Proposed zoning change update [8/2/2014]
Hello All,
We had a very positive meeting Friday morning – thanks to all who were able to attend, as we realize this was a very short time frame, and an inconvenient time for those who work during the day. A brief synopsis, followed by “next steps” for the Board.
Brett West with WRK, manager for this 2-building project, started the meeting with his apologies for how the notice to residents was handled. He reiterated that WRK wants to be a part of the ECCO neighborhood, and to be a “good neighbor” of ECCO. They typically do not sell their properties; they hold on to them, maintain them, and are interested in long-term investment in areas where they hold properties. Brett stated that WRK wanted to be as transparent as possible about their needs and their plan, etc. Highlights of his presentation:
-WRK has tried to be cooperative with the neighbors. They saved trees when asked, while preparing the site; they added requested fencing to create more of a barrier for those closest to the current property as well.
-He explained the “PUD” – Planned Unit Development. This gives the neighborhood more control than a simple zoning request – the developer has to work within the established parameters of the PUD plans. In addition, TIF (Tax Incentive Financing) was used, which has a lot of components, but basically allows the developer to pay a reduced tax rate for 15 years, in order to complete a project that otherwise would not be financially feasible, in order to benefit area that need it most (as previously determined by the City). They are taxed at the rate reflecting the value one year before the project is started; the “new” tax rate, based on new assessment values, does not take effect for at least 15 years. Note: TIF information HERE if anyone wants to know more about this.
-PUD is very tight on the number of residential units that can be included – focus is on office/retail
-A minimum of 60k square feet of this PUD must remain office/retail – cannot be residential
Phase I - Current building – nearly occupied, including:
-Valentino’s Restaurant
-13 units on the 2nd floor have been leased by UNL for visiting professors –– a “hotel” model, completely furnished, since UNL no longer had an on-campus hotel site. The level of current occupancy is not known.
-13 Studio apartment units on the 3rd floor are in the process of being rented – focus is on young professionals, and graduate students (primarily dental and law). All units already rented – and no “problem” tenants so far
-Stringent “anti-party” rules – designed for one student – not for multiple students renting one large apartment
-High-end rent by design - $795-825 per month
They are in the last stages of negotiation with a coffee shop for the east corner of the first floor.
There is some remaining office space that they are speaking with several parties about, as regards various uses, including office space.
Phase II
Demo preparation has begun – cutting off old sewer, asbestos abatement, etc. Demo of existing building very soon
Scheduled completion by August 2015 (in time for opening of classes at UNL)
Disappointment – UNL pulled out of leasing the entire 2nd floor + some additional office space (total of 10k square feet). As indicated above – still leasing entire 2nd floor of Phase I building for rental units for visiting professors, etc.
It is not entirely known why this occurred. There is speculation that Innovation Campus, and the relocation of various departments and leasing of this space, has had an impact on decisions to lease space in this project.
Note: Any residents who have relationships within UNL are asked to encourage their contacts at UNL to reconsider being part of this project, the success of which is so important to our neighborhood!
The original plan called for 14 residential units (total of 40 across the 2-building project, per PUD plan) in this building.
WRK has struggled to find replacement tenants for the office/retail space that will not be leased by UNL in the Phase II building. One resident asked how aggressively they had been in trying to replace this space as office/retail. They have looked at different opportunities, none of which has so far panned out:
-Chinese restaurant – contingent upon selling one of their buildings – haven’t been able to manage this, so this has fallen through for now – could still work out, but low probability
-1 fast-food restaurant – this was declined by WRK as not in keeping with the plan – too much traffic, etc.
