Two_wheels

Do you mean this from a financial perspective or from parking mandates? It still seems like developers are extremely hesitant to not provide ample parking with their projects even in the areas where they are not mandated to do so.

Parking on the project is 108 spots (3 are zip car spaces) for 129 homes. There were originally more homes and they didn't reduce the parking all that much when they took away the extra two floors of height. When we had a community meeting on it we also got them to use some of the first floor parking area for flex space and retail which felt like a win. Here is Colby's letter to Planning Commission on that project - "Planning Commissioners, Thank you for your service. I ask that you disapprove 2021SP-097-001, as its use and location do not justify additional height under the Wedgewood-Houston/Chestnut Hill Study Plan. Further, it is absurdly overparked for a parcel that qualifies for no parking minimums. I am strongly opposed to this application and have told the applicant this for the better part of two years, and yet they have made no significant modifications. I will be out of town for this hearing next week, so I will not be able to attend, but please use this email as my position. Thanks, Colby"

It would help if planning heard more comments from people to support projects like this.

Agree. Wonder how much of this is needed vs how much of this is using the bonus height program

I think it's ok to not take twitter so serious and it is a good thing for a CM to publicly show support for their constituents. Freddie does a great job as well. Hope to see them both continue on in city leadership after their terms.

Was able to get bills to remove parking minimums on multimodal corridors, upzoned most of the neighborhood via a UDO, doubled the funding going to affordable housing via ARP funds. Would be very happy if he ended up at-large.

I think this came up a few times during the overlay process. It felt very much like we know this is going to get developed but we want this to be as contiguous as possible for now and when a new owner comes in they can request the SP. The study before starting the UDO also talked about activating intersections which did not fully make it into the rest of the UDO. This will be a chance to meet that intent I am sure.

I didn't know we had height bonuses for grocery stores but I'm ok with that precedent. :-)

I think some of the loudest people on this one that I have experienced are not the ones with any concern on being priced out of the neighborhood.

It is a mixture of the usual NIMBY concerns -Planning Commission Opposition Comments in regards to height and development in general and then concerns around not having affordability targets in the SP.

Anybody get a chance to see the planning commission discussion last night? They were presenting on either an 8 story or 9 story option.

At the last SNAP meeting the board mentioned that the developers were looking to start working with the community and soliciting input on it.