Our City Online

Messageboard - Development

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Five-Story Mixed-Use Apartment Building Proposed at High & North Broadway

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Development Five-Story Mixed-Use Apartment Building Proposed at High & North Broadway

Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 239 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1112381

    heresthecasey
    Participant

    True. The developer could build an Applebees with a nice parking lot at Broadway and High with no public meetings.

    Not exactly. That site is within the UCO, which requires by default greater than 60% lot coverage facing the street, zero setback, parking to the rear, and allows a reduction in parking requirements of 25-50%.

    I think that’s a pretty good base-level protection against suburban-style junk. Could you still build a more urban-styled Applebee’s? Yes. Is that likely given the high cost of the land? No. Of course, it’s also possible to design a multi-story, mixed-use project that entirely complies within the existing zoning.

    Would it be as large or as dense as we’d like? Probably not. But getting a 3 or 4 story building through with no hassle at all has a certain appeal when you see how much vitriol comes out of the woodwork for only slightly larger proposals that do require variances. JMHO.

    #1112395

    DouginCMH
    Participant

    The Crawford Hoying development re: the Novak Funeral Home required CAC approval. I don’t have the time to dig through CAC minutes and old Clintonville Booster articles, but quite a few recent projects have required variances, as well. Lineage Brewing, as I recall, did, as did the cooking (actually baking) school/cafe project that’s going up across the street from Whetstone Library. Not to downplay the issue since, as we saw with the Rusty Bucket project, sometimes gaining approval can result in a substantially different development.

    Like heresthecasey says, regarding the High/N Broadway project, a somewhat smaller proposal would probably get approved fairly quickly. I would point out that the current Clintonville Neighborhood Plan calls for a 2-3 story development on this site. Its foundational goals for this intersection are:

    “preservation of theatre façade, mixed use development,
    expanded residential options, and the enhancement of the
    site’s potential as a “town center” or activity node.”

    The preferred concept is:

    “Concept 2) Two-story mixed use structure (retail services on
    ground floor, office/residential above), two-story live-work units
    wrap the corners and are in scale with nearby homes, and a
    three-story mixed use structure at the corner of North Broadway
    and High streets”

    The theater is long gone, of course. And I think the CAC has put together a task force to look into updating the Neighborhood Plan. So there may be greater wiggle room in terms of strict adherence to what’s in the current plan. Personally, I think a 3-4 story proposal would get approved, though some people in the community would be displeased that it would be larger than the current plan calls for. Unlike the Olympic project, where resistance grew largely out of displeasure over the pool’s closing, no one wants to preserve the current state of affairs at High and N Broadway. A well thought out mixed development, architecturally appealing, with adequate parking would, IMO, be approved by the CAC even if it were somewhat larger than the plan conceived of. I hope North Star comes back to the CAC with such a plan.

    #1112418
    Posole
    Posole
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Pablo wrote:</div>
    True. The developer could build an Applebees with a nice parking lot at Broadway and High with no public meetings.

    Not exactly. That site is within the UCO, which requires by default greater than 60% lot coverage facing the street, zero setback, parking to the rear, and allows a reduction in parking requirements of 25-50%.

    I think that’s a pretty good base-level protection against suburban-style junk. Could you still build a more urban-styled Applebee’s? Yes. Is that likely given the high cost of the land? No. Of course, it’s also possible to design a multi-story, mixed-use project that entirely complies within the existing zoning.

    Would it be as large or as dense as we’d like? Probably not. But getting a 3 or 4 story building through with no hassle at all has a certain appeal when you see how much vitriol comes out of the woodwork for only slightly larger proposals that do require variances. JMHO.

    How about an Applebees with parking on the roof like the old Jai Lai?

    #1112506

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    The Crawford Hoying development re: the Novak Funeral Home required CAC approval. I don’t have the time to dig through CAC minutes and old Clintonville Booster articles, but quite a few recent projects have required variances, as well. Lineage Brewing, as I recall, did, as did the cooking (actually baking) school/cafe project that’s going up across the street from Whetstone Library. Not to downplay the issue since, as we saw with the Rusty Bucket project, sometimes gaining approval can result in a substantially different development.