-Lunch/sandwich shop
-Several banks
First floor occupancy of Phase II building is up for discussion – but they want to be able to put up to 6 Studio units on first floor (not in original PUD plan)
-Request to the Planning Commission – and reason for the meeting
-WRK wants to build out an additional 14 Studio units on the 2nd floor + 2 potential two-bedroom units – one each on 2nd and 3rd floors (there are no units other than Studio in the Phase I building)
-Requesting a total of 60 units (14 + some “wiggle” room, to use the maximum allowable space for residential, if needed)
-60 units would be total maximum for the entire PUD – across the 2 buildings
-Considering “live & work” units on the first floor, where 3 apartments would be built, with attached work spaces, for instance for an artist, or someone else working from home. This has been a successful model in other areas, for instance downtown. No firm decision yet on this – checking the market, and keeping this as a possibility, which would reduce the number of apartments a bit.
-Would like the option to build as many as 6 Studio units on the first floor of the Phase II building + 14 additional Studio units on the 2nd floor (space vacated by UNL)
-Increasing density of PUD from 40 to 60 residential units was the decision made – and request made to Planning Commission
Additional Questions and Concerns from the Residents Not Addressed Above:
-Are there any issues with residents as regards liquor, so close to campus?
-Residents, as long as they are of legal age, can drink alcoholic beverages in their apartment unit – same as throughout the City. Note: Anyone serving liquor within 300 feet of the campus must apply for a temporary or permanent liquor license – for instance a restaurant (as Val’s had to do, with our support); or when holding an event where liquor is served, even for free within that area.
-Would the size of the units be the same as Phase I?
-Yes – 658 square feet
-Plus, the plan is for one 2-bedroom apartment on 2nd and 3rd floors of Phase II building
-What is the rental price per square foot of their buildings?
-$18 per square foot, triple net
-Studio apartment monthly rents are $750 – 795
-Proposed “live/work” units would be $750 + $500 for the work space (no kitchen build-out, so less expensive)
-Price range seems high.
-This is by design – WRK always has rents at the “high end”. They feel this helps the neighborhood by attracting the best possible residents – those who are students don’t have the need for amenities other apartment complexes might provide – they can access these resources on campus, since they are students.
-Comment was made that the Married Student Housing buildings currently on campus near Holdrege, are being demolished – with no plans to replace them, that anyone is currently aware of. This announcement was just recently made – not many details are known. A brief discussion ensued about the possible impact this also might have on the neighborhood.
-Will WRK consider including more larger units (2-3 bedroom) for instance, for elderly ECCO residents who might want to stay in the area, but no longer want to care for a large home; or for families.
-Unfortunately, the larger apartments usually become attractive to groups of students – this is not a desirable situation for WRK or for the neighborhood. Fair Housing laws make it impossible to “target” or only rent larger units to families or the elderly. This also causes parking constraints, when multiple occupancy of larger units is occurring.
-It was noted by Brett that families usually want amenities (pool, clubhouse, etc.) that are not part of the plan/package in this project. By targeting graduate students, many of these amenities (gym – not pool) are provided nearby on campus – so are not necessary to offer.
-Several neighbors voiced their support of the Studio model, in the absence of the ability to fill the office/retail space. While office/retail was what was more amenable to the neighborhood, meeting participants understood the business aspects of the situation.
-WRK requires renters be a minimum of 24 years of age – if younger, there must be a parent guarantee on the lease; they have fines for renters who violate their policies (for instance RE parties, etc.); they have a very stringent “kick-out” policy, and have had to exercise it every so often. They usually have a waiting list of people wanting their apartments – so it benefits the renters to comply.
-Does WRK think that the pricing will raise the bar in the neighborhood as regards overall rental pricing?
-Yes, they have found in previous projects that this is the case – they feel that could benefit the neighborhood, by attracting more of the same potential renters to the rentals already in the neighborhood; and increase the rents that could be charged. This would help to keep the neighborhood at a higher level overall.
-Once the zoning changes – what is the density?
-It would be limited to 60 units maximum within the PUD
-54 units will be happening for certain (26 in Phase I building – 28 for certain in Phase II building, if request goes through)
-Wiggle room for 3-6 units on the first floor of Phase II building = the total of 60 for the 2 buildings
-Is there any inflation rate in their rents?
