HRC Action Summary

november 17, 2005

 

ITEM NO. 9:      Conduct a public hearing for consideration of proposed Conservation Overlay District and associated Design Guidelines for 8th and Pennsylvania Neighborhood Redevelopment Area.

 

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Staff presented photographs of elevations.

 

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Bo Harris, of Harris Construction, as well as Rick Schladweiler and Sally Schwenk, were present to answer questions and provide a detailed map of the proposed overlay area. The applicant supplied the Commission and staff with revised copies of the design guidelines.

 

Several points were verified:

§         3 years ago, when the Hobbs project began, Harris Construction started acquiring and bringing forth information they had to the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association. They presented information at their block party, and subsequent to that they sent notices to all homeowners and occupants from 7-10th Streets and Connecticut Street east.

§         Applicants are requesting the Historic Resources Commission initiate the UCO district.

§         Applicants’ UCO documents four zones for this project:

Zone 1: Represented by the grey-blue structures. This is the East Lawrence Historic Industrial District, and the applicants are seeking national and state recognition for this area. Five historic structures exist in that zone.

Zone 2: Includes public right-of-ways, and an extension of existing Delaware Street using existing street patterns.

Zone 3: A mixed-use area on the west side of Pennsylvania Street, that would include a pair of corner grocery store-type buildings and a grouping of three different phases of townhouse structures with some parking underneath and additional parking on site.

Zone 4: Includes non-compliant buildings.

§         In developing design guidelines, this project involves National Register eligible properties. Applicants are attempting to establish design guidelines that will be easily utilized whether under a federal, state, or city review.

§         Applicants noted changes to preliminary document handed out: p.10-11 more specificity to zoning and overlay, removed any guidelines to interior restoration of historic buildings, will be compatible to Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.

§         Applicants directed Board attention to p.9 showing the zones, and p.19 showing the recommended site improvements.

§         Applicants noted this part of East Lawrence is very diverse – it has never been a homogeneous grouping, it has always been  very mixed-use with a lot of diversity in the types of buildings and their placement.

§         The project envisions employee parking and entrances created in the old back-ends of the buildings, with a more formal entrance in front. There will be a dual-use for this parking: residents and visitors to residences will have access to parking.

§         National Register information has been filed and will be given to Commissioners tomorrow.

§         Comm. Alstrom addressed energy efficiency for Zones 3 and 4. Mr. Harris noted that issues of sustainability will be addressed the best they can while still building an affordable project.

§         On the West side of Pennsylvania Street, there are three empty lots and  a set of lots that are fenced in.

§         Concerns of East Lawrence residents regarding traffic have been addressed through changed drives.

§         The state has not had much reaction to the proposed higher density development. The state’s approach has been to look at this solely from the standpoint of new construction, scale and massing that is subservient and different from the historic district.

§         Staff noted the purpose of tonight’s discussion is to become familiar with the project, to receive public comment, and to initiate the UCOD, if the Commission feels this is appropriate. Recommendations can be given at the December meeting. Staff noted the fast time-schedule.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

No member of the Public spoke on this item.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Alstrom drew attention of Commissioners to the second heading on p.10 in the old version. That description defines the basics of what is going to go on in the new district.

 

The Commission would like to see the National Register nomination.

 

Comm. Mckenzie asked staff to outline the process for the UCOD. Staff explained the HRC can accept the documentation that has been provided and initiate the UCOD. The Commission will hold an additional public hearing at their December meeting. The Commission will make a determination at that point on how to proceed.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. McKenzie, seconded by Comm. Antle to initiate the process for the UCO for the proposed Urban Conservation Overlay District for the 8th and Pennsylvania Neighborhood Redevelopment Area.

          Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.

 

HRC ACTION SUMMARY

DECEMBER 15, 2005

 

ITEM NO.  5:        DR-11-98-05:  Conduct a public hearing for consideration of proposed Conservation Overlay District and associated Design Guidelines for 8th and Pennsylvania Neighborhood Redevelopment Area.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Staff presented photographs of all building elevations and streetscapes.