    Like heresthecasey says, regarding the High/N Broadway project, a somewhat smaller proposal would probably get approved fairly quickly. I would point out that the current Clintonville Neighborhood Plan calls for a 2-3 story development on this site. Its foundational goals for this intersection are:

    “preservation of theatre façade, mixed use development,<br>
    expanded residential options, and the enhancement of the<br>
    site’s potential as a “town center” or activity node.”

    The preferred concept is:

    “Concept 2) Two-story mixed use structure (retail services on<br>
    ground floor, office/residential above), two-story live-work units<br>
    wrap the corners and are in scale with nearby homes, and a<br>
    three-story mixed use structure at the corner of North Broadway<br>
    and High streets”

    The theater is long gone, of course. And I think the CAC has put together a task force to look into updating the Neighborhood Plan. So there may be greater wiggle room in terms of strict adherence to what’s in the current plan. Personally, I think a 3-4 story proposal would get approved, though some people in the community would be displeased that it would be larger than the current plan calls for. Unlike the Olympic project, where resistance grew largely out of displeasure over the pool’s closing, no one wants to preserve the current state of affairs at High and N Broadway. A well thought out mixed development, architecturally appealing, with adequate parking would, IMO, be approved by the CAC even if it were somewhat larger than the plan conceived of. I hope North Star comes back to the CAC with such a plan.

    There was nothing wrong with the 5-story project. It was mixed-use and had adequate parking, though not necessarily the most interesting design architecturally, but nothing particularly bad, either. Frankly, 2 stories at this site is ridiculous, and you’re kind of admitting that even 3 stories would meet at least some resistance. As far as the Olympic, saying that the opposition was only about the pool is disingenuous to me. Otherwise, there would’ve been no reason to reduce the scale of the project from its original proposal, since the pool was being replaced either way. There was clear opposition to the size and scale of the project, from parking concerns and traffic on Indianola to there being too much retail and too many apartments.
    The Rusty Bucket project is just one more example of a mixed-use project being scaled down due to opposition. There was no reason to remove the residential element, and now it’s basically a fast food outlet with plenty of surface parking instead.

    #1112540

    DouginCMH
    Participant

    What do you mean by this?

    “There was nothing wrong with the 5-story project. It was mixed-use and had adequate parking…”

    The project as proposed would have required approval of at least two substantial variances: The existing height limit in that section of Clintonville is 35 feet, while the proposed building was 58 feet tall. And the parking variance originally requested sought 172 spaces instead of the required 214.

    The CAC routinely approves variances. But these are dramatically out of whack with current guidelines. I certainly never implied that three stories at that site would have received push-back, since the current Neighborhood Plan calls for three story development there. Personally, I think a 3 and 4 story development would be approved, but that’s just my opinion, my reading of the local electorate. Well, and how sick people are of the state of that wretched intersection.

    Re: the Olympic, the pool’s demise certainly did drive the resistance to the mixed use development. Were this space a vacant or under-developed lot (not unlike the eyesore on High and N Broadway) there would have been nowhere near the amount of push-back toward the project. Any development of this size should always be reviewed carefully by the CAC, assuming variances are being requested. When I contacted by commissioner about this, I said that I supported the project, but assumed they’d do due diligence in areas such a parking and traffic. The Olympic developers wanted to double-count parking from the tennis facility they own, and assumed they’d work out some sort of shared parking arrangement with the utility next door…eventually. The CAC didn’t buy those arguments and I can see why. In the end, we have an architecturally attractive, 115 unit development going up on Indianola. It’s a wonderful project for Clintonville. The only thing that frustrates me is that I don’t see why the first floor retail was downsized so much. That’s a shame, but not a big deal in the long run.

    By the way, there are always reasons why projects get modified, including the Rusty Bucket development. You might not agree with them (I don’t like at all what that development turned into), but you can’t seriously argue that local residents didn’t bring up things that they didn’t like about the original proposal.

    #1112541
    Ned23
    Ned23
    Participant

    They should have proposed 12 stories in the form of an Aztec pyramid, with a helipad, a water slide, a strip club and multiple corner jumbotrons. Then they could have scaled that back a few times until they got to 5 stories.

