1534 Oak Street - Appropriate for the Neighborhood?

[thelakelander]

Not much you can do with the design style but here is the proposed PUD site plan:



I don't know the exact number but a significant amount of spaces should be gained on Oak Street, if the street is rebuilt as drawn.  Going to 90 degree angle parking, you probably gain a space for every existing parallel parking stall that it replaces on Oak Street.  On Margaret, you're just upgrading what is already there.  In addition, while the building abuts the property line along Margaret, the first floor is recessed 11' to allow for sidewalk dining without encroaching on the existing sidewalk.

[ChriswUfGator]

The intent of a law is alway relevent to its interpretation. That being said, the city's ordinance says that PUDs are not intended to merely allow an applicant to avoid the appliable zoning. It also provides that in any zoning application (including for a PUD) one of the criteria to be considered is whether the proposed PUD complies with any of the city's land use regulations. So, although a PUD by definition gives special zoning for that parcel, whether the proposed PUD complies with the overlay is relevent.

Spot-on.

[thelakelander]

I guess I'm trying to get a better understanding of where the proposed project is violating the overlay.  The staff report is 42 pages long (still reading) but the major exemption appears to be parking, which has been handled by a condition to rebuild Oak and Margaret Streets to accommodate more on-street parking and wider sidewalks.  Height, scale, setbacks, etc. seem to already be allowed.

[Dog Walker]

Narrowing Margaret Street is going to cause a problem.  Already we have to work our way around the beer and food delivery trucks that are servicing O'Brother's, Mossfire, and Subway.  That's hard enough.  Narrow the road right there and it might be impossible.

[Steve]

I guess I'm trying to get a better understanding of where the proposed project is violating the overlay.  The staff report is 42 pages long (still reading) but the major exemption appears to be parking, which has been handled by a condition to rebuild Oak and Margaret Streets to accommodate more on-street parking and wider sidewalks.  Height, scale, setbacks, etc. seem to already be allowed.

The kicker is that the next result of all that rebuilding Oak and Margaret will result in the creation of wait for it.....ONE extra space.

[Kay]

But the intent of the overlay was to make sure that new projects provide at least some parking (hence the 75% reduction from normal parking requirements.

Just wondering.  What type of bearing does the intent of the overlay have on a project applying for a PUD?

Our intent with the Overlay was to eliminate the need for PUDs.  So needing a PUD means the project doesn't comply with the Overlay. 

[konstantconsumer]

i like the idea of a modern design building mixed into riverside.  it's not as if the tan brick and stucco of 1661 is great design or anything.  and regarding the set-back, i don't see why anyone should really care except over the principle of the thing.  just give me a good restaurant with lots of stuff happening and forget your requirements.

[Kay]

Ricker -- not sure what you're saying. I'm trying to explain the definition of "contributing structure" as it's used in the Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay and the ordinance establishing the Riverside Avondale Historic District.  The term has a defined meaning when applying those ordinances, just like other historic districts have "contributing structures" to their districts. It's not a judgment or comment on the architectual significance of buildings outside the R-A historic district.

So basically, a contributing structure that is located in the RA Historic District and a contributing structure that is located outside the historic district but within the RA zoning overlay are defined as the same thing?

To be counted as a contributing structure the property must be within the boundaries of the local historic district.  Not all of 5 Points is within the historic district.  The Urban Transition Character Area (UTA) as defined in the Overlay includes 5 Points from Riverside Avenue to the highway.  Within the UTA there are pockets of the historic district.  For example, the block that includes the 5 Points Theatre is within the historic district boundaries.  

This project's parcel is within the Overlay boundaries but not the historic district boundaries.  

[Kay]

Not much you can do with the design style but here is the proposed PUD site plan:



I don't know the exact number but a significant amount of spaces should be gained on Oak Street, if the street is rebuilt as drawn.  Going to 90 degree angle parking, you probably gain a space for every existing parallel parking stall that it replaces on Oak Street.  On Margaret, you're just upgrading what is already there.  In addition, while the building abuts the property line along Margaret, the first floor is recessed 11' to allow for sidewalk dining without encroaching on the existing sidewalk.