-Yes, they usually build in about 2% annual increase – so usually make increases every 2-3 years
-Their 1-bedroom apartments in downtown buildings are renting for $900
-They have no established buildings, where they could give us a firm average inflation rate
-Will parking still be adequate with the increased density?
-Yes – they don’t foresee any issues
-Brett voiced the view that there would be less “come and go” traffic than with retail or office – although it was noted by residents that the parking of renters is already an issue in the neighborhood – and want to avoid “spillover” as this is already a sensitive issue in the ECCO neighborhood.
-Is the 3rd floor of the Phase I building occupied? Several residents noted that they never see any lights on.
-Brett indicated that all units are rented.
-Is there any green space, area for BBQ, etc.
-No. It was mentioned again that students would be able to use the brand-new facility being built on East Campus
-Is there a problem from a long-range standpoint, of setting a precedent for higher density?
-It was underscored that in the future, if we can have a PUD approach, the neighborhood would have much greater control over density, than in a “pure zoning” situation. It would be desirable to continue to work closely with anyone considering developing in our neighborhood.
-It was noted that we have to think about the future and unintended consequences of decisions we make now.
-It was suggested that the group be on the lookout for any potential office/retail clients – and to put the word out with friends, associates, and family. It was also suggested that WRK have an ad in the ECCO newsletter, advertising their apartments, perhaps with a diagram of the floor plan, etc. Brett agreed that this would be a good idea.
-A neighbor asked if it was possible to tour the buildings. Brett indicated that this would be great – it was agreed that we would tentatively plan on having the September Board meeting start a little early with a tour of the premises, with the Board meeting to follow. Brett suggested that WRK host pizza from Valentino’s for the tour – all agreed this would be a great way for folks to see the facility first-hand. More on that later.
Once all questions were answered, the position that should be taken by the ECCO Board was discussed. The consensus of the group was that with some reservations and hope that all works out as indicated, we can support this request for increasing the density from 40-60. Mary Eisenhart indicated that the Board would have a representative testify, and a written document would be submitted to the Planning Commission, supporting the request.
It was also suggested that WRK be certain to notify us in advance of issues in the future, to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings. Face-to-face meetings are always better than an impersonal note sent to homeowners, advising of a change, when it is already on the Planning Commission agenda. Brett agreed, and said he would work closely with ECCO in the future. All agreed that this would be a big help, and save a lot of time moving forward.
Mary E.
Hello All,
We had a very positive meeting Friday morning – thanks to all who were able to attend, as we realize this was a very short time frame, and an inconvenient time for those who work during the day. A brief synopsis, followed by “next steps” for the Board.
Brett West with WRK, manager for this 2-building project, started the meeting with his apologies for how the notice to residents was handled. He reiterated that WRK wants to be a part of the ECCO neighborhood, and to be a “good neighbor” of ECCO. They typically do not sell their properties; they hold on to them, maintain them, and are interested in long-term investment in areas where they hold properties. Brett stated that WRK wanted to be as transparent as possible about their needs and their plan, etc. Highlights of his presentation:
-WRK has tried to be cooperative with the neighbors. They saved trees when asked, while preparing the site; they added requested fencing to create more of a barrier for those closest to the current property as well.
-He explained the “PUD” – Planned Unit Development. This gives the neighborhood more control than a simple zoning request – the developer has to work within the established parameters of the PUD plans. In addition, TIF (Tax Incentive Financing) was used, which has a lot of components, but basically allows the developer to pay a reduced tax rate for 15 years, in order to complete a project that otherwise would not be financially feasible, in order to benefit area that need it most (as previously determined by the City). They are taxed at the rate reflecting the value one year before the project is started; the “new” tax rate, based on new assessment values, does not take effect for at least 15 years. Note: TIF information HERE if anyone wants to know more about this.
