Though it is a lesser detail on the whole, the setback on a side building for a proposed mixed-use project with 45 apartments and ground floor live-work studios is concrete evidence in favor of eliminating five overlay zones on Commercial Street.
 |
| Proposed building on Commercial and Bush Streets (Side building under red arrow) |
The main building, which would replace lot vacant for at least a decade, is in the new Mixed-use I zone on Commercial and Bush, and is outside of the Saginaw Overlay. Most of its details meet the rules and project does not require a Public Hearing. It requests a few adjustments, but they seem reasonable, and are subject to administrative approvals rather than the formal Public Hearing process at the Planning Commission.
Even though zero parking is required, there is still a modest parking lot proposed. With the live-work units, there are prospects for small retail or services at ground floor. This looks like the kind of thing the new mixed-use zoning was supposed to prompt!
The intersection of Commercial and Owens has potential also to be more of a neighborhood hub for Sleepy Hollow.
One adjustment to note involves the overlay. Part of the project is on a little extension of the Saginaw overlay zone, on the other site of the alley. Even though many of the immediate buildings are single detached houses, the zoning along Saginaw is for apartments. The project requests
A reduction to the minimum building setback adjacent to a street for the proposed single story office building within the Saginaw Street Overlay Zone from 30 feet to five feet which is consistent with the MU-I zone setback standard.
 |
| A small portion of the project in the overlay (RM2 in brown, MU-I in purple) |
 |
| 30-foot or five-foot setback? |
The five-foot setback, which would align with the main building, creates an important continuity across the alley.
The proposal to eliminate the additional layers of red tape constituted by these overlay zones will be at City Council on Monday the 26th. The City has published a comparison here. There will be more to say when the Staff Report comes out.
Here are a few brief notes also:
- On a debate from last fall, and related, on MU-III vs MU-II zoning, "City Council, October 24th - Zoning on Commercial, Deceptive Airport Estimates"
- And on the move to consider the overlay zones, "City Council, November 14th - Overlay Zones and Video Promotion"
- The Council meeting that initiated the process with the Planning Commission, "City Council, March 13th - Second St NW and the Charmless Concrete Bunker"
And on the history of the neighborhood:
4 comments:
Mixed-Use Project on Commercial and Bush Evidence that Market Supports Mixed-Use Development. There, fixed your headline. SCAN's Land Use Committee supports a gutting of the overlay zones you cite in the story, but we do think it is important to still maintain a height limit requirement that would, in some cases, be lower than what the applicable Mixed Use zone would allow. I think the overlay zones along the Commercial / Liberty corridor can serve a valuable purpose without being so restrictive as currently constructed. But a reasonable height restriction (of 35 feet, in SCAN's view) shouldn't and wouldn't be a barrier to more mixed use development.
The MU-II zones already would not allow this project, since their height limits are 55 feet and this project comes in at the 65 feet allowed by MU-I zoning. It would work in MU-III zones, which have a limit of 70 feet.
But for projects to have to obey a limit of 35 feet greatly restricts the kinds of projects that would pencil out. It does not seem very plausible to say 35 feet "shouldn't and wouldn't be a barrier." Indeed we might learn 55 feet is too short.
You say "reasonable height restriction," and others might say "poison pill and crypto-NIMBY exclusionary function."
It will be interesting to hear what developers have to say in comments to the Planning Commission.
For an advocate of medium density housing, it is weird to think that 70 foot buildings belong next to long-established low density housing. The building at the SW corner of State and Commercial is about 70 feet tall. Does something of that size really belong at, say, Bush and Commercial? It is frustrating to see the City be so gung-ho for maximizing density along corridors but also very interested in allowing more single family housing. I'd feel much better about this effort if it were spread across the entire city and not just my backyard. I've advocated for more density in my neighborhood - I don't think a NIMBY label is fair at all. I'm asking for some restraint. Or, if there isn't going to be restraint, then apply the same rules across the city. For a city council that seems to like throwing around the word "equity" it would be interesting to see it actually applied.
(Edit and correction: The Monday meeting is Council not the Planning Commission.)
Post a Comment