July 15, 20168 yr West Siders protest extended Incline District development controls The Cincinnati Planning Commission approved extending controls on development in East Price Hill’s Incline District on Friday until June 2017, drawing the protests of some property owners. In June, City Council approved an interim development control district for the area after Mayor John Cranley requested it, citing concerns about real estate speculation and whether the area is properly zoned. More below: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2016/07/15/west-iders-protest-extended-incline-district.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
March 8, 20178 yr East Price Hill has a grand events space in its sights to bookend its Incline District CINCINNATI – With East Price Hill's eastern border secured with a thriving theater and Incline Public House, boosters plan to spread the wealth westward with a $10 million rebirth of a grand Masonic Lodge. Price Hill Will and friends plan to add an anchor to bookend a redevelopment corridor by transforming the dilapidated Masonic lodge on Price and Purcell avenues into a magnet for wedding receptions, concerts and special events of all sorts. http://www.wcpo.com/news/insider/east-price-hill-has-a-grand-events-space-in-its-sites-to-bookend-its-incline-district?sharedToken=06a21625-7cae-457f-9874-7585056ef183
March 8, 20178 yr Good to see some rehabs coming to Price Hill- It's a neighborhood that has always mystified and intrigued me, and I get that they're trying to capitalize on the views of downtown with the Incline District, but it still feels like they're trying to create a new business district from the ground up when Warsaw and Glenway are right down the street. With how disjointed Price Hill is I'm sure it's hard to get anything cohesive to develop over there, but I'm also not fluent in "West Side" so maybe I just don't get it. “To an Ohio resident - wherever he lives - some other part of his state seems unreal.”
March 8, 20178 yr Good to see some rehabs coming to Price Hill- It's a neighborhood that has always mystified and intrigued me, and I get that they're trying to capitalize on the views of downtown with the Incline District, but it still feels like they're trying to create a new business district from the ground up when Warsaw and Glenway are right down the street. With how disjointed Price Hill is I'm sure it's hard to get anything cohesive to develop over there, but I'm also not fluent in "West Side" so maybe I just don't get it. The short answer is that it's just a lot easier to get a solid return on investment in the Incline District than on Glenway and Warsaw. The area has the right ingredients to be the first part of Price Hill to be revitalized.
July 3, 20177 yr $20 million project on Cincinnati’s west side gets key state backing One of the largest projects in development on Cincinnati’s west side, which would rehabilitate Price Hill’s Masonic Lodge, has received Ohio historic tax credits. The project at 3301 Price Ave. near the Incline District will get $1.9 million in tax credits, a key part of its financing. More below: http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2017/06/30/20-million-project-on-cincinnati-s-west-side-gets.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
June 19, 20186 yr Bringing back an old one it seems. Has anyone here heard any rumors of anything new happening in the Mt. Echo area of Price hill and more specifically along Crestline Ave? My brother live there and has heard neighbor rumors of a collective redevolopment of currently empty and rental housing similar to what was just done on Grand Ave with the Grand Row project. With all the hype in the news lately about the Incline District being a 'next big thing' even more than usual in the last few weeks I wouldn't be surprised, but he was wondering if there was any truth to it. https://johnsonrealestategroup.com/blog/Grand-Row-Incline-District-Live-Work-Spaces-For-Lease/20003
November 28, 20186 yr Company plans Lower Price Hill HQ after move to accommodate FC Cincinnati stadium Tri-State Wholesale Building Supplies, a family-owned and operated company, is building a new, nearly 99,000-square-foot headquarters in Lower Price Hill. Currently located in the West End at 1550 Central Ave., Tri-State is moving to make way for the FC Cincinnati stadium. In October, Tri-State agreed to pay the city $176,000 for 7 acres at the MetroWest Commerce Park. West End Ventures LLC, the affiliate that has been acquiring property for FC Cincinnati in the West End neighborhood, purchased Tri-State’s properties this month for $25 million, according to property records. The total investment for Tri-State’s new headquarters is expected to be about $6.5 million. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2018/11/28/company-plans-lower-price-hill-hq-after-move-to.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