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Korb Maxwell, from the law firm of Polsinelli, Shalton, Welte, and Suelthaus was present, along with Hunter Harris of Harris Construction and Sally and Anne Shwenk, of Historic Preservation Services.

 

Mr. Maxwell noted that Big Prairie Development Company and Harris Construction desire to create a mixed-use development on the property. Mr. Maxwell discussed a problem with the Lawrence zoning code, in that the zoning code is based on buffering and separating different land uses and primarily serving an automobile. However, Mr. Maxwell commented that the applicant wants a specifically mixed-use development while creating a critical mass of land uses in the area. The zoning code regulations such as setbacks, lot lines and area regulations, and buffers are antithetical to create mixed-use development areas.

 

Mr. Maxwell outlined two changes that need to occur for the applicant to create a mixed-use development:

1. The base zoning district (currently M-1 and M-2) needs to be changed to C-5 to allow residential development and other different land uses.

2. An overlay district needs to be created to control all items such as setbacks, densities, etc., allowing the applicant to set out guidelines and develop in the manner that they want.

 

Mr. Maxwell noted that the applicant also wants to develop in a historically sensitive manner. The applicant submitted for a historic district nomination.

 

Sally Shwenk presented on the historic guidelines to the project. Ms. Shwenk noted a few errors: p.12 the height issue was changed from last time – the intent was to have the Poehler building remain the tallest, and the penthouse exception should not apply to any other building. The intent is that no building in the overlay district will be as tall as the existing Poehler building.

 

Ms. Shwenk commented that the draft nomination for historic designation has been submitted to the state office for review, and that there is usually a 60-day period of review. She has not received state or city comments on the draft at the time.

 

Staff noted that the intent of the Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines were never to be regulatory, but have become regulatory standards in Kansas, as a basis for tax credits and State Law Review. Staff commented that there is a great deal of interpretation for the standards. Staff sat down with the developer to flush out how the design guidelines meet the standards as interpreted by staff and the SHPO.

Ms. Shwenk noted that everything that has been recommended is already in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.

Comm. Sizemore commented that he does not feel that the guidelines are as detailed as the Downtown Design Guidelines and that more detail could be flushed out.

Ms. Shwenk noted, as a reason for the lack of detail raised by Comm. Sizemore, that every building in Zone 1 is a different type of building so there are no blanket rules covering all of the buildings. Also, there are limited options for these buildings for new construction because of the importance of open space.

 

Comm. Antle asked if any models have been used in putting this project together. Hunter Harris, with Big Prairie Development and Harris Construction, commented that Harris Construction does a number of historical projects in the Crossroads area of Kansas City, and that they looked at that area and many of those buildings to lend themselves to this project. However, there is no specific project that this is modeled after, because this is so unique. Mr. Harris commented that the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards are the primary guidance to projects such as these.

 

Comm. Antle wondered if the agricultural and industrial history of the neighborhood would be a part of the project. Mr. Harris thought that would be an excellent idea. Ms. Shwenk commented that there are multiple ways to have interpretive educational materials incorporated into the project.

 

Comm. Hickam asked about the overall timetable of the project. Mr. Harris responded that currently they are working through a schematic design of the Poehler building and now have a construction budget. The applicant is working through a design development process for several projects, and is hoping to commence construction this spring on some projects.

 

Mr. Harris clarified that the residential units on the first level are residential flats with two floors above divided into two-story units.

 

Comm. Sizemore commented on his light pollution concerns, and the references to exterior lighting that highlights the building. Ms. Shwenk commented that their approach is conservative, and that the applicant will make that more obvious in the language. Comm. Sizemore drew Ms. Shwenk’s attention to p.41 language about lighting to highlight buildings. Mr. Harris proposed to remove language lighting “the building” and replace it with “the building’s entrance and parking,” to stress that the lighting is not to decoratively highlight the building itself. Mr. Harris pointed to the 4th line down under Lighting on p.41 “attract the pedestrian traffic” to address the lighting drawing attention to the new building uses. Comm. Alstrom noted LED lighting draws attention to buildings but has less light pollution, and conceals the sources.

