LogFAQs > #979471447

foolm0r0n posted...

If you want to get involved, it would be good to make sure the good parts of this remain. Nimbys would look at this and demand killing the apartments (if not all the housing altogether) and doubling the parking.

In fact, this would benefit a ton from eliminating parking minimums. And/or legalize higher heights, so they can build parking vertically. Those are 2 big issues that are becoming way more popular everywhere nowadays. You would have a ton of precedents to argue your case.

This was addressed specifically.

One person voiced concerns that ~1.6 per residence was potentially too low. Another person asked about better land use and reducing the amount of impermeable land. The developer took a stance in the middle, saying more wasn't needed and that 1.6 was plentiful, while pointing out that some of the ideas to reduce paved land came with some noticeable trade-offs. They want to keep the buildings to a 4-story maximum to fit within the local neighborhood (and living across the street, I can appreciate this,) and that moving to parking underneath the buildings would force the buildings up higher. Also, one of the apartment buildings does partially have spaces underneath.

There is also an existing need for parking currently along the street that runs horizontally in the pic I posted earlier. A local brewery runs a restaurant out of their industrial/office space there, and the parking there is really bad, which I concede. Though I'm skeptical that adding the amount of parking suggested here is really necessary. Something I could try to address if I ever get in on one of the myriad subsequent meetings.