March 13, 20196 yr Port approves financing for major West Side development The Port of Greater Cincinnati Redevelopment Authority approved a sale-leaseback deal for the Masonic Lodge in East Price Hill on Wednesday, one of the largest redevelopment projects on the West Side. The 99-year lease agreement will allow the 21,000-square-foot, $10 million project at 3301 Price Ave. near the Incline District to be constructed without paying sales taxes on building materials. The property sits on an acre. The neoclassical building will have about 5,500 square feet for Price Hill Will’s office, 7,981 square feet for community and event space, and 7,440 square feet for art education and performance. MYCincinnati Youth Orchestra will be the primary arts tenant. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/03/13/port-approves-financing-for-major-west-side.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
April 22, 20196 yr West Side building to be transformed into arts, event center A historical building is being brought back to life under one of the largest redevelopment projects on the West Side, WKRC reports. A groundbreaking took place last week at the former Price Hill Masonic Lodge, designed by Samuel Hannaford, which will undergo a nearly $10 million renovation. The building was completed in 1912 and operated by the Price Hill Freemasons for 77 years until it merged with the North Bend Lodge. It has been vacant for about 30 years. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/04/22/west-side-building-to-be-transformed-into-arts.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
August 14, 20195 yr https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2019/08/13/here-s-what-hilltops-new-plant-in-queensgate-would.html?iana=hpmvp_cinci_news_headline#g/458394/1 Proposed new Hilltop Concrete plant in Price Hill. I can't tell how it connects to the river, but I thought having a barge terminal was a requirement. Either way that would be a very nice looking concrete plant.
August 14, 20195 yr Connectivity concerns aside, that is one pretty cool looking building. I was hoping those panels would be some sort of innovative, lightweight concrete pre-cast, but the article makes it sound like they will be metal. Good job MSA Design.
August 14, 20195 yr It doesn't, so that also means they need a small barge facility on the river for deliveries, then load to trucks and bring it to the plant. Honestly would be better if this facility was on the river with the barge terminal attached.
October 15, 20204 yr Cincinnati City Council gives Lower Price Hill affordable housing project the green light https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2020/10/14/council-gives-lower-price-hill-affordable-housing-project-green-light/3654326001/ Cincinnati City Council gave the green light for an affordable housing project in Lower Price Hill, a vote that came over the objections of Mayor John Cranley and city administrators. After city administrators refused to help the project with $1 million in federal grant money – the last money needed to get the project that will house nearly 50 families going – Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld championed the project. And he found seven members of council to agree. I'm all for affordable housing, but I don't understand why this project costs so much to begin with.
October 15, 20204 yr 47 minutes ago, LAW 21 said: Cincinnati City Council gives Lower Price Hill affordable housing project the green light https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2020/10/14/council-gives-lower-price-hill-affordable-housing-project-green-light/3654326001/ Cincinnati City Council gave the green light for an affordable housing project in Lower Price Hill, a vote that came over the objections of Mayor John Cranley and city administrators. After city administrators refused to help the project with $1 million in federal grant money – the last money needed to get the project that will house nearly 50 families going – Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld championed the project. And he found seven members of council to agree. I'm all for affordable housing, but I don't understand why this project costs so much to begin with. Here's the non-blocked version: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2020/10/14/council-gives-lower-price-hill-affordable-housing-project-green-light/3654326001/
October 15, 20204 yr Quote Councilwoman Betsy Sundermann was the lone no vote because she doesn't want a greater concentration of low income housing on the west side of Cincinnati. Sundermann lives in that neighborhood and asked Sittenfeld if he'd want this project in his neighborhood, East Walnut Hills. I hate this argument. Was there even a proposed project in EWH? Why can't we do both? Why does it have to be one or the other? We need more affordable housing EVERYWHERE.
October 15, 20204 yr Sounds like Betsy wants to preserve the Suburban Lifestyle Dream on the West Side.
October 15, 20204 yr I wouldn't have vetoed it, but Cranley was right that these types of projects should be promoting homeownership, not increasing the renter population. But LPH is in dire need of any positive movement, so this is good. Eventually, it will be looked at by investors and when that time comes, the home ownership route should be taken on projects like this. Hopefully once the Ohio River West trail is in one piece, they can get Price Landing going and the neighborhood will pop up on some radars. Edited October 15, 20204 yr by 10albersa
October 15, 20204 yr What's the point of promoting home ownership for folks that can't afford a down payment?
