| INDEX
9. Letter to Councilwoman Shields
The Honorable Katheryn Shields, City Councilwoman City Hall, 22nd floor 414 E. 12th St. Kansas City, MO 64106 816-513-6515; katheryn.shields@kcmo.org Dear Katheryn, Please accept my gratitude and admiration for your representation of Westport in the Opus development issue. You not only listened to all sides and asked questions, but also did research yourself to understand the concerns raised. I am very sorry to confess that, as I continue to think about how incurious most of the Council members were, I am less likely to assume automatically that the City Council as a whole deserves the respect with which I have until now held it. I don’t mean agreement; there will often be different legitimate points of view. I mean rather a thoughtful and deliberate process by which decisions are made. This did not characterize the Council in this instance. I am sure you and I have different opinions on several city matters, but I can respect those differences and treasure your work on the Council because of your care to be well-informed. With admiration and every
good wish,
Big apartment development approved for Westport Road and Broadway
BY DIANE STAFFORD stafford@kcstar.com Eight midtown neighborhoods failed in a last-ditch effort to stop or stall development of a large apartment building at Westport Road and Broadway that critics say will change the face of Westport. The Kansas City Council on Thursday voted 8-2 to
approve a redevelopment and rezoning plan for Opus Development to build
a 256-unit apartment building that would rise six or seven stories at the
prominent corner.
Help Save Westport, a coalition of residents and others who want to preserve the architectural character of “Old Westport,” appealed to council members to rethink the proposal, but they failed to get enough signatures to petition for a delay. Previously, the City Plan Commission and the council’s Planning, Zoning & Economic Development Committee had recommended the rezoning and development plan on split votes. Neighborhood and historic preservation groups submitted letters this week to council members and the city planning staff. Most asked the city to delay a vote until a long-term strategy for Westport redevelopment is crafted.
“Obviously, we’re disappointed,” said Mary Jo Draper, a leader in the Help Save Westport group. “But this whole discussion has made it clear to everybody that we haven’t done a very good job of planning for the future of Westport. As this project goes forward, I hope the people on the council realize we need to do planning for the future, and I believe that will happen.” At least three sizable redevelopments are being proposed for the Old Westport area that would require zoning changes from current uses. Council members Katheryn Shields and Scott Wagner were the only no votes on the project, citing a precedent-setting size for that location. Shields also criticized the development team for not being more responsive to neighborhood concerns. Shields said that when she looked at Opus Development projects around the country, she saw projects that were often out of scale with the neighborhoods in which they were built and that past history “shows they don’t engage in long-term relationships” with neighbors, but rather build and sell their developments. The Opus apartment project, including a multilevel parking garage and ground-floor retail, would replace an old building now occupied by a Bank of America branch and surface parking lot. Joe Downs, vice president of real estate development at Opus Development, said the company was “thrilled that the City Council voted to approve our project in Westport, echoing the positive sentiment we’ve heard from local community members.” Downs said the company was “excited to bring a new, vibrant residential option to the historical area of Westport.” Opponents of the Opus apartments said they weren’t against redevelopment at that corner or added residential density in Westport. But they said the Opus proposal was too big for the site and would add to existing parking and traffic problems in the district. Neighborhoods that recorded opposition to the plan were Heart of Westport, Valentine, West Plaza, Rockhill, Coleman Highlands, Roanoke, Volker and Hyde Park. They expressed concern that the apartment building is too tall and too massive for the corner, that it will exacerbate existing parking problems and traffic congestion, that it violates the 50-foot height guideline for that site from the Midtown Plaza Area Plan, and that the development team hasn’t listened to community input. “Westport is about to change,” said Lisa Briscoe, executive director of Historic Kansas City. “When they make this change, they have opened a door for others to follow to have a similar level of intensity, density and height in Westport area. Once the first project is approved, it begins a cycle.” On the other hand, several Westport business owners and area residents spoke in previous public meetings in favor of the added density. They said they wanted more residents to patronize their businesses and provide foot traffic in the district as a possible deterrent to crime. No public testimony was taken at the council meeting. After making some exterior building design adjustments in response to criticism, Opus representatives repeatedly said in previous public meetings that their plan wouldn’t be adjusted further or made smaller. Councilwoman Jolie Justus was the only council member to speak in favor of the proposal before it received a majority vote. She said it was a tough issue and that she had heard from many opponents and proponents alike. “No doubt the scale of this project will be a significant change,” Justus said, acknowledging that “this vote is not easy for me.” In the end, though, she said the changes in Westport could be “trans-formative.” The development team said investors wouldn’t make an adequate return on investment without the planned number of apartment units and that the proposal on the table was the only one they would submit. The Help Save Westport group has mounted a $25,000 fundraising drive to pay for a professional building survey of the Westport area to provide a current inventory of buildings and their histories to help determine what is worth preserving. Joan Adam, president of Historic Kansas City, said the survey is expected to be done this fall. It’s too late to affect the decisions on this project, she said, “but it’s important to document what we have in Westport and what we should preserve.” The Old Westport area as a whole doesn’t have broad protection as a historic district, so redevelopment decisions are being made case by case. Opus has developed a similar apartment project at 51st and Main streets, a few blocks south of the Country Club Plaza.