-PUD is very tight on the number of residential units that can be included – focus is on office/retail
-A minimum of 60k square feet of this PUD must remain office/retail – cannot be residential
Phase I - Current building – nearly occupied, including:
-Valentino’s Restaurant
-13 units on the 2nd floor have been leased by UNL for visiting professors –– a “hotel” model, completely furnished, since UNL no longer had an on-campus hotel site. The level of current occupancy is not known.
-13 Studio apartment units on the 3rd floor are in the process of being rented – focus is on young professionals, and graduate students (primarily dental and law). All units already rented – and no “problem” tenants so far
-Stringent “anti-party” rules – designed for one student – not for multiple students renting one large apartment
-High-end rent by design - $795-825 per month
They are in the last stages of negotiation with a coffee shop for the east corner of the first floor.
There is some remaining office space that they are speaking with several parties about, as regards various uses, including office space.
Phase II
Demo preparation has begun – cutting off old sewer, asbestos abatement, etc. Demo of existing building very soon
Scheduled completion by August 2015 (in time for opening of classes at UNL)
Disappointment – UNL pulled out of leasing the entire 2nd floor + some additional office space (total of 10k square feet). As indicated above – still leasing entire 2nd floor of Phase I building for rental units for visiting professors, etc.
It is not entirely known why this occurred. There is speculation that Innovation Campus, and the relocation of various departments and leasing of this space, has had an impact on decisions to lease space in this project.
Note: Any residents who have relationships within UNL are asked to encourage their contacts at UNL to reconsider being part of this project, the success of which is so important to our neighborhood!
The original plan called for 14 residential units (total of 40 across the 2-building project, per PUD plan) in this building.
WRK has struggled to find replacement tenants for the office/retail space that will not be leased by UNL in the Phase II building. One resident asked how aggressively they had been in trying to replace this space as office/retail. They have looked at different opportunities, none of which has so far panned out:
-Chinese restaurant – contingent upon selling one of their buildings – haven’t been able to manage this, so this has fallen through for now – could still work out, but low probability
-1 fast-food restaurant – this was declined by WRK as not in keeping with the plan – too much traffic, etc.
-Lunch/sandwich shop
-Several banks
First floor occupancy of Phase II building is up for discussion – but they want to be able to put up to 6 Studio units on first floor (not in original PUD plan)
-Request to the Planning Commission – and reason for the meeting
-WRK wants to build out an additional 14 Studio units on the 2nd floor + 2 potential two-bedroom units – one each on 2nd and 3rd floors (there are no units other than Studio in the Phase I building)
-Requesting a total of 60 units (14 + some “wiggle” room, to use the maximum allowable space for residential, if needed)
-60 units would be total maximum for the entire PUD – across the 2 buildings
-Considering “live & work” units on the first floor, where 3 apartments would be built, with attached work spaces, for instance for an artist, or someone else working from home. This has been a successful model in other areas, for instance downtown. No firm decision yet on this – checking the market, and keeping this as a possibility, which would reduce the number of apartments a bit.
-Would like the option to build as many as 6 Studio units on the first floor of the Phase II building + 14 additional Studio units on the 2nd floor (space vacated by UNL)
-Increasing density of PUD from 40 to 60 residential units was the decision made – and request made to Planning Commission
Additional Questions and Concerns from the Residents Not Addressed Above:
-Are there any issues with residents as regards liquor, so close to campus?
-Residents, as long as they are of legal age, can drink alcoholic beverages in their apartment unit – same as throughout the City. Note: Anyone serving liquor within 300 feet of the campus must apply for a temporary or permanent liquor license – for instance a restaurant (as Val’s had to do, with our support); or when holding an event where liquor is served, even for free within that area.
-Would the size of the units be the same as Phase I?
-Yes – 658 square feet
-Plus, the plan is for one 2-bedroom apartment on 2nd and 3rd floors of Phase II building
-What is the rental price per square foot of their buildings?