October 15, 20204 yr Exactly, the people benefiting from affordable housing typically don't have enough savings to buy a unit - affordable or not
October 15, 20204 yr 3 hours ago, LAW 21 said: I'm all for affordable housing, but I don't understand why this project costs so much to begin with. The units in question are real run down and very old right? I was assuming that is where most of the costs are associated with but haven't seen many specifics.
October 15, 20204 yr 1 hour ago, seaswan said: Exactly, the people benefiting from affordable housing typically don't have enough savings to buy a unit - affordable or not I would presume that a program to help low-income people enter homeownership would involve lowering that down-payment barrier if not completely removing it.
October 15, 20204 yr Covington has a program for low income residents that gives up to $7500 for down payments with 0% interest. If the buyer lives in the house as a primary residence for at least 5 years the loan is completely forgiven. The federal program is called HOME, though I'm not sure why its capitalized because I don't think it's an acronym.
October 16, 20204 yr 17 hours ago, ucgrady said: Covington has a program for low income residents that gives up to $7500 for down payments with 0% interest. If the buyer lives in the house as a primary residence for at least 5 years the loan is completely forgiven. The federal program is called HOME, though I'm not sure why its capitalized because I don't think it's an acronym. That's really cool, I'd never heard of that! In that case, I would really like to see that program replicated in Cincinnati.
October 16, 20204 yr Quote Covington has a program for low income residents that gives up to $7500 for down payments with 0% interest. If the buyer lives in the house as a primary residence for at least 5 years the loan is completely forgiven. The federal program is called HOME, though I'm not sure why its capitalized because I don't think it's an acronym. It stands for Housing Opportunities Made Equal.
October 16, 20204 yr 46 minutes ago, The_Cincinnati_Kid said: It stands for Housing Opportunities Made Equal. that's a decent backronym
October 16, 20204 yr 22 hours ago, ryanlammi said: 240k per unit isn't crazy. Especially considering high renovation costs I'm admittedly not a developer, but how do you make money back on that? I must be missing something here. Edited October 16, 20204 yr by LAW 21
December 17, 20204 yr From the latest round of Historic Tax Credits: Lower Price Hill Thrives Four projects in Cincinnati's Lower Price Hill Historic District funded this round (plus one funded in Round 24) are part of the larger project called Lower Price Hill Thrives. The project will include the rehabilitation of 12 historic buildings on/around St. Michael Street into more than 50 units of affordable housing plus commercial spaces. They are: 2113-2117 W. 8th and 2122 St. Michael St. - rear (Cincinnati, Hamilton County) Total Project Cost: $5,831,990 Total Tax Credit: $250,000 Address: 2113-2117 W. 8th and 2122 St. Michael St. – rear, Cincinnati, 45204 Originally mixed commercial/residential use buildings, one of them later housed a church before becoming vacant. The unique round bay window with domed roof will be repaired, and although little historic fabric remains on the interior, what is left will be retained and repaired, including staircases and wood trim. 2122 St. Michael St. - front (Cincinnati, Hamilton County) Total Project Cost: $1,321,581 Total Tax Credit: $163,158 Address: 2122 St. Michael St. – front, Cincinnati, 45204 Currently, the building has six abandoned apartments that will be rehabilitated for new residents. The ill-fitting replacement windows will be replaced with compatible windows that better match the historic windows. 2130 St. Michael St. and 642 Neave St. (Cincinnati, Hamilton County) Total Project Cost: $1,311,588 Total Tax Credit: $161,924 Address: 2130 St. Michael St. and 642 Neave St., Cincinnati, 45204 The two buildings in this project date to the late 19th century and have been long vacant except for one commercial space. After rehabilitation, there will be five apartments, and the commercial space will be retained. 2131 St. Michael St. (Cincinnati, Hamilton County) Total Project Cost: $1,311,588 Total Tax Credit: $144,131 Address: 2131 St. Michael St., Cincinnati, 45204 After many years of vacancy, this c. 1885 building will again house residents in its three apartments. Historic fabric, including the central stairs, woodwork, and exterior details, will be repaired and retained.
