project economically
feasible.
We know
that time has come and gone------- but, now
we learn that The Legends at KU can present for approval a site plan of
additional Multi-Family rental housing, and that the plan is in compliance with
the PRD-2 zoning for the ground. Were told that as long as they stay within the
12 units per acre that was originally passed for the retirement development it
would be approved. We would challenge that not only should the request to
increase the density be denied, we feel the site plan for the development
be further reviewed to ensure that the surrounding neighborhoods not be
adversely affected. The creation of over 25 contiguous acres of
high density, student oriented, multi-family housing would be a burden
to this area.
Furthermore, after reviewing the site plan for Phase II of The Legends
at KU, the Westernmost part of this plan has 2, Two-Story 8-Plexes backing up
to a single family (RS-2) neighborhood to the West. How can it be determined
that a cul-de-sac of one-level patio homes, as was originally proposed for this
site, be similar to 2, Two-Story 8-plexes? There is a huge difference between a
cul-de-sac
of two-unit duplexes and a couple of 8-Plexes! Additionally, although Inverness
Drive is now a boulevard, it is in no way enough of a buffer to differentiate
the transition between the proposed high density multi-family of PRD-2 and the
single family RS-2 that is accross the street to the West. Additionally, if it
is argued that Inverness is a collector or main arterial type street, why did
the City of Lawrence include two traffic calming devices (roundabouts)
as a part of Inverness Drive's widening just two years ago? And last, we are
surprised that despite the amount of children from ages 5 to 16 who
attend both Sunflower Elementary and Southwest Jr. High (many
of which walk to and from school), that you would approve of over 25
contiguous acres of high density multi-family in the immediate area. Unbelievably,
the School District is actually on the list of property owners within 200 feet
who are to be notified of this public hearing. THE SCHOOL GROUNDS ARE
WITHIN 200 FEET!!!!
Why is it that in our community we can do studies to
determine the amount of needed Commercial Space for Retail and Office, and then
restrict areas of Lawrence to certain amounts of developable square feet based
on the community's need for such space; but we will not curtail unnecessary
growth of additional multi-family when we have an abundance of apartment space
available with vacancy rates higher than they have been in years?
We stand opposed to not only the request for additional
density, but to the proposed development site plan as well. Many people spend a
lot of time in our community talking about maintaining the integrity of our
neighborhoods - Our parks, our neighborhoods, our downtown, etc.... We ask that
you consider the impact that the scale of this plan (again, 25 continguous
acres of multi-family)
would have on
the neighborhoods of Stone Meadows South #2 and Sunflower Park, especially so
close to 2 schools. We feel strongly that there is a BIG difference in
impact to our area between the originally proposed and approved Retirement
Community using two-unit duplexes as a buffering transition and the proposed
site plan of Phase II of The Legends at KU.
Thank you,
Rob and Jamie Hulse 785-841-7653
4403 Gretchen
Ct. Lawrence, KS 66047
Page 1 of 1 Amy Saker
From: Angie Evers [acevers@sunflower.com] Sent: Monday,
June 21, 2004 12:01 PM
To: d-burress@ukans.edu; jhaase @
sunflower.com; triordanmd @ hotmail.com; bojojohnson @ hotmail.com; rockdoc @
sunflower.com; suserikson @ jerickson.com; rschenewerk@rjfs.com;
dennis.lawson@fcbw.com; geichhorn@earthlink.net; thomasjennings @ hotmail.com;
(finger@ci.lawrence.ks.us; sstogsdill@ci.lawrence.ks.us; dguntert@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
jtully@ci.lawrence.ks.us; sday@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bahrens@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bhauschild@ci.lawrence.ks.us; ppaterson@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
rstains@ci.lawrence.ks.us; asaker@ci.lawrence.ks.us; bdyer@ci.lawrence.ks.us; Izollner@ci.lawrence.ks.us;
cfolkmann@ci.lawrence.ks.us; kambler@ci.lawrence.ks.us
Subject:
Zoning
Change Request for The Legends at KU, Phase II Commissioners and Planning
Staff,
My family of four lives at 4218 Tamarisk
Ct. in Sunflower Park neighborhood. As a very near neighbor to The Legends at
KU, Phase I and Phase II, we are opposed to a zoning change from 12 dwelling
units per acre to 13.7 dwelling units per acre as is requested by The Legends.