    #1112573

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    What do you mean by this?

    “There was nothing wrong with the 5-story project. It was mixed-use and had adequate parking…”

    The project as proposed would have required approval of at least two substantial variances: The existing height limit in that section of Clintonville is 35 feet, while the proposed building was 58 feet tall. And the parking variance originally requested sought 172 spaces instead of the required 214.

    Yes, and? 20 feet taller in a building on High Street wasn’t going to destroy the neighborhood. The 172 spaces would’ve provided well over the number of spaces for the proposed number of apartments, and likely would’ve been more than enough for the retail aspect as well.

    The CAC routinely approves variances. But these are dramatically out of whack with current guidelines. I certainly never implied that three stories at that site would have received push-back, since the current Neighborhood Plan calls for three story development there. Personally, I think a 3 and 4 story development would be approved, but that’s just my opinion, my reading of the local electorate. Well, and how sick people are of the state of that wretched intersection.

    2-3 story guidelines on High Street are ridiculous to begin with and just go to show how out of touch Clintonville was when enacting such lowball standards. You directly stated that some people would be upset that a 3-story building would go in there because it didn’t meet current guidelines, so that says to me that even you admit that 3-stories is pushing the limits of the neighborhood naysayers. You’re not really supporting the “we’re ready and open for urban development” claim.

    Re: the Olympic, the pool’s demise certainly did drive the resistance to the mixed use development. Were this space a vacant or under-developed lot (not unlike the eyesore on High and N Broadway) there would have been nowhere near the amount of push-back toward the project.

    I agree that the pool’s demise initially was at least part of the issue, but replacing it with a mixed-use apartment project sealed the deal in terms of outrage. Again, the pool was shutting down whether or not anything else was built there. The project was downsized specifically because people didn’t like the scale.

    Any development of this size should always be reviewed carefully by the CAC, assuming variances are being requested. When I contacted by commissioner about this, I said that I supported the project, but assumed they’d do due diligence in areas such a parking and traffic.

    So it was all about accommodating cars, not increasing urban vibrancy or walkability on a part of Indianola that looks like crap. Even at its original size of 150 apartments, assuming every single resident had 2 cars, there would be 300 additional cars added to the traffic levels in the area. Even assuming every single person was driving on that part of Indianola all at the same time, along with any retail traffic, the actual increase in overall traffic would’ve been pretty negligible. And of course, that scenario itself is silly.

    The Olympic developers wanted to double-count parking from the tennis facility they own, and assumed they’d work out some sort of shared parking arrangement with the utility next door…eventually. The CAC didn’t buy those arguments and I can see why.

    Hence, missing the entire point of urban development. It’s not about the car or accommodating every single one all the time. Even if there was some overflow parking on nearby side streets, guess what, those are public streets. Everyone pays for them, not just the neighbors in that area. Any residents of the Olympic project would’ve had every right to park in any public parking space. Again, the NIMBY folks seem to believe they are entitled to neighborhoods without traffic and cars parked on their streets, but don’t seem to understand that when you build for the car, that’s exactly the result. To be fair, though, Clintonville is hardly the only place with residents who believe this.

    In the end, we have an architecturally attractive, 115 unit development going up on Indianola. It’s a wonderful project for Clintonville. The only thing that frustrates me is that I don’t see why the first floor retail was downsized so much. That’s a shame, but not a big deal in the long run.

    If the fear about parking was real, 35 fewer units won’t ultimately make any real difference. The project was reduced for no tangible benefit to cars. It was done solely to placate the naysayers. As far as the retail, I seem to remember in some article that there was some complaining that too much retail would attract too much traffic.

    By the way, there are always reasons why projects get modified, including the Rusty Bucket development. You might not agree with them (I don’t like at all what that development turned into), but you can’t seriously argue that local residents didn’t bring up things that they didn’t like about the original proposal.

    I am not arguing that local residents not be allowed to have their say. I just think that commissions, especially, should be held to a higher standard than kneejerk reactions about parking and density. It is a given that people will bitch about any project proposed. It shouldn’t be a given that all those projects embrace mediocrity because of it.

