The City Council has unanimously voted to defer the vote on a request to build duplexes on the northwest corner of W. Claude at Ernest streets until Aug. 21.
After being unanimously denied by the Lake Charles Planning and Zoning Commission at a meeting in June, developer David Minton filed an appeal to direct the decision to the City Council.
At both the commission meeting in June and the city council meeting on Wednesday, neighbors against the development came in droves to speak. Their worries about the development are clear: flooding, drainage, privacy, lot density, safety and the livelihood of the neighborhood.
Minton — an engineer with Cypress Engineering & Development Group — owns Pentangeli Row Development, LLC. The plan for the lot was to build 16 duplex townhomes, or 32 units, to be sold and individually titled. At the council meeting, he presented an altered development plan to address the raised concerns.
Proposal
The new proposal includes 12 two-story structures (24 units). The plan notably includes a stormwater detention system and a pocket park for public use with a community orchard and garden. The legacy live oak, which currently has a petition to preserve it with hundreds of signatures, would be in the park. In the previous proposal, the tree was slated to be removed.
Minton said they are taking steps to address the flooding concern.
After a preliminary analysis of current conditions, they determined a way to use internal drainage to direct water as part of the design, he said. All plans will have to be reviewed by the city engineering department.
At the meeting, he said they are “proposing to go above and beyond” city requirements by designing the development to “reduce the peak discharge from the site.”
“We’re willing to commit this evening to help the drainage in the area, to reduce the stormwater discharge upon completion — reduce it to 75 percent of what it is currently.”
The park-detention area will be maintained as a dry pond for stormwater, in addition to being a “true public space.”
The major conditional-use permit is accompanied by a variance request for a 10-foot setback on the east property line, and 20-foot setbacks along West Clause and Ernest streets.
The original variance requests for the west and north property lines were removed, as reducing the number of structures allowed for a 15-foot setback.
He also said the development would be managed by a homeowners association.
This plan was developed after Minton and his team “worked with city council leaders.”
Community speaks
Dozens of neighbors went on the record with their opposition at the council meeting. One nearby resident, Tim Bowles, spoke at length about a potential drainage issue, stating the developer “has not done all their homework.”
He noted a 72-inch concrete drainage pipe on the south side of the north property line. Even with a 15-foot setback, the development would interfere with a gravity drainage system.
He presented a statement from Mike Polk, gravity drainage superintendent, Ward 3, who recommended that “no permanent structures be placed within 15 feet of the center of the existing drainpipe.”
“The developer might be good at throwing together designs in a computer program, but these designs have real-world consequences for the neighborhood,” Bowels said. “It brings into question everything that has been presented at prior meetings and tonight. I do not trust that the developer will do the right thing. Once it is built, we can not undo it.”
He and his brother, Billy Bowles, grew up in the neighborhood. Billy has lived in his home — a structure directly west of the proposed development — for 55 years.
“It’s my home and I love my neighborhood,” he said. “This proposal just doesn’t fit this neighborhood.”
On Tuesday, Billy Bowles told the American Press that his main concerns were flooding and privacy. He is also worried about how the development would affect the energy of the “real close-knit” neighborhood.
“It’s just a nice quiet, peaceful neighborhood. Everybody knows each other and everybody’s come together — united — to try to stop this development,” he explained. “We’re exhausted. We’re just ready for it to be over, and hoping the city council will agree with the zoning board and just deny the proposed development.”
Several residents noted they are seeking alternative, community-oriented plans for the lot. Resident Dominique Darbonne called the area a “legacy neighborhood” that needs to be preserved.
“Our neighborhood was planned and developed in a time where city planners and the city council was really thinking about the future and the legacy of what they were leaving,” she said.
The neighborhood does not want the lot to sit empty, she said.
“The neighborhood is organized to find a solution for this property that will not harm us. We are committed to figuring something out if we can be allowed.”
They have already explored options with several entities, including with the Land Trust for Louisiana and the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Decision
After an hour and a half of testimonies and discussion, the council voted to defer the decision.
Councilmember Stuart Weatherford, District E — the councilman representing that neighborhood — said that the information provided by Tim Bowles concerned him, and moved to defer the vote so that the potentially “insurmountable” gravity drainage issue could be investigated.
Council President Craig Marks, District F, seconded the motion. He commended both sides for presenting their cases, calling the community engagement “inspiring,” but said that more information was required to make a sound decision.
“To see a neighborhood come out like this in full force, I’ve never witnessed that before,” he said.
“There are a lot of questions still out, I think there is a lot of communication that could still be had that may resolve this issue.”
Darbonne told the American Press in an email the next day that she is disappointed in the deferral despite community opposition.
She noted the developer’s “oversight” regarding the gravity drainage issue, and stated the current plan puts the legacy oak in “ a precarious position” that does “not guarantee its safety.”
She also condemned Weatherford for an “appalling” lack of support for his constituents, stating “he showed little regard for the residents of District E on this matter.”
“I am appreciative of the council’s pause on approval. But I wonder, what is the process for citizen success if City Council and district representatives can be swayed by ever-changing sales pitches and handshakes?” she asked. “Development should not happen at the cost of existing residents. Everyone I have spoken to has a horror story about development. Why is that and why do we keep allowing our best interests to be sold to the highest bidder?”
Most Popular
Comments / 0