Any development of multi-family dwellings impacts any neighborhood, granted,
but we believe this zoning change would only increase the burden of more
traffic in this quiet area, near two schools, and may further decrease
single-family property values. Having moved from a very
high density area (Ousdahl Road south of 23rd Street), we are proud of the quiet, safe, comfortable
feeling of our new neighborhood. We want to
maintain the integrity of our area. We are not in support of the higher density
levels that are being requested. We hope that you will consider our opinions in
making you decision regarding this zoning change request.
Thank you
for your time,
James &
Angela Evers 4218
Tamarisk Ct.
Lawrence, KS 66047 785-865-1662
acevers @ sunflower.com
------ Original Message-----
From: Melissa Hoffman
[mailto:melj@sunflower.com]
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2004 10:11 AM
To: D-BURRESS@UKANS.EDU;
jhaase@sunflower.com; TRriordan@hotmail.com; bojojohnson@hotmail.com;
rockdoc@sunflower.com; suseerikson@jerickson.com; rschenewerk@rjfs.com;
dennis.Iawson@fcbw.com; ggeichhorn@earthlink.net; thoomasjennings@hotmail.com
Subject: Rezoning of Legends apartments
We are writing
to express our concern in regard to the zoning request for the area located at
24th Place and Inverness. We do not support the higher density levels that are
being requested. We are upset at the proposed addition of up to 172 housing
units to the existing Legends apartment complex. We find it hard to believe
that there is a need in Lawrence for additional units, when there are
consistently vacancies in the existing complexes. However, our main concern in
the expansion of the Legends apartment complex, is the safety for the families
and children of our neighborhood. There are a great number of children in this
area, and that number increases significantly during the school year when
numerous children walk and ride bikes to Sunflower Elementary and Southwest
Junior High School. The expansion of the Legends apartments toward Inverness
would increase the amount of traffic in this area and put our children at risk.
We urge you to please consider this as you look at this zoning request. It is
our hope that we can maintain the integrity of our neighborhoods and stop the
expansion of the Legends apartment complex.
Thank you for
your time,
Melissa and
Chad Hoffman
melj@sunflower.com
Chairman David Burress
Members
Lawrence-Douglas
County Planning Commission
City Hall
Lawrence,
KS 66044
RE: ITEM NO. 6A: PRD-2 WITH RESTRICTIONS TO PRD-2;
12.5508 ACRES; SOUTH OF 24TH PLACE BETWEEN CROSSGATE DRIVE AND
INVERNESS DRIVE and ITEM NO. 6B; PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE LEGENDS
AT KU, PHASE II; SOUTH OF 24TH PLACE BETWEEN CROSSGATE DRIVE &
INVERNESS DRIVE.
Dear
Chairman Burress and Planning Commissioners:
On June 21,
1999, the Lawrence-Douglas County League of Women Voters sent you a letter
expressing our concern that instead of rezoning Inverness Park into holding
zones for later development, the whole Inverness Park development was rezoned
into higher intensity uses. The so-called planned areas given PRD zoning did
not have development plans, nor was the PUD zoning conditioned for any
restrictions other than for density. According to the Staff Report, "the
previous development proposal for the subject property was as an assisted
living facility and did not amend the overall density of the subject property."
This remaining tract of PRD-2 zoned land is now the subject of requests for
higher density and a Preliminary Development Plan for student housing—a major
revision to the originally intended use of this site, and contrary to the
hoped-for predictability of the PUD zoning.
The
proposed use for this site, if not restricted beyond density, has the potential
to allow an incompatible transition in terms of scale with neighboring single
family uses. We suggest that the buffer area containing a berm and the row of
townhouses on the west side of the site be required as a condition of the
zoning to ensure that this buffering feature, at least the housing type, be
binding.
We also
support the Staff recommendation not to increase the density of this
development. However, we believe that the Planning Commission has the option
not only to limit the density, but also to restrict the PRD-2 zoning at this
time to more compatible building types appropriate to the larger neighborhood
area. This tract is directly across the street from single family homes, and is
within close walking distance to the elementary and junior high schools. It
seems unfortunate to use this space so close to the school for university
student housing.
We suggest, therefore, that the Planning Commission not
accept the Preliminary Development Plan for student apartment housing at this time, but, rather, encourage the developer to
return to the concept of patio homes or more family-friendly housing
types that would allow those seeking "starter homes" to locate close
to these neighborhood schools.
Thank you
for your consideration.
Caleb
Morse Alan Black