News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.7K     0 

MichaelS said:
An interesting land use application is going to CPC next week. It is a mid-block rezoning along 18th Ave NE in Tuxedo Park, going from R-C2 to a Direct Control on the M-CG district. More details in the Report.
The CA is opposed to it, and I can kind of see why. There is an accompanying DP summary here:
View attachment 365583View attachment 365584

10 units where there used to be 1-2. I am not to worried about the density, or the reduced parking, but more so the built form a bit, that puts the second building (with the 2 upper units and 2 basement suites) much deeper into the parcel, to accommodate the parking stalls. In this particular instance, it might not be so bad, as the two homes on either side appear to be original ones that are likely destined for redevelopment. But, if you had a typical infill, with the garage closer to the lane, and one of these got built on either side of you, it would certainly make your yard feel very "walled in". Maybe that isn't a bad thing, but, like the CA letter says, is a mid-block parcel appropriate for this level of density, if it requires the amount of relaxations and compromises as this one does? Especially when there is no shortage of land along the more major corridors where higher density can go?
Click to expand...
Love this. I get why the CA is against it, but here is the rub: you need to use M-CG to build anything reasonable on a mid-block site. R-CG doesn't work/function for mid-block. This is absolutely the type of development i would be fine with anywhere in that is currently R-1 or R-C2 (although i think in this instance the basement suites might be a little overkill.
 
MichaelS said:
An interesting land use application is going to CPC next week. It is a mid-block rezoning along 18th Ave NE in Tuxedo Park, going from R-C2 to a Direct Control on the M-CG district. More details in the Report.
The CA is opposed to it, and I can kind of see why. There is an accompanying DP summary here:
View attachment 365583View attachment 365584

10 units where there used to be 1-2. I am not to worried about the density, or the reduced parking, but more so the built form a bit, that puts the second building (with the 2 upper units and 2 basement suites) much deeper into the parcel, to accommodate the parking stalls. In this particular instance, it might not be so bad, as the two homes on either side appear to be original ones that are likely destined for redevelopment. But, if you had a typical infill, with the garage closer to the lane, and one of these got built on either side of you, it would certainly make your yard feel very "walled in". Maybe that isn't a bad thing, but, like the CA letter says, is a mid-block parcel appropriate for this level of density, if it requires the amount of relaxations and compromises as this one does? Especially when there is no shortage of land along the more major corridors where higher density can go?
Click to expand...
I think there are similar (identical?) proposal(s) on 33rd Ave SW. Looks like the same development team. I actually don't love these proposals on 33rd, as I think development on 33rd Ave SW should exclusively be 4-6 story condos, but row housing continues to be proposed on the street. I think the form makes sense at this location on 18 Ave NE, although it's too bad that they couldn't have purchased the lots on either side of this lot to make this a larger development, particularly the other mid-block lot, because redevelopment of those lots will probably have follow a similar formula.
 
UrbanWarrior said:
Re: the new Jemm Shagnappi proposal.... meh 🤷‍♂️ It's very basic and just... meh. At least it's density near a station.
VIEW-1-AERIAL-1.jpg

ELEVATION-WEST-1.jpg
Click to expand...
I forgot to mention that there has been construction activity at this site recently. I don't know if they are just leveling the ground or doing utility work, etc.. or if actual construction is starting.
 
MichaelS said:
Sorry, I didn't mean to call you out like that. I am pretty sure it isn't, but maybe. I will look closer next time I go by as well.
Click to expand...
No worries at all. I'm not sure what they are doing, but I think I saw an earth mover, and it looked like maybe they are doing some grading of some sort.
 
MichaelS said:
Push the smaller, second building to the lane, and get rid of the two basement suites and instead have 2 suites above a 4 car garage, and pretty much all of my concerns go away. yes, you go from 10 to 8 units, but still, 8 units! And a built form that would be nearly identical to a semi-detached. Plus, I do worry that the courtyard for this project as currently shown will be nothing but a dark, shadowy place of no real value. Pushing it back would provide an amenity space that is much more enjoyable for the remaining 8 units.
Click to expand...
I feel like this would work if the rear/lane units were built above the garages and had at grade entrances along the courtyard (like typical slab on grade townhouses). If they did that and got rid of the basement suites on the rear units and did or did not keep the basement suites on the street facing units this would be a perfect example of small lot, mid block row homes that should be an easily approvable option.
 
Surrealplaces said:
No worries at all. I'm not sure what they are doing, but I think I saw an earth mover, and it looked like maybe they are doing some grading of some sort.
Click to expand...
Just drove by. The JEMM parcel is not seeing any action. The townhome project by Brookfield north of How Trail is fully scraped with lots of equipment, and there is a corner lot one block west that has been demoed and a basement being dug.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top