At the Planning Committee last week, I told about moving here in 1997 because I fell in love with Westport. Continuing that romantic metaphor: two developers have been courting the neighborhood, us getting to know each other, moving into the future together toward the increased density we want. But Opus has not courted us. It has not gotten to know us. Instead of romance, they have assaulted the body of our neighborhood, our civic and social capital. To profit Opus investors, they rob and disfigure us and betray Kansas City’s heritage with this haste. If you approve this swift theft and assault, you will deny conscientious developers incentive to work with neighbors. This process is unfair. At the Committee meeting last week, after initial presentations, Council members let Opus answer questions, but your constituents had no chance for rebuttal. Take the question, Would your development be viable with one less floor? The idea — that its either their plan or nothing happens at Broadway and Westport — is astonishing. We had no fair chance to balance the profit-driven questionable Opus answer with the values of neighborhood, heritage, and civic and social capital, and the other healthy developments. (Those who spoke in favor of Opus who said they were from the neighborhood are unknown to us who have worked for years in our neighborhood association to better our community.) Hastily rezoning to privilege this development over previous plans on which the neighborhood has relied — without careful study — looks like grabbing a purse and rushing down a back alley to Minneapolis.* A shiny new building that could be anywhere assaults the natural romance citizens should have with their neighborhood, their city, and their government. Approval of Opus will discourage the healthy development you should be applauding. Instead turning that corner to cancer, consuming the uniqueness of historic Westport, let us proudly move forward into the future with healthy and attractive growth. Respectfully and hopefully yours,
*The many reasons offered last week
to the Committee why Opus would violate the planning requirements for rezoning
were, in my hearing, not addressed, not refuted. This is not fair to the
public. If the arguments presented along these lines are wrong, the Council
has an obligation to explain to the public why they are invalid and cannot
rely on city planning.
Cui Bono? Who benefits?
Kansas City planning and zoning meetings take place in the City Council chamber on the 26th floor of City Hall. Unfortunately, the physical arrangement and meeting structure highlight corporate voices and minimize voices of the people. Committee members sit at the front and along the sides of the front area. Directly facing them are two members of the planning commission, with two people representing the developer seated to the right of the planning commission. Members of the public sit farther back, behind the front partition. People in the front area of the council chamber get extended time to show slides and speak, while members of the public frequently are limited to one or two minutes each. I urge committees to modify meeting structures, allowing the community a seat at the table both literally and figuratively. Shift the developers’ and planning commission’s seating slightly to the right, leaving a space for community representatives to the left of the planning commission in the front area. (I suggest including the affected neighborhood association, business/commerce organization and/or historical association.) Give official community groups time to speak along with the developer and the planning commission — and then allow other interested parties a minute or two to speak. Amrita Burdick
http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article155716344.html
RANDOM THOUGHTS 1. Killing the goose that laid golden eggs may be a stretch, but historic Westport will be destroyed by this development. 2. Giving Opus, unwilling to meet to compromise as Shields suggested, the green light is unfair to other developers eager to work with the neighborhood. It is like saying a rape is ok and courtship is unnecessary. 3. The idea that it is either this development or none is a disaster in failing to imagine what could be. 4. Giving the developers rebuttal time but not the neighborhood and preservationists is unfair. 5. Those purporting to be from the neighborhood in favor of Opus care so much about Westport they never attend our meetings. 6. The easy flipping of property ownership suggests no need to worry about the property owner's well-being. 7. THE MANY REASONS why the Council would violate the planning requirements for rezoning were, in my hearing, not refuted and not addressed. This is not fair to the public. If the arguments presented along these lines are invalid, the Committee has an obligation to explain to the public why they are invalid. 8. The unfairness of the Committee process raises the Cui Bono question. ====
I do feel the Committee failed to
grasp the significance of the historic character of Westport -- and its
reward of the vote for Opus, which seems unwilling to discuss compromise
with the neighborhood, is like giving approval to rape while ignoring the
virtue of courtship -- courtship is analogous to the wonderful experience
the neighbors have had with other developers who honor the neighborhood,
and rape is the way we feel this development has been forced upon us.