February 3, 20214 yr I stumbled on a link to a Warsaw Ave Safety Project, similar to the one on Linn St. There's a section on the bottom to submit your preferences. I prefer option one as I think there needs to be some type of parking available if any businesses want to have a hope of success. As for the intersection changes. option C probably makes the most sense if you're closing off Seton Ave. Not sure that would be a good idea, though. Warsaw Ave Safety Project Edited February 3, 20214 yr by LAW 21
February 3, 20214 yr 10 hours ago, LAW 21 said: I stumbled on a link to a Warsaw Ave Safety Project, similar to the one on Linn St. There's a section on the bottom to submit your preferences. I prefer option one as I think there needs to be some type of parking available if any businesses want to have a hope of success. As for the intersection changes. option C probably makes the most sense if you're closing off Seton Ave. Not sure that would be a good idea, though. Warsaw Ave Safety Project 12 foot lanes are very bad- https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-06/why-12-foot-traffic-lanes-are-disastrous-for-safety-and-must-be-replaced-now The City really needs a dedicated funding source for road diets, bike infrastructure, safe routes to school and traffic calming.
February 3, 20214 yr 9 hours ago, LAW 21 said: I stumbled on a link to a Warsaw Ave Safety Project, similar to the one on Linn St. There's a section on the bottom to submit your preferences. I prefer option one as I think there needs to be some type of parking available if any businesses want to have a hope of success. As for the intersection changes. option C probably makes the most sense if you're closing off Seton Ave. Not sure that would be a good idea, though. Warsaw Ave Safety Project I would strongly argue against options 1 and 3. Research indicates that speeding and reckless driving gets really bad once travel lanes approach 12 feet in width. Any design with them should be avoided, especially in this case where residents have been asking for pedestrian safety for years. 10' and 10.5' are the sweet spot for travel lane widths. How much of the on-street parking is currently occupied?
February 3, 20214 yr In January 2019, the community also asked DOTE for the feasibility of a roundabout at St. Lawrence, replacing the traffic light at McPherson with a 4-way stop, increasing the number of stop signs along Warsaw to calm traffic, and adding rumble strips to the intersections of the side streets to also calm traffic. DOTE said they would confirm with ODOT about these ideas but basically said no to all of them except the roundabout. I'm not sure what happened between September 2019, the date of the City's report, and October 2020, the date of the presentation, but I assume ODOT confirmed that none of these strategies would help. Warsaw has an AADT of almost exactly 10,000. Streets with less than 10,000 are considered easy to convert from 4 to 3 lanes and will cause little traffic delays.
February 3, 20214 yr Re: road design options. I think that business district needs on street parking. I would go with option 1 with the following changes: extend the curb and enlarge the sidewalk by 2’ by reducing the travel lane from 12’ to 10’. That way you get a refreshed sidewalk streetscape too. And also demarcate the individual parking spaces with paint on the ground so visually the side of the street with parking doesn’t appear to be an 18’ travel lane if no one is parked there. re: intersection options. Would be interested to see a roundabout option. It appears they are willing to take out the BP with the existing options so I wonder if a roundabout would fit. www.cincinnatiideas.com
February 3, 20214 yr The city needs to be looking at these things as a system, not individual pieces that can all be solved without thinking about the other pieces. Warsaw is definitely a commercial corridor, and I think there should be 24 hour parking on at least one side of the street to support businesses and slow down traffic. I also think you need to have a center turn lane on a street like Warsaw. I don't see how they do that and put in bike lanes. But if you want to protect bicyclists on a major east/west thoroughfare through the neighborhood, you could install a protected bike lane on Glenway, just 1-2 blocks to the north. Glenway is not a major commercial corridor, so 24 hour parking on both sides of the street isn't a requirement. If you're traveling from West Price Hill to somewhere on Warsaw via bike, you could take a new bike lane on Glenway and then cut south on a small residential street to get to a business on Warsaw. If you're going to Lower Price Hill or Downtown from the west side, you can take Glenway to the LPH business district and then cut east on 8th Street if needed.
