Here is a concept layout. Not getting the Baryames property is a missed opportunity and makes it clunky/hard to integrate into a traditional downtown layout, but Baryames owns it outright and it is prime downtown land so I'm sure if they were contacted, they are asking for top dollar.
Nice to see the site plan, I wasn't expecting the L shape coming out to Kalamazoo. I'm not a fan of the parking along Cherry but it's enough room for another building someday so I can't complain too much. I have no issue with Baryames being left out of the plan as that corner is appropriate for something more than a four floor building, I don't mind waiting it out for something 8, 10 or even 20+ floors.
Any idea how far along this proposal is? Does it seem fairly likely to happen?
Seems like a missed opporunity to site the building at the corner; the parking could then just be put along Lenawee; this is a suburban site plan in a literal downtown zoning district. And, I actually think short of a variance the newish form-base code REQUIRES a corner siting. So perhaps they haven't consulted the zoning code yet. lol
@MichMatters The Grand Ave part of this parcel would be undevelopable if they force corner siting as both adjacent corners are on different parcels. They could reorient the building to Cherry & Kalamazoo, which I would like, but then they wouldn't be facing the CATA station which seems like a selling point for this project, and they'd be in the floodplain a bit at that corner. It's definitely an odd site layout.
I'm quite happy the corner parcel isn't part of this plan. Do we really want a very mediocre 4 floor LHC apartment building taking up an important corner downtown for decades given a choice? I wouldn't be up in arms if it were on the corner, but I'm glad there will still be an opportunity to do something nicer and/or taller there someday.
EDIT: The more I look at it the more I think the building should be an L oriented to Cherry & Kalamazoo. That still allows for plenty of parking and makes developing the rest of the site in the future much, much easier.
I was talking about Kzoo and Cherry, and I hardly think it matters whether it is a few feet closer to the station or not when it's literally a block away. Also, the whole "leave something to be developed later" NEVER happens.
Anyway, interested to see what the Planning Department says about this.
We wanted it along Kalamazoo and Cherry but they couldn't make the numbers work with the floodplain. FBC has a stipulation to work around natural features and we can make a compromise for additional outdoor seating, bike racks, and rain gardens in the floodplain part of the landscape. It does start to drop off quite a bit past the traffic light, I believe at least 10 feet. The project is dependent on LIHTC, a similar proposal was denied last year, but CATA seems pretty determined to complete a housing project by their station so maybe this has more behind it. The entire point of this proposal though is TOD so we keep trying to encourage less parking. Since this is only preliminary for their application, maybe there is an opportunity to situate it differently with further discussions but if one can't really do much along Kalamazoo, I'm not sure what is better.
@citykid I'm assuming they're planning all wood construction here? No concrete or steel first floor? I imagine that'd be too expensive but it would make dealing with the flood plain easy: just add first floor parking. I wonder if they can get enough apartments in with a layout like below (just edited in Paint): a 5 floor building, maybe slightly wider for deeper/narrower apartments, courtyard at the corner with the elevator core/common area (yellow) connecting the apartment wings (red).
Another interseting lot division proposal coming before the planning commission next week. This is for a 154-foot wide lot on Ferrol just east of Pleasant Grove on the southside. Developer wants to split it into three lots one which three single family homes could be developed. Always kind of wish these lots weren't so wide to begin with. And why this is coming before them at all is because of what I consider an overally stringent minimum by-right lot widths: 60 feet. It also wouldn't conform to the maximum depth-to-width ratio. And the funny thing is at that 51-feet wide, each of these lots would still be wider than most residential lots north of Mt. Hope, and the reason they Planning Department review is supporting this is because most of the lots in the neighborhood are already narrower than the 60-foot min. lol
They will very grant this, but I wish they wouldn't have to come before them for a variance at all for stuff like this. My take is that if it's wide enough to build a house on, that should be the minimum, or at least something close to that. One of quite a few "little" things in the code that I'd still like to see changed to reduce red tape and given people leeway in how they choose to develop their properties.
I'm having trouble finding that lot, I only see two vacant lots on Ferrol near Pleasant Grove and neither appears 150' wide. One to the west of Pleasant Grove between a fire station and townhouse, the other about a half block east of Pleasant Grove between houses. Those townhouses on Wadsworth are pretty decent but most of the rest of the immediate area isn't great. I'm surprised they're talking about building single family homes.
One thing I noticed while looking at this area is that it would make a ton of sense to extend Ferrol over to meet Pompton/Warwick, there'd be a new block of street to develop and may help these neighborhoods feel less isolated, especially Warwick/Pompton. If a prospective future developer wanted to buy a house or two on Holmes they could also add a short north/south street to connect everything better and get a few more lots to build on.
Comments
Here is a concept layout. Not getting the Baryames property is a missed opportunity and makes it clunky/hard to integrate into a traditional downtown layout, but Baryames owns it outright and it is prime downtown land so I'm sure if they were contacted, they are asking for top dollar.
Any idea how far along this proposal is? Does it seem fairly likely to happen?
I'm quite happy the corner parcel isn't part of this plan. Do we really want a very mediocre 4 floor LHC apartment building taking up an important corner downtown for decades given a choice? I wouldn't be up in arms if it were on the corner, but I'm glad there will still be an opportunity to do something nicer and/or taller there someday.
EDIT: The more I look at it the more I think the building should be an L oriented to Cherry & Kalamazoo. That still allows for plenty of parking and makes developing the rest of the site in the future much, much easier.
Anyway, interested to see what the Planning Department says about this.
They will very grant this, but I wish they wouldn't have to come before them for a variance at all for stuff like this. My take is that if it's wide enough to build a house on, that should be the minimum, or at least something close to that. One of quite a few "little" things in the code that I'd still like to see changed to reduce red tape and given people leeway in how they choose to develop their properties.
One thing I noticed while looking at this area is that it would make a ton of sense to extend Ferrol over to meet Pompton/Warwick, there'd be a new block of street to develop and may help these neighborhoods feel less isolated, especially Warwick/Pompton. If a prospective future developer wanted to buy a house or two on Holmes they could also add a short north/south street to connect everything better and get a few more lots to build on.