I fear we were too polite at the Committee
session yesterday and failed to convey how deeply we feel about Westport.
DEVELOPMENT
A Kansas City Council committee heard Wednesday from a developer who said his Westport redevelopment plan won’t be altered, from people who opposed its size and location, and from people who said it would be good for the area. After hearing passion from all sides, members of the Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee on a 3-1 vote came down on the side of development at the corner of Westport Road and Broadway. The majority vote sends the 6- or 7-story, 256-unit apartment project by Opus Development to the full council next week for final consideration on its rezoning request. Current zoning allows a 50-foot building height; this development needs to be 75-feet tall. Councilwoman Katheryn Shields was the “no” vote. She preferred to send the developer and neighborhood critics away with instructions to reach a compromise. Taking more time to talk, she noted, was a solution that served the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art and its neighbors who had been at loggerheads about museum expansion plans. But Councilmen Lee Barnes, Scott Taylor and Quinton Lucas preferred to advance the rezoning request, basically on the grounds that the project was a viable redevelopment proposal for a corner that has been mostly vacant for years. Committee member Heather Hall was absent. The committee’s decision frustrated project opponents who also had argued unsuccessfully in May before the City Plan Commission. That body had advanced the measure to the council committee. Opponents testifying against the project, which will include underground and surface parking and a small amount of ground-floor retail, said the building was too big for the corner and that it would dramatically change the historic character of Westport. Backers said the district needs more residents who by living and walking in Westport will support its businesses and add safety, simply by being there, to a corner that has suffered from crime and disuse. A Bank of America branch now operates in an old brick building on the site. Most of the rest of the property, which Opus bought in December 2016, is a surface parking lot. John McGurk, an attorney representing Opus, said the development “will take the property to its highest and best use.” He warned that the council would kill the project if, as Shields initially suggested, the rezoning ordinance was held off the docket to ask the developer and the neighborhood representatives to talk further. The development team has repeatedly stated that the apartment block needs to be at the proposed size in order to earn a return on investment and it intends no further change in its proposal. Asked twice during the hearing if Opus intended to seek public incentives to help finance the project. McGurk said that was not the developer’s intent at this time. Jim Wanser, Mary Jo Draper and Vern Barnet were among several area residents who sought a more collaborative approach to this and other Westport development projects, particularly because other large proposals are on the drawing board. Historic preservation advocates Joan Adam and Lisa Briscoe also asked for a more collaborative and measured approach. Other area residents and Westport business owners said they welcomed higher density and more resident foot traffic. Developer George Birt, who has worked on similar residential projects in the River Market area, said development like the one proposed by Opus in Westport was key to turning the former River Quay entertainment district into the multi-use neighborhood it is today. Diane Stafford: 816-234-4359 Read more here:
To the Council Committee on Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Concerning the Opus Development proposal for Broadway and Westport Road I write because I feel the historic character of Westport is threatened by an out-of-town company that has not taken the trouble, as other developers have, to learn about and show respect for, our neighborhood. Perhaps some of my concerns have been addressed by Opus since they last met with the Heart of Westport neighborhood association, but the fact that they have not updated their plans with us is itself worrisome. Two other developers are keeping us informed and are working cooperatively with us. Our neighborhood and the City at large is best enhanced by those who show, in addition to fair profit, good faith and consideration for the quality of life resulting from their investments. In 1993 I moved from Johnson County to purchase my home in Westport where I continue to live happily. Our Heart of Westport neighborhood association, in which I regularly participate, is a remarkable group of cooperating residents, businesses, and others who cherish our special part of the City. Like them, I support increased density in Westport. I question uncoordinated development. While I praise other developers who have repeatedly met with neighbors and have carefully responded to our concerns, I worry about the lack of shared planning evidenced by misstatements and apparent misunderstandings by Opus Development. Its plan for a for a six-story, 254-unit residential building at Broadway and Westport Road raises a number of problems I outline briefly below. As I mentioned, I am writing without information about any revision from Opus which may be presented today. One would have hoped that Opus would have given the neighborhood a chance to learn about its revision before today’s presentation. 