February 3, 20214 yr 27 minutes ago, thebillshark said: And also demarcate the individual parking spaces with paint on the ground so visually the side of the street with parking doesn’t appear to be an 18’ travel lane if no one is parked there. The lack of marking parking lanes or spots in NBDs irritates me more than anything else. If we can't get the City to do that, standardizing 10 foot lane widths seems like a far off fantasy. 28 minutes ago, thebillshark said: re: intersection options. Would be interested to see a roundabout option. It appears they are willing to take out the BP with the existing options so I wonder if a roundabout would fit. I am worried that a roundabout would still prioritize vehicles over pedestrians and bikes but the option should certainly be explored. Would the BP site also need ground remediation under any scenario? 17 minutes ago, ryanlammi said: The city needs to be looking at these things as a system, not individual pieces that can all be solved without thinking about the other pieces. Warsaw is definitely a commercial corridor, and I think there should be 24 hour parking on at least one side of the street to support businesses and slow down traffic. I also think you need to have a center turn lane on a street like Warsaw. I don't see how they do that and put in bike lanes. But if you want to protect bicyclists on a major east/west thoroughfare through the neighborhood, you could install a protected bike lane on Glenway, just 1-2 blocks to the north. Glenway is not a major commercial corridor, so 24 hour parking on both sides of the street isn't a requirement. If you're traveling from West Price Hill to somewhere on Warsaw via bike, you could take a new bike lane on Glenway and then cut south on a small residential street to get to a business on Warsaw. If you're going to Lower Price Hill or Downtown from the west side, you can take Glenway to the LPH business district and then cut east on 8th Street if needed. Is it unreasonable to have a goal of reducing vehicle speeds along Warsaw to allow for bike traffic to safely intermingle with vehicle traffic? Side note: ODOT's traffic data has now been updated with 2020 counts. As expected, everything is lower.
February 3, 20214 yr 5 minutes ago, Dev said: Is it unreasonable to have a goal of reducing vehicle speeds along Warsaw to allow for bike traffic to safely intermingle with vehicle traffic? That's not unreasonable. I'm not suggesting banning bicycles on Warsaw. These changes would naturally make Warsaw safer for bicycles over the status quo. I just think the street should be prioritizing a turn lane and parking lane in any redesign over bike lanes, and a proper protected bike lane should be included in any changes to Glenway instead.
February 3, 20214 yr 1 hour ago, ryanlammi said: That's not unreasonable. I'm not suggesting banning bicycles on Warsaw. These changes would naturally make Warsaw safer for bicycles over the status quo. I just think the street should be prioritizing a turn lane and parking lane in any redesign over bike lanes, and a proper protected bike lane should be included in any changes to Glenway instead. I was just working on the assumption that getting the average speed down to 25 or less would make it safer for people to bike on the street and make it unnecessary for a bike lane to be installed. When DOTE studied the corridor they found that it had an average speed of 32 mph EB and 30 mph WB with a speed limit of 25. Bike lanes or a cycle track on Glenway does make more sense.
July 1, 20213 yr $17.6 million historical rehab project in East Price Hill lands tax credit A rehabilitation project that involves seven historical buildings and four non-historical buildings in East Price Hill will receive a $1.7 million tax credit. Warsaw Creative Campus, located in the 3000 block of Warsaw Avenue, includes buildings that are largely unoccupied and divested. It will undergo a more than $17.6 million redevelopment and receive an Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit of $1.7 million. After the campus’s mixed-used buildings are redeveloped, there will be 24 affordable residential units. The campus will also feature an array of tenants, including a youth orchestra, DIY art space and restaurant. Rehab work is expected to begin in September and is expected to be completed within about a year. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/06/30/east-price-hill-project-17-million-tax-credit.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
July 1, 20213 yr 18 hours ago, ColDayMan said: $17.6 million historical rehab project in East Price Hill lands tax credit A rehabilitation project that involves seven historical buildings and four non-historical buildings in East Price Hill will receive a $1.7 million tax credit. Warsaw Creative Campus, located in the 3000 block of Warsaw Avenue, includes buildings that are largely unoccupied and divested. It will undergo a more than $17.6 million redevelopment and receive an Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit of $1.7 million. After the campus’s mixed-used buildings are redeveloped, there will be 24 affordable residential units. The campus will also feature an array of tenants, including a youth orchestra, DIY art space and restaurant. Rehab work is expected to begin in September and is expected to be completed within about a year. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/06/30/east-price-hill-project-17-million-tax-credit.html This is a pretty big deal for EPH! I would love to see Warsaw turn into less of a racecar track. Give it the Hamilton Ave treatment and put permanent parking on the street.