    #1112618
    Ned23
    Ned23
    Participant

    The firsr floor retail at Olympic was probably downsized in part because they were depending on occupancy from the apts to support it. Plus they probably thought that would make people happy.

    #1112627

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    The firsr floor retail at Olympic was probably downsized in part because they were depending on occupancy from the apts to support it. Plus they probably thought that would make people happy.

    I’m not sure that makes sense. I can’t think of any retail aspect that would mostly depend on the few residents of the building, but rather the neighborhood/area.

    #1112663
    Ned23
    Ned23
    Participant

    Basically, everyone threw a tantrum over losing the pool and took it out on the property owners and the project.

    There were anti-olympic development yard signs way up in Indian Springs a mile away. No one up there was impacted by this in a significant way.

    #1112664

    WJT
    Participant

    They should have proposed 12 stories in the form of an Aztec pyramid, with a helipad, a water slide, a strip club and multiple corner jumbotrons. Then they could have scaled that back a few times until they got to 5 stories.

    Apparently we are getting the 12 floors in the form of Two 25, scaled down from 17 floors to 12- a difference of 5 floors. 12 and 5…hmmm…your post jinxed the Two 25 project! lol :P

    #1112667

    DouginCMH
    Participant

    I have a simple question I’d like to pose regarding Clintonville development:
    Why does it need to be 4+ stories of mixed residential/retail or, otherwise, it’s a failure? Why?

    Clintonville isn’t the Short North or University District. It’s a community of single family homes with lots of 1-2 story (some higher) commercial and mixed development along High and Indianola. It also has a LOT of undeveloped and underdeveloped sites for said commercial activity and commercial property value rates that are much lower than in the more central, denser portions of the city.

    I understand that people in here tend to like vertical, mixed development that conforms to their individual architectural tastes. Fine. But that doesn’t mean such development is correct or necessary everywhere. I go back to what I said last year when the Olympic project was finally approved: if the original proposal had been for 115 apartments and 6,000 sq ft or first floor retail, and that was what was approved, conventional wisdom among the CU intelligentsia would have been that it was a huge positive step forward for Clintonville, especially considering the generally positive comments in here about the architectural style of the development and the developer’s positive reputation for doing good work.

    But no. The original proposal was 155 units and more retail. So what’s being built is, somehow, a shadow of what it might have been, a missed opportunity, just another NIMBY failure in stodgy old Clintonville.

    Bullshit.

    I see nothing intrinsically wrong with a 3-story development on High and N Broadway. I’d prefer 3 and 4 story development, but a 3 story, mixed development at that intersection would be a huge and transformative project on that site, were it a thoughtful, high-quality project (Northstar doesn’t have the same positive reputation as Crawford Hoying). Not to mention that nearly the same situation exists diagonally across the intersection from this area, and those plots are on the market.

    Others might disagree. Well, welcome to the Internet.

    #1112669

    wygand
    Participant

    +1 DouginCMH

    #1112671

    WJT
    Participant

    ..But no. The original proposal was 155 units and more retail. So what’s being built is, somehow, a shadow of what it might have been, a missed opportunity, just another NIMBY failure in stodgy old Clintonville.

    Bullshit.

    If If If…but the original proposal WAS 155 units and more retail , and what is being built IS “a shadow of what it might have been, a missed opportunity, just another NIMBY failure in stodgy old Clintonville.”
    I see the reductionists are out in full force this morning.

    Sorry…crabby this morning. I blame lack of sleep.

    #1112683
    Posole
    Posole
    Participant

    I dunno about most people but I like mixed use so I don’t have to drive all the way to Short North to go to nice places on a Friday night or to to a strip mall to grab sandwich on a busy Saturday afternoon. Plus if you want to do some drinking then you have to add in cab fees instead of stumbling home on foot.

Viewing 15 posts - 211 through 225 (of 239 total)

The forum ‘Development’ is closed to new topics and replies.

Subscribe to the Columbus Underground YouTube channel for exclusive interviews and news updates!

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE