Board 8 > azuarc tries not to be a NIMBY

(+) Yeah! (+)

fuck parking lots all my homies hate parking lots

Took notes at today's meeting. It is still very early in the development cycle. There are all kinds of studies that need to be done -- particularly stormwater and traffic (two of my concerns) as well as a zillion environmental considerations and some economic stuff. So probably a ton of this is subject to at least a certain degree of change. But some of the notes I took down include:

• Has to meet state law for urban redevelopment, and get input from public, stakeholders, council and more
• 18-20 future meetings including planning commission, council hearing, board of redevelopment
• property will be sold to the developers (was previously state land, relinquished to the town for this purpose)
• development team is local (and the speaker sounded like he knew a fair bit about the area)
• the 2 extra bits of commerce are probably fast food or something like (I'm skeptical about this working out)
• the "industrial" section is for small offices for local businesses, however this section is also up for reconsideration and subject to whatever will best suit the community's needs
• Meant to be open and welcome to all, including current residents outside the area. Strong emphasis on the need to connect to rest of neighborhood.
• Architectual considerations to fit within local designs and keep the big wrought iron fence surrounding the property
• Grocery store was one of the big priorities for the community and would likely be part of the first phase of development.
• No taxes for residents, and would generate X dollars of revenue locally for the tax base.
• Intend to have an abundance of parking (I'm not sold on this point)
• Starting point is general infrastructure with power, stormwater, and sewer. Master plan by summer next year, and hopefully start on this infrastructure by fall.

There's probably more I left off. The meeting itself was a reasonable back and forth until a couple ladies at the end hijacked it with their multipart lecture-oriented questions. Lasted about 2 hours.

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.

Everything always starts out all hunky dory until later on, when decisions get made without input.

The developers wont want to build parking garages (under or above) because that eats into their profits.

azuarc posted...

It is still very early in the development cycle.

Yeah, development stuff moves on a very slow time cycle. There's some land near my house where that might be approved to start construction on a new development in 2025, but they've been trying to build something there since around 2012.

If the land and utility cost there is so low that they really don't save money by using less surface space, then you will definitely get a bunch of surface parking. It's everyone's favorite thing and you basically can't win. I wonder how much the city is subsidizing the increased utility area there though.

Another fun idea would be to move all the parking in the mixed use area to one big parking area in the rear, and move all the shops and housing up closer to the streets. That would reduce the walking distance from the housing units, and between the different buildings, so it's much more of a cohesive destination area. Those across the street could utilize it much easier too. They could even add more parking in that case to appease people, and it's ok because it's isolated and not separating the buildings out farther.

An extra benefit is when people realize the subsidies and economics for the big surface parking lot don't make sense, it's easier to build something useful on top of it if it has all been grouped up into one place.

today i learned what yimby and nimby means

Looking it over, this is hardly the worst design they could have come up with. It's not the most walkable by any means, but most cities have regulations against walkability anyway. If the city requires 1.6 parking spots per residence or whatever, you can't blame them for that. Underground parking helps, but it is massively expensive an clearly the land there is cheap. I hope the construction doesn't drive you mad.

ChichiriMuyo posted...

you can't blame them for that

No but it is a great opportunity to discuss parking minimums since it's a trend across the country, and apparently every single city employee is gonna be scrutinizing this thing for years before it's built anyways

ChichiriMuyo posted...

Underground parking helps, but it is massively expensive an clearly the land there is cheap. I hope the construction doesn't drive you mad.

I am more confident they won't do underground parking because stormwater is a concern and they're going to do some subterranean stuff to help manage the water absorption. And I have no idea what the construction will be like until it starts, unfortunately. Nor how long it will last. I'm most concerned about the fact that they're changing the end of my street from a T to a 4-way that will almost certainly be a light.

foolm0r0n posted...

No but it is a great opportunity to discuss parking minimums since it's a trend across the country, and apparently every single city employee is gonna be scrutinizing this thing for years before it's built anyways

Unfortunately, it sounds like they intend to purposefully exceed the required minimum in the area in order to meet some perceived need of their own. I can't speak for the commercial, which maybe some talking might be able to influence, but they're making certain to have sufficient residential parking (which basically overlaps with the mixed-use portion of the commercial.)