-$18 per square foot, triple net
-Studio apartment monthly rents are $750 – 795
-Proposed “live/work” units would be $750 + $500 for the work space (no kitchen build-out, so less expensive)
-Price range seems high.
-This is by design – WRK always has rents at the “high end”. They feel this helps the neighborhood by attracting the best possible residents – those who are students don’t have the need for amenities other apartment complexes might provide – they can access these resources on campus, since they are students.
-Comment was made that the Married Student Housing buildings currently on campus near Holdrege, are being demolished – with no plans to replace them, that anyone is currently aware of. This announcement was just recently made – not many details are known. A brief discussion ensued about the possible impact this also might have on the neighborhood.
-Will WRK consider including more larger units (2-3 bedroom) for instance, for elderly ECCO residents who might want to stay in the area, but no longer want to care for a large home; or for families.
-Unfortunately, the larger apartments usually become attractive to groups of students – this is not a desirable situation for WRK or for the neighborhood. Fair Housing laws make it impossible to “target” or only rent larger units to families or the elderly. This also causes parking constraints, when multiple occupancy of larger units is occurring.
-It was noted by Brett that families usually want amenities (pool, clubhouse, etc.) that are not part of the plan/package in this project. By targeting graduate students, many of these amenities (gym – not pool) are provided nearby on campus – so are not necessary to offer.
-Several neighbors voiced their support of the Studio model, in the absence of the ability to fill the office/retail space. While office/retail was what was more amenable to the neighborhood, meeting participants understood the business aspects of the situation.
-WRK requires renters be a minimum of 24 years of age – if younger, there must be a parent guarantee on the lease; they have fines for renters who violate their policies (for instance RE parties, etc.); they have a very stringent “kick-out” policy, and have had to exercise it every so often. They usually have a waiting list of people wanting their apartments – so it benefits the renters to comply.
-Does WRK think that the pricing will raise the bar in the neighborhood as regards overall rental pricing?
-Yes, they have found in previous projects that this is the case – they feel that could benefit the neighborhood, by attracting more of the same potential renters to the rentals already in the neighborhood; and increase the rents that could be charged. This would help to keep the neighborhood at a higher level overall.
-Once the zoning changes – what is the density?
-It would be limited to 60 units maximum within the PUD
-54 units will be happening for certain (26 in Phase I building – 28 for certain in Phase II building, if request goes through)
-Wiggle room for 3-6 units on the first floor of Phase II building = the total of 60 for the 2 buildings
-Is there any inflation rate in their rents?
-Yes, they usually build in about 2% annual increase – so usually make increases every 2-3 years
-Their 1-bedroom apartments in downtown buildings are renting for $900
-They have no established buildings, where they could give us a firm average inflation rate
-Will parking still be adequate with the increased density?
-Yes – they don’t foresee any issues
-Brett voiced the view that there would be less “come and go” traffic than with retail or office – although it was noted by residents that the parking of renters is already an issue in the neighborhood – and want to avoid “spillover” as this is already a sensitive issue in the ECCO neighborhood.
-Is the 3rd floor of the Phase I building occupied? Several residents noted that they never see any lights on.
-Brett indicated that all units are rented.
-Is there any green space, area for BBQ, etc.
-No. It was mentioned again that students would be able to use the brand-new facility being built on East Campus
-Is there a problem from a long-range standpoint, of setting a precedent for higher density?
-It was underscored that in the future, if we can have a PUD approach, the neighborhood would have much greater control over density, than in a “pure zoning” situation. It would be desirable to continue to work closely with anyone considering developing in our neighborhood.
-It was noted that we have to think about the future and unintended consequences of decisions we make now.
-It was suggested that the group be on the lookout for any potential office/retail clients – and to put the word out with friends, associates, and family. It was also suggested that WRK have an ad in the ECCO newsletter, advertising their apartments, perhaps with a diagram of the floor plan, etc. Brett agreed that this would be a good idea.