 

Comm. Sizemore asked about the reference to canvas awnings on p.41. Ms. Shwenk noted that it was not unusual on first floors that had offices facing the west to allow awnings within the windows, in keeping with the time period.

 

Comm. Alstrom was encouraged by the initial presentation and continued to be happy about the project. He noted that he hopes that an element of the fantasy of what may have been developed in the area were it to have continued to prosper will be a part of the project. He commented that it would be interesting to try to recruit high-tech industries that have small space requirements into this area.

 

Ms. Shwenk clarified that Zone 4 is not in the overlay district. Construction would be reviewed because of the environs, but the guidelines are not attached to this overlay. Comm. Sizemore drew attention to p.47 and how the graphic indicates that Zone 2 extends out into the Zone 4 area. Mr. Maxwell commented that the graphic is additional information and still reflects the intent of the original project. The graphics will be updated.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

No member of the public spoke on this item.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Marvin expressed concern about the buffering of the project, commenting that the residential side of the street feels more monolithic than the industrial side of the street. Ms. Shwenk responded that the need to transition rapidly from single family to industrial presents a challenge. She commented that this is not a smooth transition, it is more buffer, and that with only this small land area to deal with, it is a challenge. Ms. Shwenk noted that the Secretary’s standards require that there be a differentiation between old and new, but there is debate about how extreme that differentiation should be, and that this difference is seen as a positive.

Mr. Maxwell addressed the density issue, noting that it is a sensitive subject not wanting the area too dense, but also wanting to create a critical mass needed for the development to be successful.

 

Comm. Alstrom commented that he does not know if the style was going to be a vernacular style that doesn’t present a barrier feel.

Comm. Sizemore noted that most of the open space in the proposal is behind the buildings, so there is some separation between the buildings of the projects and the houses of East Lawrence.

Mr. Harris noted that the buildings of Zone 3 are the result of 2 years of conversation with East Lawrence residents. He noted that the plan is to use materials consistent with those in East Lawrence homes and complimentary to the historic district.

 

Ms. Shwenk drew attention to the footprint of the rooftops on p.50 and their correspondence with the existing buildings, as well as the lot lines lining up.

Comm. Alstrom noted that the residential streetscape has not been addressed and could serve as a solution to Comm. Marvin’s concerns.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Sizemore to accept that the 4 conditions of Chapter 20, Article 14c were met by this project and that the Commission recommend the overlay district.

Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.

 

Motioned by Comm. Hickam, seconded by Comm. Marvin that the Commission forward this set of guidelines to the Architectural Review Committee.

Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.

HRC ACTION SUMMARY

JANUARY 19, 2006

 

ITEM NO. 3:        DR-11-98-05:   Consideration of proposed Design Guidelines for 8th and Pennsylvania Neighborhood Redevelopment Area.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Staff presented photographs of the site and building elevations. Ms. Zollner explained that staff, the applicant, and members from the Architectural Review Committee met the previous evening and discussed changes to the Design Guidelines.

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Korb Maxwell of Polsinelli, Shalton, Welte and Suelthaus, representing Big Prairie Development, was present to answer questions and provided a drawing explaining the conservation overlay district. He briefly went over a project history, stating this was the third time they had come before the Commission. He also described the four steps necessary to complete the process, stating the master plan needed to be amended, the Urban Conservation Overlay District needed to be approved, rezoning of the area needed to be approved, and the National Register District nomination needed to be placed on the register.  Tonight, the HRC is only looking at the Design Guidelines and they have come with Staff and the ARC’s recommendation for approval.