November 10, 20213 yr Port approves financing for major West Side project The Port of Greater Cincinnati Development Authority approved an assistance package that will help the $17.6 million Warsaw Creative Campus in East Price Hill become a reality. The Port’s board agreed Wednesday to assume ownership of the 0.76-acre, seven-parcel site from 3108 to 3120 Warsaw Ave., which will be home to 13 affordable housing units and the MyCincinnati Youth Orchestra, a free daily youth orchestra program with 130 students, 80% of them being Black or Latino. The Port will lease the project back to developers the Model Group and Price Hill Will. More below: https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2021/11/10/warsaw-creative-campus-financing-approved.html "You don't just walk into a bar and mix it up by calling a girl fat" - buildingcincinnati speaking about new forumers
December 15, 20213 yr Planning commission on Dec 17th will review a notwithstanding ordinance for 932 McPherson Ave (starting on page 277): https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/about-city-planning/city-planning-commission/dec-17-2021-packet/ BLOC Ministries wants to renovate the existing, vacant building and turn it into a two-family residence with a 1-bedroom unit on the first floor, and a 2-bedroom unit on the 2nd/3rd floors. That isn't permitted by the existing SF-2 zoning. I'm not sure why they aren't simply applying for a variance, but instead Chris Smitherman is submitting the notwithstanding ordinance. The Planning Commission staff report indicates that the residential use is consistent with the neighborhood and there have been no objections, yet their recommendation is to deny the notwithstanding ordinance because "The Department of City Planning and Engagement cannot support any Notwithstanding Ordinances for land use decisions because ordinances do not comply with the zoning laws that the Department of City Planning and Engagement is charged with developing and enforcing." It's not clear to me from reading the Planning Commission packet why this project couldn't simply apply for a variance. Why did they need to get Smitherman to write the notwithstanding ordinance? Anybody know? Regardless of the rationale, we should push the City to remove these kinds of restrictions and/or make it quick and easy to get a variance approval for an unobjectionable project like this.
December 16, 20213 yr 21 hours ago, jwulsin said: It's not clear to me from reading the Planning Commission packet why this project couldn't simply apply for a variance. Why did they need to get Smitherman to write the notwithstanding ordinance? Anybody know? Regardless of the rationale, we should push the City to remove these kinds of restrictions and/or make it quick and easy to get a variance approval for an unobjectionable project like this. Total guess here but to prevent anyone else from reusing the property in the same way. Am I correct in assuming that if BLOC leaves, it'll revert back to single-family?
December 16, 20213 yr On 12/15/2021 at 10:45 AM, jwulsin said: Planning commission on Dec 17th will review a notwithstanding ordinance for 932 McPherson Ave (starting on page 277): https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/planning/about-city-planning/city-planning-commission/dec-17-2021-packet/ BLOC Ministries wants to renovate the existing, vacant building and turn it into a two-family residence with a 1-bedroom unit on the first floor, and a 2-bedroom unit on the 2nd/3rd floors. That isn't permitted by the existing SF-2 zoning. I'm not sure why they aren't simply applying for a variance, but instead Chris Smitherman is submitting the notwithstanding ordinance. The Planning Commission staff report indicates that the residential use is consistent with the neighborhood and there have been no objections, yet their recommendation is to deny the notwithstanding ordinance because "The Department of City Planning and Engagement cannot support any Notwithstanding Ordinances for land use decisions because ordinances do not comply with the zoning laws that the Department of City Planning and Engagement is charged with developing and enforcing." It's not clear to me from reading the Planning Commission packet why this project couldn't simply apply for a variance. Why did they need to get Smitherman to write the notwithstanding ordinance? Anybody know? Regardless of the rationale, we should push the City to remove these kinds of restrictions and/or make it quick and easy to get a variance approval for an unobjectionable project like this. SF-2 does not allow 2 family except for existing uses previously established. Use variances are not permitted, so outside of a rezoning the NWO is the only way to go.
