Staff briefs council on Cherry Street rezoning request; council raises traffic and pedestrian safety concerns

Carlisle staff and the applicant asked Borough Council on Feb. 5 to consider a zoning map amendment to rezone a parcel at the end of Cherry Street from R‑3 (high‑density residential) to urban mixed use to allow mixed residential and ground‑floor commercial uses.

Planner Jared (staff) said the request is a sketch plan submitted to enable council review; staff will prepare a memorandum and, at the applicant’s request, the solicitor will advertise a public hearing at the council’s next meeting. County planning and the borough planning commission have reviewed the concept and offered preliminary support.

Attorney Hubert Gilroy, representing the applicant, said the property is owned by Jim Kravitz, was purchased more than 10 years ago, and previously had a residential plan that did not move forward. Gilroy said the present developer partner is the OZ Fund (represented by Jeremy Finkets of Lancaster) and that the team is pursuing a mixed‑use approach that would include workforce housing and some commercial uses such as a counseling office in coordination with the school district.

Councilors and members of the public raised traffic and pedestrian safety concerns at the Louder and Cherry intersection and at Penn and Cherry because of heavy student pedestrian crossings to nearby facilities named in the discussion (Goodyear, Kaufman, the Klein Center and dormitories). One councilor who lives on Louder Street said the intersection currently has low vehicle volumes but could see increased traffic if the site and neighboring parcels are developed.

Staff noted that the borough’s rezoning standard focuses on vehicular trip generation but that council is not limited to those measures and can consider pedestrian and multimodal safety during land‑development review. Staff also flagged that the right‑of‑way width at the end of Cherry Street is narrower than at other sections and that the developer will be asked to address the potential for extending a proper right of way and roadway design during the land‑development process.

The sketch plan discussed at the workshop showed two separate buildings, each three stories, with unit counts mentioned in the meeting as 64 in one building and 48 in the other. The developer described the housing as "workforce" housing, not low‑income housing; specifics on unit mixes and rent targets were not provided in the workshop and will be part of subsequent land‑development filings. Council members urged the applicant to engage the community about commercial uses and to consider high‑quality bicycle parking to reduce car parking demand.

Attorney Gilroy and staff emphasized that the property’s current zoning (R‑3 high density) already allows certain development by right and that rezoning would change permitted uses but not necessarily guarantee a particular developer or plan; councilors were advised to treat any rezoning as a change to the zoning map that would remain in place regardless of which developer ultimately builds.

If council approves advertisement of an ordinance proposing the zoning change, the borough will hold a public hearing and receive a fuller land‑development submission that will address traffic, right‑of‑way, engineering and site‑specific details.