 

For the benefit of the members of the public who were not as familiar with the project as the Commission was, Mr. Maxwell went through a brief description of the proposal, including the fact that the Poehler building would be mixed-use. Duplexes would be located on the west side of Pennsylvania, with commercial anchors at the corners, and office/commercial lining the east side of Pennsylvania. He stated the overall idea for the development was for a mixed-use development that was pedestrian and environmentally friendly.

 

Comm. Mckenzie wanted clarification from Staff regarding what the Commission’s specific action for tonight is.  Ms. Zollner responded that it was up to the Commission to decide if they were ready to approve the Design Guidelines with the ARC’s changes.

 

Comm. Hickam asked the ARC members for a brief report on what was discussed at the ARC meeting. Comm. Sizemore stated the ARC met with the applicant the previous evening and reviewed the Design Guidelines page by page, making minor adjustments to the document. One of the major changes is that the applicant will provide an existing conditions statement at the beginning of each section, in addition to the recommended/not recommended statements. Other additions included: light pollution controls, density of Zone 2, landscaping, and the addition of Zone 4 back into the document because of its industrial reference. Mr. Maxwell stated the addition of the existing condition statements should help the HRC with future environs reviews for the area. 

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ardys Ramberg, a resident of East Lawrence since 1975, expressed concern with the conservation of the native plants and flowers, and also wanted to make sure to keep places for the children to play, as well as keeping the historical character of the neighborhood, and was glad to see the project. She expressed concerns over keeping the industrial nature of the area, and would like to see structures that were reminiscent of the Quonset huts. Ms. Ramberg also wished the applicants were going to save the stone barn that resided on the Aquila property.

 

Nicky Proudfoot stated she owned four properties located just outside Zone 3 and had many questions and concerns regarding the proposed development. Specifically, she expressed concern with the design and density of the project, parking, and the amount of units being built.  She wanted to know what the purpose of the Urban Conservation Overlay district was. Staff responded it was a development tool for older areas that may have achieved historic significance, are over five (5) acres, and the intent was to develop a set of guidelines that development must follow.

 

Ms. Proudfoot also questioned the purpose of the previous night’s ARC meeting and staff replied that it was a chance for two HRC members and staff to sit down and go over the design guidelines with the applicant.

 

Ms. Proudfoot expressed concern over a density level of 32 units per residential acre, and staff replied the density issue was a general planning issue that was not for the Historic Resources Commission to debate.  Mr. Maxwell stated the number was based on the Poehler building and was the acreage minus the public right-of-way.

 

Ms. Proudfoot also stated that some of the property owners along New Jersey Street were in the process of submitting a nomination because of the historic significance of the structures. Some of the properties are located across the alleyway from the proposed development along the west side of Pennsylvania Street, and there is concern over the impact that the higher density development will have on the historic structures. She also stated her concerns over the lack of greenspace and areas for recreation, as well as the amount of vehicular traffic.  She questioned whether the plan was pedestrian friendly.

 

Ms. Proudfoot also questioned the guidelines with respect to the maximum height of the buildings, and Mr. Maxwell clarified that the revised guidelines stated a building could be no taller than three (3) stories or 40’. Ms. Proudfoot questioned whether buildings that retain a high level of historical significance could change uses, i.e. industrial to residential. Staff clarified the underlying base zoning controls the use of the property.  Changes in use can occur within the restrictions of the base zoning.

 

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Hickam explained that many of the questions posed would be the decision of the Planning Commission.

 

Comm. Alstrom stated he wanted to make sure the applicant answers all of the public’s questions.

 

Staff responded to the concerns from the Commissioners as well as members of the public stating that the applicant would need to establish minimum and maximum levels for residential, retail, and commercial space.

 

Comm. Sizemore stated he, too, had concerns over the density of the development, specifically in Zone 3. He also stated it was good to know that the development will come through for design review once the historic district is in place. He added that he was comfortable with the design guidelines because of the reference to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and the review process that projects will have to follow.