-A neighbor asked if it was possible to tour the buildings. Brett indicated that this would be great – it was agreed that we would tentatively plan on having the September Board meeting start a little early with a tour of the premises, with the Board meeting to follow. Brett suggested that WRK host pizza from Valentino’s for the tour – all agreed this would be a great way for folks to see the facility first-hand. More on that later.
Once all questions were answered, the position that should be taken by the ECCO Board was discussed. The consensus of the group was that with some reservations and hope that all works out as indicated, we can support this request for increasing the density from 40-60. Mary Eisenhart indicated that the Board would have a representative testify, and a written document would be submitted to the Planning Commission, supporting the request.
It was also suggested that WRK be certain to notify us in advance of issues in the future, to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings. Face-to-face meetings are always better than an impersonal note sent to homeowners, advising of a change, when it is already on the Planning Commission agenda. Brett agreed, and said he would work closely with ECCO in the future. All agreed that this would be a big help, and save a lot of time moving forward.
Mary E.
ECCO Neighborhood Residents – Announcement of Special Meeting 9:00 AM Friday August 1 in the backyard garden at the home of Mary Eisenhart – 1420 North 37th Street [added 7/30/2014]
WRK Real Estate, LLC, the developer on the 2-building “Valentino’s Project”, has made a request to appear before the Planning Commission on Wednesday August 6, to increase the allowable dwelling units from 40 to 60 on the property including the building already built, and the building still to be completed. The ECCO Board was not notified in advance of this move; the legal notice of the request and the meeting information were received by those who live within 300 feet of the proposed change, and was how we became aware of the request to the Planning Commission.
A copy of the letter received by adjacent property owners, including the diagram of the affected area can be seen HERE.
We have asked WRK to consider postponing the Planning Commission request, in order to have more time to consider all perspectives and options. In the meantime, WRK has agreed to meet with neighbors at 9:00 AM this coming Friday August 1. We hope you can attend – please come and learn, and be heard.
We will continue to keep you posted on what transpires, once we’ve had the meeting. We hope to see you at the meeting Friday morning!
WRK Real Estate, LLC, the developer on the 2-building “Valentino’s Project”, has made a request to appear before the Planning Commission on Wednesday August 6, to increase the allowable dwelling units from 40 to 60 on the property including the building already built, and the building still to be completed. The ECCO Board was not notified in advance of this move; the legal notice of the request and the meeting information were received by those who live within 300 feet of the proposed change, and was how we became aware of the request to the Planning Commission.
A copy of the letter received by adjacent property owners, including the diagram of the affected area can be seen HERE.
We have asked WRK to consider postponing the Planning Commission request, in order to have more time to consider all perspectives and options. In the meantime, WRK has agreed to meet with neighbors at 9:00 AM this coming Friday August 1. We hope you can attend – please come and learn, and be heard.
We will continue to keep you posted on what transpires, once we’ve had the meeting. We hope to see you at the meeting Friday morning!
THESE 4 REDEVELOPMENT IMAGES, BELOW, ARE
PRELIMINARY RENDITIONS, AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. [added 4/3/12]
There was a meeting of ECCO neighbors on March 29th, 2012 @ 7 pm on the future plans for the Valentino's block. Hosted by ECCO, WRK, and Valentino's, attendees learned more about this exciting project. The meeting was held at Valentino's restaurant, 35th & Holdrege. There were several slides with explanations by Jordan from WRK, and Toni from Vals. Toni said it wasn't easy to decide to do a redevelopment and renovate and relocate Vals just a little east, but staying on Holdrege in East Campus, but he emphasized that many of the same things in their original restaurant will be in their newly constructed building... even the original Pizza sign will be a part of the new/old look. ---- Note by Brian Striman, ECCO webmaster. [added 4/3/2012].