December 16, 20213 yr 47 minutes ago, mcmicken said: SF-2 does not allow 2 family except for existing uses previously established. Use variances are not permitted, so outside of a rezoning the NWO is the only way to go. Thanks for that info. I am going to push the City to create a simple/easy process for approving changes like this one, since it addresses so many important goals (repopulating the neighborhoods, increasing supply of affordable housing, addressing vacant buildings).
December 16, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, jwulsin said: Thanks for that info. I am going to push the City to create a simple/easy process for approving changes like this one, since it addresses so many important goals (repopulating the neighborhoods, increasing supply of affordable housing, addressing vacant buildings). The city should follow the lead of other cities, and abolish single family zoning districts.
December 17, 20213 yr 17 hours ago, mcmicken said: The city should follow the lead of other cities, and abolish single family zoning districts. Yet instead, City Council is exploring removing the minimum land area for every dwelling unit within the RMX, RM2.0, RM1.2, RM0.7 zones. Just my take... this is not upzoning... it's more like deregulating the unit size which I believe will lead to more poorly amenitized, micro-unit development at a cost that only makes the wealthy wealthier.
December 17, 20213 yr 10 minutes ago, Chas Wiederhold said: Yet instead, City Council is exploring removing the minimum land area for every dwelling unit within the RMX, RM2.0, RM1.2, RM0.7 zones. Just my take... this is not upzoning... it's more like deregulating the unit size which I believe will lead to more poorly amenitized, micro-unit development at a cost that only makes the wealthy wealthier. I'm a little surprised you're against the city removing minimum lot areas per units. Every apartment building doesn't need an amenity room with a few couches that rarely get used, or its own little gym. I understand that's an amenity some people look for, but as a neighbor, I'd love more neighbors. Save the residents a couple of bucks and let them utilize neighborhood amenities. This will probably mainly bump up buildings from 3 to 4 units, or 4 to 5 units or something based on the geometry and scale of the building. Obviously I'm not an architect, so I don't have intimate knowledge of the calculations an architect makes with new builds (or the restrictions put on them by codes and developers).
December 17, 20213 yr To clarify, the latest proposal does not removal SFA from all of the multi-family districts, just RMX. They are now proposing to cut the SFA requirements in the other 3 multi-family districts in half, with the smallest, RM-0.7, going from 700 sqft to 350. They also are requiring that the maximum number of new units per lot for the RMX zone is 3 and the unlimited height restriction for RM-0.7 is been reduced down to 50 feet.
December 17, 20213 yr 1 hour ago, ryanlammi said: I'm a little surprised you're against the city removing minimum lot areas per units. Every apartment building doesn't need an amenity room with a few couches that rarely get used, or its own little gym. I understand that's an amenity some people look for, but as a neighbor, I'd love more neighbors. Save the residents a couple of bucks and let them utilize neighborhood amenities. This will probably mainly bump up buildings from 3 to 4 units, or 4 to 5 units or something based on the geometry and scale of the building. Obviously I'm not an architect, so I don't have intimate knowledge of the calculations an architect makes with new builds (or the restrictions put on them by codes and developers). I wouldn't say I am for it or against it. That's just how I believe the deregulation would be interpreted by developers.
December 17, 20213 yr 2 hours ago, Chas Wiederhold said: Yet instead, City Council is exploring removing the minimum land area for every dwelling unit within the RMX, RM2.0, RM1.2, RM0.7 zones. Just my take... this is not upzoning... it's more like deregulating the unit size which I believe will lead to more poorly amenitized, micro-unit development at a cost that only makes the wealthy wealthier. Tying the number of units to land area on top of all the other dimensional restrictions is really silly I think. What is the actual purpose of the regulation? It is just another way to limit density arbitrarily. I think we absolutely need to do a lot more, including eliminating single-family zoning, but this is a great start.
Create an account or sign in to comment