New Three-Story Mixed-Use Development at First and Summit in Italian Village

[Walker Evans]

heresthecasey said:

Looks like a new residential project here at First and Summit by Brad Howe (the guy behind the Jackson and Burwell projects further north and occasional poster here).

From this month’s IVC agenda (page 8),

13-7-23

875 Summit Avenue

Brad Howe (Applicant/Owner)

An application and photographs have been submitted. This application was conceptually reviewed at the July 16, 2013 IVC hearing.

Demolition and New Construction

• Demolish the existing service station building.

• Complete environmental remediation, backfill and grading.

• Construct a new, three (3) story building with retail on first floor and 12-13 dwelling units on the second and third floors.

http://development.columbus.gov/uploadedFiles/Development/Planning_Division/Boards_and_Commissions/Historic_Preservation/Italian_Village_Commission/Meetings/2013/IVC%20AUG%202013.agd.pdf

Current view of the site, http://goo.gl/maps/nJnoU

[groundrules]

it’s weird, I’ve probably driven by that corner a thousand times, and until this thread, I never would have been able to tell you there was a service station on that corner. It’s like it was invisible to me.

[Walker Evans]

I think it had either being a place to park taxis or a used car sales lot for a long long time.

Hidden in plain sight. ;)

[surber17]

Do you think a lot of those power lines would be buried then?

[dru]

based on the Commission’s first take on the proposal, I would not count this building as anything close to reality yet.

[mrsgeedeck]

Aside from height, there is a zero variance to the lot (or so I hear) meaning no green space and set close to the street.

[mbeaumont]

I don’t understand David Cooke’s reaction to this building at 3 stories. Could someone explain to me why someone would object to that height here?

I’m still learning about this kind of thing, so I’m not insinuating Cooke is wrong, just curious as to what the nature of the objection is. Is it simply that there wouldn’t be sufficient parking?

[VicVillage Guy]

Would they rather have another mechanic shop go in there? I think anything is better for the neighborhood besides another garage.

[lattethunder]

mbeaumont said:
I don’t understand David Cooke’s reaction to this building at 3 stories. Could someone explain to me why someone would object to that height here?

I’m still learning about this kind of thing, so I’m not insinuating Cooke is wrong, just curious as to what the nature of the objection is. Is it simply that there wouldn’t be sufficient parking?

Based on the Agenda alone it looks like his complaint is that the building is too tall for the streetscape. With the exception of the church, everything around it looks to be two stories so a three story building could potentially look out of place. Think of Gateway, for example, it doesn’t match well with the surrounding area (currently). He’s possibly trying to prevent a similar situation here.

He also seemed to have design concerns (is the Burwell a building?) which is probably why he wants a streetscape rendering to make sure it would look appropriate.

This is my guess from the agenda and google maps alone.

[lattethunder]

Also, David Cooke’s complaint about demolition for speculative development is interesting… does the developer not have financing/funding yet?

[dru]

lattethunder said:

He also seemed to have design concerns (is the Burwell a building?) which is probably why he wants a streetscape rendering to make sure it would look appropriate.

the Burwell is currently being built by Brad Howe (same Applicant/Owner listed for this proposal) on the corner of Mt Pleasant and Fourth in the IV.
http://burwellshortnorth.com

[InnerCore]

lattethunder said:
Based on the Agenda alone it looks like his complaint is that the building is too tall for the streetscape. With the exception of the church, everything around it looks to be two stories so a three story building could potentially look out of place. Think of Gateway, for example, it doesn’t match well with the surrounding area (currently). He’s possibly trying to prevent a similar situation here.

He also seemed to have design concerns (is the Burwell a building?) which is probably why he wants a streetscape rendering to make sure it would look appropriate.

This is my guess from the agenda and google maps alone.

This is completely ridiculous if this is his assertion. Arguing that a 3 story building is to big in an area with 2 story buildings doesn’t make any sense.

And regardless the zoning for the area is 35 feet. It’s seems pretty silly to argue that a 3 story building is to large in an area that you have zoned for 35 feet.

[Walker Evans]

dru said:
the Burwell is currently being built by Brad Howe (same Applicant/Owner listed for this proposal) on the corner of Mt Pleasant and Fourth in the IV.
http://burwellshortnorth.com

More: https://www.columbusunderground.com/forums/topic/the-burwell-condos-short-north

And: https://www.columbusunderground.com/burwell-townhomes-under-construction-in-short-north-bw1

[lattethunder]

InnerCore said:
This is completely ridiculous if this is his assertion. Arguing that a 3 story building is to big in an area with 2 story buildings doesn’t make any sense.

And regardless the zoning for the area is 35 feet. It’s seems pretty silly to argue that a 3 story building is to large in an area that you have zoned for 35 feet.

I could be interpreting him wrong, but yeah, I agree. Now that I know what the Burwell looks like (thanks guys!) I don’t see an issue with that being built at 1st as well.

I DO think it’s wise for them to asks for a streetscape before making a final opinion though.

[InnerCore]

lattethunder said:
I could be interpreting him wrong, but yeah, I agree. Now that I know what the Burwell looks like (thanks guys!) I don’t see an issue with that being built at 1st as well.

I DO think it’s wise for them to asks for a streetscape before making a final opinion though.

I don’t think you’re interpreting him wrong. There is really no reason to object against it when its in the code. But most of these people don’t know the code and instead inject a lot of there personal opinions.

It’s like driving 40 mph when the speed limit is 45 mph and a cop pulling you over and giving you a ticket with his reasoning being that most people drive 30 mph and his personal opinion is that you should do the same. If you think it should be 30 mph then change it, if not let people be on their way.

I’ve been through the approval process multiple times and its less about conforming to the local zoning laws and more about appealing to the people who are the loudest or the ones with their hand out.

[Author]

Posts