1. The Opus plan, obviously unfamiliar with Westport, should be slowed in order for it to be adequately studied along with the historic assessment plans now underway, and with the other developments planned within Westport. Uncoordinated developments lead to unexpected and unintended results which can be damaging. 2. While I understand the Opus Development would enhance the City’s tax base, the costs to the character of the historic neighborhood would be considerable. As a home-owner, it seems unfair that a commercial effort in this situation could receive an assured level tax rate for 25 years when we homeowners recently voluntarily down-zoned our properties to single-family units to provide stability to the neighborhood without any such assurance. 3. Although it is doubtful that the oldest part of the building, currently a bank, has sufficient historic value to save, the fact that the newer portions were designed to fit into the appearance and character of Westport shows the kind of environmental respect Opus has not proved. The new wing of the Westport Presbyterian Church demonstrates that it is possible to design a modern structure that fits within the artistic character of existing buildings. Until now, Opus has not shown care in façade architectural design, nor in its excessive proposal for rezoning height restrictions and other problems with scale. The plans I have seen simply violate the neighborhood by a developer who has shown more arrogance than care to learn about us, unlike other developers who understand their success here may ultimately depend on neighborhood support, not neighborhood destruction. The height proposal would literally cast a shadow in a key intersection of our neighborhood. 4. Parking and traffic movement in Westport is a long-standing problem. Approval of the Opus plan while traffic experiments on Westport Road are currently underway and parking plans are unresolved is decidedly premature. 5. The Opus presentation I heard did not demonstrate understanding of the severity of the problems of flooding and other infrastructure inadequacies. Perhaps City staff will find ways to study how Opus and the two other developments I know about can help to resolve such concerns, but to a non-engineer like myself who lives in the neighborhood, the scale of the Opus proposal considered even by itself seems daunting to accommodate without expensive infrastructure improvements which should be borne largely by the developer. 6. I have no expertise in imagining business mixes, but I do have a sense of loyalty to the over 90% of businesses in Westport that are locally owned, that have helped build and support the neighborhood, and I would like reassurance that businesses planned in this development will fit into the kind of operations that make Westport so special and distinctive from other areas of the City. In sum, while I welcome increased residential development in Westport, the Opus project as I have learned about it thus far feels more like a threat than a development because of the arrogant style of its management, inattention to the historic and architectural character of Westport, lack of coordinated planning, and practical issues of scale and infrastructure. Unless these issues are resolved, I urge you to delay approval of requests from Opus. In sum, while I welcome increased residential development in Westport, the Opus project as I have learned about it thus far feels more like a threat than a development because of the arrogant style of its management, inattention to the historic and architectural character of Westport, lack of coordinated planning, and practical issues of scale and infrastructure. Unless these issues are resolved, I urge you to delay approval of requests from Opus. Respectfully,
For photos etc please go to The Kansas City Star website. http://www.kansascity.com/news/business/development/article150889902.html Some Kansas Citians who testified against a proposed apartment complex at Westport Road and Broadway came to the City Plan Commission meeting Tuesday with signs indicating disapproval of the plan. Diane Stafford stafford@kcstar.com DEVELOPMENT
After nearly three hours of testimony Tuesday, the Kansas City Plan Commission approved rezoning and development plans for a large apartment building at the corner of Westport Road and Broadway. Three-fourths of the 22 people who testified spoke against the plan. Most said they thought the six-story, 256-unit apartment building was too big, too dense and was architecturally wrong for the character of “Old Westport,” especially at that prominent corner site. Those who spoke in favor of the Opus Development proposal said they welcomed a “modern” approach to Westport redevelopment that would put more residents and store patrons in the neighborhood. The project would replace a Bank of America building and surface parking lot. The project next goes to the City Council’s Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee for further consideration. Passionate testimony at one point generated a call of “liar” from the audience, directed at the development team. That frustration — simmering throughout the meeting — centered on parking and traffic problems that already affect Westport. Many Westport-area residents have been concerned about large redevelopment projects that may change the character of the “Old Westport” district. Some area residents and business owners said they didn’t believe the 303 parking spaces attached to the development, for resident and the public use, were sufficient. Several opponents also said traffic already was impeded at certain times of the day and that more residents would worsen conditions. In the end, the five voting commissioners approved the requested rezoning on a 5-0 vote. Commissioners voted 3-2 to approve the