 

Comm. Hickam started to make a motion to approve the design guidelines; however, Comm. Marvin expressed concern that the members of the Commission who were not present at the ARC meeting did not get a chance to review the changes to the document. Staff replied that the applicant did not have a chance to revise the document since the ARC meeting was just the previous evening, and it was up to the Commission whether to approve the document with ARC’s changes, or wait until the document could be revised and then re-submitted for review. Staff also stated that usually the Commission approved projects, pending ARC review, but the nature of this project was different because the Commission sent the project to the ARC, but it still had to come back to the full Commission for a final vote. Comm. Marvin stated she was not comfortable approving the design guidelines without getting a chance to review the changes.

 

Comm. Mckenzie stated she understood it was difficult for the ARC, the applicant, and staff to find time to meet, and understood the document could not be revised in one evening, but would be more comfortable viewing the changes to the document before making a final decision.

 

Comm. Antle expressed that he was comfortable going ahead with a vote given the ARC’s changes, and believed the Commission had ample time to review the document. Staff stated that the item has been placed on the March Planning Commission agenda and, therefore if, the Commission waited until the February HRC meeting to give a final decision, thhe decision would be in time to be taken under advisement by the Planning Commission. Mr. Maxwell, on behalf of the applicant, agreed they could revise the document and bring it back to the HRC for review at the February meeting.

Comm. Hickam withdrew his previous motion and staff recommended deferral.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Hickam, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to defer action until the February Historic Resources Meeting. Motion carried unanimously, 7-0.

HRC ACTION SUMMARY

FEBRUARY 23, 2006

 

ITEM NO.  4: DR-11-98-05:  Consideration of proposed Design Guidelines for 8th and                                        Pennsylvania Neighborhood Redevelopment Area.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Staff presented elevation pictures of the streetscape and buildings in the subject area, as well as area maps.

 

It was noted that this proposal was on the January 2006 agenda but the Commission did not have the final revised document ready after meeting with the ARC the previous evening.

 

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Hunter Harris, Harris Construction, reiterated this was his third time before the Commission with this issue. He explained his belief that all concerns raised in previous meetings had been dealt with and were incorporated in the complete written document presented tonight.

 

Mr. Harris asked the Commission to consider restricting discussion to those elements within their own purview, noting that elements such as zoning and density were important but fell under the consideration of the Planning Commission, not the HRC.

 

Ms. Sally Schwenk was also present to speak for the applicant.  Ms. Schwenk explained the necessity and intent of the proposed guidelines to meet existing local, state and federal regulations.  She said these guidelines were meant to guide new construction and historic rehabilitation in the area for future years.

 

Mr. Harris said the applicant had been working throughout the process with the Neighborhood Association and would be happy to continue doing so.  He felt the intent of the proposal had been ‘transparent’ since the beginning, even though the proposal had evolved over time.

 

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

Ms. Dayna Carleton, member of the East Lawrence Neighborhood Association (ELNA) described the challenges in organizing and motivating neighborhood involvement in these kinds of issues.  She expressed significant concern that the Association was not able to get important information in a timely manner.  She said meeting minutes were not available until that morning and the draft guidelines provided by the applicant were dated December 2005. 

 

Ms. Carleton said ELNA wanted to participate in the process, but was being denied adequate time to study the proposal that would impact their neighborhood significantly.

 

Ms. Patricia Marvin said she hoped the Commission would not limit discussion as requested by the applicant, since zoning and other typically non-HRC elements had a significant impact on historic character.

 

Ms. K.T. Walsh, a resident of the North Rhode Island Historic District, agreed with previous comments about information delays.  She said the breakdown in communication between the neighborhood and the applicant was unusual.  She understood the Commission was overloaded, but asked them to give this matter more time because of its importance.

 

Ms. Walsh said the applicant would receive a significant amount of the tax credits that the neighborhood had worked for several years to obtain for the area.  In recognition of this benefit, the applicant should be willing to allow extra time for fully informed neighborhood participation.  She said these kinds of projects naturally took a lot of time, citing the 15 years it took to get the Rhode Island District(s) into place.

