Rusty Bucket Tavern + Condos Proposed for Croswell/High - Clintonville
- July 30, 2014 1:00 am at 1:00 am #1032333
A new location for Rusty Bucket Tavern alongside a second building containing 5-7 condos has been proposed for the vacant lot currently at the Southwest corner of Croswell and High in Clintonville.
An application for variances will be considered by the CAC zoning committee at their next meeting on August 5th. This site is along a stretch of High St which is not covered by the Urban Commercial Overlay, necessitating variances for setback and parking reductions which would otherwise not be required if the land were contained within the boundaries of the UCO.
larger version, http://i.imgur.com/KC3hcaz.pngJuly 30, 2014 6:49 am at 6:49 am #1032337
Good to see this property finally developed. However, I don’t really like the parking and parking access off High Street. I’d rather see more condos to continue the street edge.July 30, 2014 8:46 am at 8:46 am #1032343
VERY Random place to put a Restaurant!July 30, 2014 9:21 am at 9:21 am #1032351
VERY Random place to put a Restaurant!
Why Northstar is less than a quarter mile up the hill and there are zero bars in the area so I could see this taking off for a place like RB.July 30, 2014 9:29 am at 9:29 am #1032355
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>bjones7 wrote:</div>
VERY Random place to put a Restaurant!
Why Northstar is less than a quarter mile up the hill and there are zero bars in the area so I could see this taking off for a place like RB.
Yeah. It would be walkable for a lot of people in Clintonville, slightly more so than Northstar.July 30, 2014 12:49 pm at 12:49 pm #1032376
Too bad it’s not a multiple-story development (at least the restaurant portion) to take advantage of views.July 30, 2014 1:24 pm at 1:24 pm #1032383
Too bad it’s not a multiple-story development (at least the restaurant portion) to take advantage of views.
My understanding is the height of the restaurant with residential on top puts it over the max allowable height for the area (extra zoning battle + stouter structure = $), about a 4 story building. That would be OK with me since the apartments on the hill just south (on the other side of High) are probably that tall. The condos are going to be 2-1/2 story town homes with garages on the back.July 30, 2014 2:34 pm at 2:34 pm #1032392
We’re did you find that info?July 30, 2014 4:06 pm at 4:06 pm #1032399
We’re did you find that info?
Facebook. One of the CAC commissioners posted the developer’s responses to questions on the Clintonville Discussion Forum:
We really like traditional vertically integrated mixed use structures too, and we are building them in other locations, but we tailor projects to fit the planning / urban design and market forces at work on each individual site. There are many of factors at work here that are driving the design solution to separate the residential condos from the Rusty Bucket:
The 2-1/2 story urban townhomes that address High with walk-up front stoops create a desirable brownstone-esque aesthetic and scale for this transitional section of clintonville. The attached, rear-entry, lower level private garages (invisible from high) meet an important consumer preference, but does so in a way that does not forfeit the more urban character of the project.
Rusty Bucket needed the identity of a freestanding structure and access to significant amount of parking to consider coming to the site. Rather than the suburban form – parking in front, building at the back – the proposed plan addresses the High / Croswell corner with a neighborhood scale 20′ +/- tall building that holds both streets and includes outdoor dining to activate it.
Placing condos on top of the rusty bucket would create a much taller structure at that corner (at least 4 stories / 50 feet to achieve the same capacity) and eliminate the additional screening of the restaurant parking lot that is currently provided by the condos in the proposed plan. Structured parking for the residential would present extreme cost challenges and create logistical issues for restaurant that are too difficult and too expensive to overcome on this site given the soil issues, topography, and a greedy landowner unwilling to part with their site for a fair price.
let’s confirm with Design Collective what is actually going to be out in the visibility triangle variance area. This is actually one of the few intersections in the area that has a dedicated left turn lane, which you could argue would shift that visibility triangle out one lane. Regardless, this intersection is no different than any of the others in the overlay where there are buildings pulled right up to the ROW, so the same rules should apply.
The traffic from one new restaurant would never warrant another traffic light on high street. We could ask around, but my guess is that the CoC would even fight the addition of an unwarranted light because of its impact on traffic flow on high. No matter what, unless the CoC pays for the light, the $200,000 +/- cost would kill the deal.July 30, 2014 10:46 pm at 10:46 pm #1032459
Good to see this property finally developed. However, I don’t really like the parking and parking access off High Street. I’d rather see more condos to continue the street edge.
Curb cuts are dangerous for bikers. High street has enough curb cuts. I agree condos should go all along HighJuly 31, 2014 8:15 am at 8:15 am #1032474
Here’s a bit more information. This is from the zoning variance request – I couldn’t highlight text so I had to resort to a screen shot.
Edited to add, here’s an image of “clear vision triangle” – I must be misunderstanding that variance request because it sounds like they want to send restaurant traffic out onto High and Croswell with zero visibility.
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.July 31, 2014 10:27 am at 10:27 am #1032494
I must be misunderstanding that variance request because it sounds like they want to send restaurant traffic out onto High and Croswell with zero visibility.
Not necessarily zero visability — the right-of-way includes the sidewalk….so they’re just asking that they are allowed to build the building closer to the access drives. Pretty standard for urban development, but unfortunately the zoning codes prohibit good development often times.July 31, 2014 11:20 am at 11:20 am #1032518
Of course there will be SUVs parked along the curb. Might as well blindfold yourself and proceed.
Attachments:You must be logged in to view attached files.July 31, 2014 10:21 pm at 10:21 pm #1032657
I wonder what this is about
and a greedy landowner unwilling to part with their site for a fair price.August 1, 2014 9:52 am at 9:52 am #1032720
I wonder what this is about<br>
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Pablo wrote:</div>
and a greedy landowner unwilling to part with their site for a fair price.
This land has been for sale forever and the asking price is $995,000, or $17.93/SF, which is pretty high. Plus the southwest corner of the site isn’t usable due to the covered Adena Brook.
The forum ‘Development’ is closed to new topics and replies.