redevelopment plan for the project that would place five floors of apartments atop ground-floor retail space plus an adjacent parking facility slated to be two underground levels beneath a surface level. The approvals fell in line with recommendations from City Hall planning staff, but commissioners made it clear that they hoped Opus would heed opponents’ calls for a structure that seemed to fit better with the historic buildings around it. The plan as approved would allow the building to rise to 75 feet, which city planners said was not contradicted by the Midtown Plaza Area Plan for that location. Joseph Downs, representing Opus, reiterated what the developers have stated from the outset: The proposed height and unit density are what the project needs to provide an adequate return on investment, and they will not scale it down. “That’s the plan we need to do,” said John McGurk, an attorney representing Opus. Valentine neighborhood resident Mary Jo Draper, who helped launch a Help Save Westport campaign last fall, said, “The majority of us favor development and increased density in Westport, but we thought this project was the wrong scale.” Dissent about the project in April had caused a continuance of the project’s consideration until the May commission meeting. Some of the project critics, including Lisa Briscoe, executive director of Historic Kansas City, said they preferred to delay decisions on sizable Westport development projects until after a planned inventory of Westport historic structures was completed. “Scale and character is important,” Briscoe said, noting that the heart of Westport has three sizable development projects proposed at the moment. “Westport is under threat, and it’s not protected,” Briscoe said, referring to the fact that the area has never applied for or received historic preservation status. Those who spoke in favor of the development said they wanted more residents in the area. Backers said the apartments would improve safety by putting more people walking the streets and help hold down rental rates by providing more inventory. The multiuse apartment project was publicly introduced in March. McGurk said the developers had held 58 meetings since January with area groups, city planners and others interested in the project. Diane Stafford: 816-234-4359, @kcstarstafford
A Letter to the City Planning Commission Download this in pdf at www.cres.org/Westport/PC.pdf Concerning the Opus Development
proposal
May 16, 2017
Dear Commission Members—
1. The Opus plan, from out-of-town developers obviously unfamiliar with Westport, should be slowed in order for it to be adequately studied along with the historic assessment plans now underway, and with the other developments planned within Westport. Uncoordinated developments lead to unexpected and unintended results which can be damaging. 2. While I understand the Opus Development would enhance the City’s tax base, the costs to the character of the historic neighborhood would be considerable. As a home-owner, it seems unfair that a commercial effort in this situation could receive an assured level tax rate for 25 years when we homeowners recently voluntarily down-zoned our properties to single-family units to provide stability to the neighborhood without any such assurance. 3. Although it is doubtful that the oldest part of the building, currently a bank, has sufficient historic value to save, the fact that the newer portions were designed to fit into the appearance and character of Westport shows the kind of environmental respect Opus has not proved. The new wing of the Westport Presbyterian Church demonstrates that it is possible to design a modern structure that fits within the artistic character of existing buildings. Until now, Opus has not shown care in façade architectural design, nor in its excessive proposal for rezoning height restrictions and other problems with scale. The plans I have seen simply violate the neighborhood by a developer who has shown more arrogance than care to learn about us, unlike other developers who understand their success here may ultimately depend on neighborhood support, not neighborhood destruction. The height proposal would literally cast a shadow in a key intersection of our neighborhood. 4. Parking and traffic movement in Westport is a long-standing problem. Approval of the Opus plan while traffic experiments on Westport Road are currently underway and parking plans are unresolved is decidedly premature. 5. The Opus presentation I heard did not demonstrate understanding of the severity of the problems of flooding and other infrastructure inadequacies. Perhaps City staff will find ways to study how Opus and the two other developments I know about can help to resolve such concerns, but to a non-engineer like myself who lives in the neighborhood, the scale of the Opus proposal considered even by itself seems daunting to accommodate without expensive infrastructure improvements which should be borne largely by the developer. 6. I have no expertise in imagining business mixes, but I do have a sense of loyalty to businesses that have helped build and support the neighborhood, and I would like reassurance that businesses planned in this development will fit into the kind of operations that make Westport so special. In sum, while I welcome increased residential development in Westport, the Opus project as I have learned about it thus far causes overwhelming worry because of the arrogant style of its management, inattention to the historic and architectural character of Westport, lack of coordinated planning, and practical issues of scale and infrastructure. Unless these issues are resolved, I urge you to delay approval of requests from Opus. Respectfully, Vern Barnet
