This includes MANY more properties than I originally assumed, and we're talking 240 units, and increases the density beyond what exists at the proposed site. So, right off the bat, I'm pretty excited. My only concern is whether they eventually plan to clear-cut the area instead of true infill, which I like more as it keeps variety. Not every existing home in the neighborhood needs or should be cleared. Other than that, though, I'm generally supportive.
On some of the other items, there are three lot splits alone for this meeting. Most of their work the past two or three years have been lot splits and then varience requests because of the sudivision requirements of the city, which tells me that those requirements probably need an overhaul. Ostensibly, it's because you don't want lots whose backs aren't serviceable is what I've heard for the purpose. But if these are mostly single-family lots, and you're not going to - or can't devide them depth-wise to provide a road in the back, perhaps the standards need to be relaxed to allow greater density by-right. And when I'm talking "density" I'm simply talking of being able to build single-family homes on otherwise 'normal' sized lots. In this case, 60-feet is still a larger width than in much of the original part of the city. Anyway, glad to see the land bank and small developers involved in this kind of basic infill in the more suburban parts of town.
I'm also pretty surprised at the scale of the proposed Hepler development. The site plan is hard to read but I'm seeing it as tearing down all the houses on Quaker Ct, filling up the vacant lots on Park Terrace while maybe taking out a few more houses, take up the that entire block of Penn up to May St, possibly add a new through street to May and take out everything on Saginaw, unfortunately including the old brick commercial building there.
Besides the loss of that brick commercial building on Saginaw I'm quite happy with the look/layout of this development. It's dense, provides a lot of infill, is in an area desperately needing some love and I personally don't hate the look of the buildings, it'd be nice if they'd diversify the designs at least a little but I generally like the modern look for something different and it modern designs tend to turn out a lot better when on a budget. 240 units of infill on mostly vacant land in a struggling but well positioned neighborhood is no small deal. With this, the Prudden parking lots and maybe even the eventual redevelopment of the factories north of Oakland, the area around the old Prudden Factory could really come into its own.
While they do mention it's still very early in the process, kind of wish they'd have at least labeled what the colors on this ownership map mean? Because, I'm not sure it matches up with the later preliminary site plan. I'm guessing red is other ownership, but I'm unsure of what the difference is supposed to be between the green and yellow-green lots.
The yellow appear to be landbank and the green look like they're owned by different entities, I assume related to the redevelopment effort. What I'm not sure about are the orange properties, they appear to be owned by the same entities that own the green properties.
EPRE was what I mentioned back in January as being shell companies for Hepler, so I think all of those and related names are his properties. But it's weird, because some of the Land Bank and shell companies appear in different colors. I thought maybe the color difference might be rezoning requests, but I don't think it matches up with that map, either. lol Let me post the comparison with the preliminary site plan:
The current lot lines do not line up with how the site is going to be developed, nor with how color-coded map, which I think it a rough construction staging map.
@MichMatters As far as I can tell all the units in that site plan are on either Landbank or developer owned land, the site plan just doesn't show them using all the available land.
@gbdinlansing You're talking about the small building on the Lake Trust block? I do think those latest plans for the performing arts center show them using that building as-is for offices. I've been operating under the assumption that the developer of the block probably eventually plans to build a taller building on the NW corner of Washington & Hillsdale, it's about the right footprint for mid/high rise apartment building.
It is interesting that they kept it, as it usually pencils out that it's easier to demolish and rebuild and renovate. It must have been kept in good shape. The way they did the lot splits is also interesting and makes me wonder if they are going to redo the split? Because I believe this was not the lines prior to the redevelopment.
The subdivision ordinance definitely needs an update so the city does not have to go through these bureaucratic processes. It reminded me of a case last year - the guy who bought that section of North Cemetery for multiple quadplexes. I just happened to drive by the other day and saw the site all dug up so it got me curious of its status. Apparently he has changed the plan to three duplexes but kept the large parking lot. Not having done the calculations for lot coverage, but there seems to be space for more buildings so I wonder if he is still planning on future phases.
I don't think Hepler has been very clear with his plans since that draft diagram doesn't really make sense with the street layout. I am interested to learn more at Planning Board on Tuesday. My impression is that he will keep trying to obtain the rest of the properties and not attempt organic infill. I am guessing it will have an East Village feel to it.
Little inside scoop about 520 S Washington: apparently the building is in much better shape than expected so it will be housing the Public Media Center offices with space for other potential tenants. So it won't be knocked down and it frees up space in the performance venue. I am sure the façade will be updated to match the new building.
Comments
On some of the other items, there are three lot splits alone for this meeting. Most of their work the past two or three years have been lot splits and then varience requests because of the sudivision requirements of the city, which tells me that those requirements probably need an overhaul. Ostensibly, it's because you don't want lots whose backs aren't serviceable is what I've heard for the purpose. But if these are mostly single-family lots, and you're not going to - or can't devide them depth-wise to provide a road in the back, perhaps the standards need to be relaxed to allow greater density by-right. And when I'm talking "density" I'm simply talking of being able to build single-family homes on otherwise 'normal' sized lots. In this case, 60-feet is still a larger width than in much of the original part of the city. Anyway, glad to see the land bank and small developers involved in this kind of basic infill in the more suburban parts of town.
Besides the loss of that brick commercial building on Saginaw I'm quite happy with the look/layout of this development. It's dense, provides a lot of infill, is in an area desperately needing some love and I personally don't hate the look of the buildings, it'd be nice if they'd diversify the designs at least a little but I generally like the modern look for something different and it modern designs tend to turn out a lot better when on a budget. 240 units of infill on mostly vacant land in a struggling but well positioned neighborhood is no small deal. With this, the Prudden parking lots and maybe even the eventual redevelopment of the factories north of Oakland, the area around the old Prudden Factory could really come into its own.
The current lot lines do not line up with how the site is going to be developed, nor with how color-coded map, which I think it a rough construction staging map.
@gbdinlansing You're talking about the small building on the Lake Trust block? I do think those latest plans for the performing arts center show them using that building as-is for offices. I've been operating under the assumption that the developer of the block probably eventually plans to build a taller building on the NW corner of Washington & Hillsdale, it's about the right footprint for mid/high rise apartment building.
I don't think Hepler has been very clear with his plans since that draft diagram doesn't really make sense with the street layout. I am interested to learn more at Planning Board on Tuesday. My impression is that he will keep trying to obtain the rest of the properties and not attempt organic infill. I am guessing it will have an East Village feel to it.
Little inside scoop about 520 S Washington: apparently the building is in much better shape than expected so it will be housing the Public Media Center offices with space for other potential tenants. So it won't be knocked down and it frees up space in the performance venue. I am sure the façade will be updated to match the new building.