Lake:  On Oak St. adjacent to the parcel, 7 cars parallel park now.  When rebuilt they will have 8 spaces.  They are proposing to add 11 additional spaces across Oak St. that do not exist now.  They will be removing some green space to do that.  However, the current PUD does not require them to add the spaces.  The Planning Department is allowing them to count the 20 spaces that exist on the street around their parcel right now.  They are adding one to that current count.

[archiphreak]

Ignore most of my comments.  I'm fairly bitter at the moment about two other projects that the City and/or RAP/SPAR are trying to "change" and it's pissing me off.  My thesis in college was about how to merge the modern with the "historic", so I'm more than a little passionate about the subject.  I did see, Stephen, where RAP is mostly in favor of the project, but as is happening on two other projects that I believe are important opportunities for our city, any "changes" they "suggest" will not help.  As this is not a final design, I think that the Architect and Client will go through natural changes in response to various site considerations without anyone else' involvement. 
To sum up my overall point of view, I love living in my 1918 Craftsman, but I do not under any circumstances want a home built on the adjacent vacant lot that even remotely resembles my house or any house built in the neighborhood.  It should be a modern home built with technology and architectural features that exemplify our current, modern times.

[Kay]

I guess I'm trying to get a better understanding of where the proposed project is violating the overlay.  The staff report is 42 pages long (still reading) but the major exemption appears to be parking, which has been handled by a condition to rebuild Oak and Margaret Streets to accommodate more on-street parking and wider sidewalks.  Height, scale, setbacks, etc. seem to already be allowed.

The signage is greater than the Overlay limits, doesn't meet the parking requirement which is already 75% reduced from the regular code.  Anywhere else this project would require 74 parking spaces.  The Overlay requirement is 25% of the onsite.  It doesn not meet the design guidelines in the Overlay (althought the Planning Dept. has added this as a condition).  The PUD also doesn't define height as it is defined in the Overlay and in the regular zoning code.

Here specifically are two issues our community identified through the Overlay development process:  "Height and scale of new development is too large and Adequate amounts of parking not being provided."  So RAP knows what our community expects.  We asked the developers to provide dedicated off-street parking for the office and residential uses.  We believe (our architects), as well as architects who have called us about the project, that the building is too large for the parcel and in relation to the rest of the buildings on the block.  To alleviate that we are asking that they set 1/3 of the building next to Mossfire back to align with the front plane of the Mossfire building (4').  We also ask that they set back the rest of the building to meet the 8' foot sidewalk or urban buffer requirement instead of moving the sidewalk into the street (approximately 2').  Again, to help alleviate the mass and scale of the building.  To help with the parking situation we ar3e asking the medical office uses be prohibited because they are heavy parking users.  The restaurant is too and we do not believe the parking situation can accommodate both uses.    

[thelakelander]

^Thanks, Kay.

[Dog Walker]

Can we all just quit obsessing about the parking?  Just walk a block or two for heaven's sake!  Peak hours for the restaurants are off peak for Publix and the professional offices in the neighborhood.  Use those lots.  Use the public spaces inside 1661.  They are only 1/2 block away.  At lunch time use the trolley-bus.  Or do what I do and ride your bike. 

Sure it's big, but so is 1661.  It actually makes a logical step down in height from 1661 to the other buildings in the area.  The old Riverside Hospital was much taller.  The office building across the street from Susi Cafe is taller and bigger.

The first floor setback for outdoor dining is a great design idea and makes it very street friendly and helps it fit in with it's neighbors.

[Steve]

Can we all just quit obsessing about the parking?  Just walk a block or two for heaven's sake!  Peak hours for the restaurants are off peak for Publix and the professional offices in the neighborhood.  Use those lots.  Use the public spaces inside 1661.  They are only 1/2 block away.  At lunch time use the trolley-bus.  Or do what I do and ride your bike. 

Sure it's big, but so is 1661.  It actually makes a logical step down in height from 1661 to the other buildings in the area.  The old Riverside Hospital was much taller.  The office building across the street from Susi Cafe is taller and bigger.

The first floor setback for outdoor dining is a great design idea and makes it very street friendly and helps it fit in with it's neighbors.

My concern is not the Restaraunt Parking, it's the residential and office parking.  These folks will need dedicated parking, and without an agreement in place with anyone, it's anyone's guess as to where they will park.

[cline]

Perhaps a design more like this would help to alleviate all of these parking concerns.