It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I mean, I don't disagree a little bit. I've remarked on the parking situation ever since I saw the site plan months ago. What I was confused about is why anyone was surprised the houses on the southside of Barnard were left or what the developers is supposed to do with what is private property that has nothing to do with his project; and it's because they didn't need them for the development.
Yeah, sucks to be them living next door to this, I guess - though it kind of depends on the perspective. Some of them may like having a grocery store to walk to. But this is far from the first time you have a development next door to single-family homes. That's literally the nature of redevelopment. So long as the developer follows the buffering requirements and such in the zoning code to lessen its impact on the adacent residential properties - and they must have as the planning department reviewed and approved the project - this is all they should be required to do, particularly given that the houses are non-conforming properties since these properties were zoned industrial when zoning was implemeneted.
By the view and purpose of zoning maps created decades ago, this area was originally meant to transition to non-single-family home usage. It's just that it's finally happening for Barnard. For all intents and purposes, that street at a longer life as a single-family home street than it was originally envisoned to have when they drew up the zoning maps.
I was surprised, I guess because I had been assuming Barnard was going to be vacated and the whole area was going to be used for the development.
I was pointing out that it seems unfortunate that they did not include all of the homes up there. While I am sure there was not going to be any homes selling on that street the homes do have value and are taxed, I was thinking that this development would affect that value negatively, also it just lessens the few options the homeowners may have had if they did want to move away from that dead-end street. I did not understand that they were not part of the plan and surprised when I did see that. It is true that there probably are folks who like having a Meijers in their front yard. I am excited to have one coming to my neighborhood!
I just realized why you all may have been confused about the boundaries, and it's because apparently, this was posted in the general thread - before this project had it's own:
And I might not have posted this on the website, at all, but did on another site. It was the properties which needed rezoning:
Anyway, I'm really posting because I noticed this afternoon that Gillespie Group tore down the old house-portion of the Stamp Rite property across the street. I originally thought they were going to tear down the whole property. Now that I think of how GG redevelops really non-descript buildings in the district, they may be renovate this one into commercial space or a restaurant space; I have no idea.
It's the old house structure on the right. It's actually a very small part of the site as the other buildings on the lot go almost all the way back to the property line. The spot would make a nice entrance plaza for whatever else they decide to do with the property.
Thanks for posting this info... It seems unfortunate that they are leaving those few homes up there. I think more housing and retail could be built on the blocks between Cedar and Larch maybe a building facing a rebuilt street that is already kind of there across from the auto service center, with a parking structure at Kalamazoo Street. There are some ramp-sites downtown could be redeveloped if a larger parking structure was built on Kalamazoo at Cedar Street. Just dreaming!
Thanks again for posting this info. It would be nice if the city put in a stoplight at the exit of the parking lot on Larch. Even with it remaining one-way it will help to slow traffic as it is nearing Michigan Ave.