 

Ms. Walsh asked if any attention had been given to the possibility of carcinogens in the soil in the vicinity of the Poehler building.

 

Ms. Nicolette Proudfoot, area resident, expressed confusion and concern about the potential density of proposed Zone 3.  She noted that the only other areas zoned C-5 in the City were along major streets like 6th, 23rd, and Iowa Streets.  She asked how this congestion would benefit the neighborhood. She also expressed concern over the increase in traffic on 9th and 8th Streets as a result of this high density development.

 

Mr. Pete Laufer, East Lawrence resident, stated his support for the previous speakers’ remarks about information delays and the importance of discussing non-HRC topics now because of their impact on historic elements.  Mr. Laufer stated that the numbers in the proposal seemed “a little tight” and asked if these were “normal”.  It was discussed that this was a new type of development proposal for Lawrence so it was not typical, but use and density issues would be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Commission as part of the review process.

 

Mr. Laufer said the proposal appeared to be a “capitalist enterprise”, not a historic preservation effort.  He said these kinds of projects took time and he suggested the applicant would be attending several more meetings.

 

Ms. Sierra Farwell, East Lawrence resident, was concerned that the proposal would add a large apartment building to the neighborhood but no new community amenities.  She said the neighborhood had their own ideas about what would fit the area and she would like to see a project that would better serve the community.

 

Mr. Owen Lehmann said he appreciated the applicant’s efforts at historic preservation, but he felt there were still too many unanswered questions.  He said the Association has remaining concerns, specifically with Zone 3, and would like more time to study the revised document.

 

Mr. Phil Collison, 933 Pennsylvania, asked what the half-block of apartments shown in the proposal had to do with historic preservation.  He said the other side of the street looked promising, but the apartment element concerned him.

 

Mr. Dave Evans, 923 Delaware, spoke about the neighborhood’s concerns based on the fact that they would be the ones living with the results of the proposal. He said the project sounded good three years ago when the applicant was talking about rehabilitating older buildings, but the applicant was trying to move too fast and more time was needed to look into the history of development in the area.

 

Mr. Evans said it seemed backwards to be looking at approving building design for buildings that the area was not yet zoned for.  He commented that New Urbanism was usually pursued by developers, not “world-class architects”, and he was concerned that the precedent set by these guidelines could destroy the character of the neighborhood.

 

Nancy Schwarting, Coordinator of ELNA, explained she had been newly elected and was still getting up to speed with the issues.  The bottom line, she said, was that Zone 3 was not favored by any residents.  Other proposed zones appeared to be receiving positive feedback in general, but Zone 3 seemed to have appeared suddenly and the neighborhood felt more investigation was needed.  Ms. Schwarting said the proposed document was a step forward, but was not comprehensive enough to address all of the neighborhood’s concerns. 

 

APPLICANT RESPONSE

Ms. Schwenk explained that any development on the subject property would have to meet local, state and federal criteria for impact on historical resources.  Also, every development proposal would have to come before the Commission.  Tonight’s issue was the adoption of guidelines by which those future development proposals would later be considered.  The guidelines necessarily had to be broad enough to apply to a range of potential development proposals and could not be so specific that they would restrict negotiations for tax credits.

 

The applicants said the guidelines had not changed at all since the December 2005 version until they were taken to the ARC.  Changes since that time were confined to elements directed by the Commission and ARC and primarily involved “wordsmithing” for clarity.  Other directed changes included additional information on materials and specifics on signage, awnings, fenestration and other design details.

 

Mr. Harris said the revised document was given today’s date to indicate it was meant for consideration at this HRC meeting.  They had been given to Staff in time for review and distribution with Commission packets.  Mr. Harris said all discussions with Staff and the Commission about the proposal had been open to the public, and the current draft reflected all direction given to the applicant by Staff, the Commission and the ARC. 