For photos etc please go to The Kansas City Star website. http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article144479204.html APRIL 13, 2017 4:27 PM
Westport, one of the most important historic areas in Kansas City, has no official designation as a historic district. That recent realization by historic preservationists ups the ante as midtown neighbors mount opposition to new apartment developments proposed for an area of the city that dates to the 1830s. One apartment proposal — scheduled to be presented to the City Plan Commission on Tuesday — would tear down an old building at the southeast corner of Westport Road and Broadway to pave the way for a new 256-unit apartment and retail complex. “It was an unpleasant surprise that a place as historic as Westport doesn’t have protections in place,” said Greg Allen, an officer with Historic Kansas City. “We’d always thought there was,” said Alana Smith, president of the Westport Historical Society. “We find now there wasn’t, and we’re in big trouble.” A coalition calling itself Help Save Old Westport has mounted a GoFundMe campaign to raise $25,000 to pay for a building inventory, a necessary step to apply for historic overlay district designation, similar to what the downtown Garment District, the River Market and other historic parts of the city have. Some neighbors also are upset at a proposal to permit closing of a section of Westport Road and Pennsylvania Avenue to vehicle traffic on specified nights, weekends, holidays and special events. Advocates for the “strategic street vacation,” including Mayor Sly James and members of the Westport Regional Business League, say putting up temporary road barriers is the best way to control late-night access and limit dangers at the popular bar and restaurant crossroads. The City Planning and Development Department is evaluating the street-closing application, and no public hearing dates have been set for it. The immediate trouble, in the eyes of those who want to maintain Westport’s current character, is the proposal by Opus Development that would raze the corner building at Westport and Broadway. Parts of the structure, currently occupied by a Bank of America branch, date as far back as 1876. “The plan to tear that building down brought the issue to the fore,” said Mary Jo Draper, a neighborhood spokeswoman. “Some people say we need density in order for the midtown area to be strong, but there are so many concerns about traffic and parking. My concern is that we don’t destroy the scale or character of Westport.” Another development company, Pulse Development, also floated plans for two 14-story apartment towers immediately north of Manor Square on Pennsylvania. Density, parking, traffic and architectural criticisms erupted immediately, and developer Drew Hood subsequently said the plan was “preliminary” and that it’s been pulled back for revision. “This is a new development cycle for Westport, different from in the past,” said Elizabeth Rosin with Rosin Preservation, who works on historic projects. The proposed apartment renderings, at least preliminarily showing modern facades, picture a size and style far different from the lower-slung, red brick commercial buildings that line the heart of old Westport. In the past, Rosin said, Westport’s commercial property owners haven’t wanted to create a national or local historic district. “They wanted the freedom to handle their own properties without anyone telling them what to do,” Rosin said, adding that property owner support will be necessary to create any local or national historic district. “Owners can do what they want with their buildings, except for a few like Kelly’s” Westport Inn, said Smith, the Westport Historical Society leader. The Kelly’s building, at Westport and Pennsylvania, dates to 1850 and lays claim to being the oldest building in the city. It is designated a National Historic Landmark. In Smith’s mind, the six-story Opus apartment development would be “god-awful” for the neighborhood’s character. “I want to say, ‘You can’t do this. You can’t ruin this district,’ ” Smith said. “We want to preserve the historic nature of early Kansas City.” Allen, with Historic Kansas City, said he’s heartened that neighborhoods are mobilizing — sometimes successfully, sometimes not — to challenge development plans they deem inappropriate. “I congratulate city staff on insisting that neighborhood input be sought by developers,” Allen said. Opus officials invited residents of the Valentine, Heart of Westport, Volker, West Plaza and Southmoreland neighborhoods to attend a meeting Thursday night at the Plaza Library. About three dozen people came to the presentation by officials from Opus Development. In a question and answer session, most of the comments were from residential neighbors who thought the project was “too big.” Residents asked if the project would be viable if it were reduced to four stories instead of six. The Opus team said no. Several business owners in the Westport area said they supported the project because it would bring more residents to the neighborhood, and thus more business for them. Almost everyone expressed concern about parking. The development team said there was no real historical significance to the bank building. It had been adapted so often over the years that virtually nothing was left from the original. Opus vice president Joe Downs said
in a written statement that the company was “working with neighborhood
associations
and the city to incorporate the best of Westport into a new mixed-use residential
project” with a groundbreaking targeted for later this year.
|