 

The applicant commented that this was not solely a historic preservation project.  The applicant was happy to pursue historic rehabilitation where possible and had gotten positive response about increasing the size of the district in this working-class neighborhood.  However, Mr. Harris said, these buildings could not be saved strictly through tax credits; a use must be created that would allow the buildings to pay for themselves.  Success would come only through adaptive reuse and a combination of old and new elements.

 

Ms. Schwenk, Mr. Harris, and Eddy Krygiel with BNIM Architects made several statements in response to public comments:

  • The applicant would consider incorporating Quonset huts styles, if possible, although at least one of the huts was subject to setback questions.
  • Any environmental contamination (Benzene, etc.) would be studied and any development would have to meet environmental regulations.
  • Zone 3 was shown in the proposal from the beginning and the applicant considered this a highly suitable way to allow viable uses to sustain historic resources.
  • The applicant did not intend to “flood the area with parking lights and asphalt.”
  • The area is currently zoned industrially, which would allow a broader range of more intrusive uses than the applicant intends to develop.
  • Development created as part of this project would include environmental and aesthetic enhancements such as the designation of additional/larger historic districts, increased landscaping, permeable parking surfaces and water runoff improvements.
  • The existing zoning of the Poehler building area would allow for more density and taller building height than proposed in these guidelines. 
  • The Poehler Building would be the area of highest density.  It would be located at the farthest point from existing single-family homes.
  • The apartment section would include row-houses, low-income, and owner-occupied, in addition to regular rental units.
  • The rehabilitated Poehler building was intended as the project anchor and would be the tallest structure in the development.
  • Proposed setbacks for the row house element were measured to accommodate front stairs; the massing of the row units would not sit directly on the setback lines.  This created larger rear yards backing on the alley and adjacent single-family development and pushed the row units closer to industrial zoning.

 

ADDED PUBLIC COMMENT

Ms. Nicolette Proudfoot said she would prefer a solid building face adjacent to her home instead of parking areas and trash.

 

Mr. Dave Evans said the subject lots were only vacant because the City had condemned and demolished the homes.

 

There was some disagreement between the public and the applicant as to whether the row housing element had been in the proposal from the beginning.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Comm. Alstrom said the ARC had discussed non-HRC elements such as parking and density in their discussions with the applicant.  He noted that these elements were Planning Commission items and that each specific development proposal would have to be reviewed by the Commission.  This was only the first step toward creating the overall district.

 

Comm. Antle clarified for the public that the Commission was not considering zoning or density or any specific building at this time.  He said he was happy with the guidelines as proposed because they met the Commission’s needs as outlined at the January meeting.  However, he was concerned about the obvious communication breakdown between the applicant and the public.  He commented that much of the public comment tonight was not directly relevant to the Commission’s consideration, but there was an apparent need for more public review time.

 

It was discussed that the Commission was not considering zoning tonight, but that the proposed eventual down-zoning from industrial might be seen as a positive.  Ms. Zollner explained the City did not have a zoning district well-suited to the mixed uses proposed here, but Staff felt C-5 was the best available option under the current City Code.

 

It was noted that the Code currently did not allow C-5 zoning, other than in specific locations along designated major thoroughfares.  A text amendment to Horizon 2020 was in process that would allow other sections of C-5 zoning.

 

The Commission generally agreed that the breakdown in communication was regrettable.  However, as Comm. Hickam stated, the document presented tonight “is exactly what we asked for.”  It was noted that HRC approval would move the proposal forward to venues (Planning Commission, & the City Commission) where the specific concerns outlined by the public tonight could be more suitably addressed.

 

It was discussed that the Neighborhood Association had not come forward at the two previous Commission hearings of this item.  The area residents were encouraged to “be vigilant” as the process continued.  It was suggested that the applicant schedule a meeting with the neighborhood as soon as possible.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Comm. Veatch, seconded by Comm. McKenzie to approve the Design Guidelines for the 8th and Pennsylvania Neighborhood Redevelopment Area as presented.

 

          Motion carried unanimously, 6-0.