New projects in East Hills

[GR_Urbanist]

Just saw that the old stained glass makers building will have a new business in the form of  Honest Eyes Optical out of Traverse City.

I wish them luck. That will make two eyeglass places on this stretch of Cherry, and three in Uptown, so you aren't going to hurt for a good eye doctor over here!

 

Now if only Cherry Republic and Cousin Jenny's will come over here from Traverse City to join Honest Eyes and Georgina's too!

[Pattmost20]

6 hours ago, thebeerqueer said:

I heard that the Buffalo Traders spot is going to be a second/alternate location for Sidebar. Can anyone corroborate? 

It will be from the Sidebar team, that is correct. I believe they said they are going to focus on lighter/refreshing cocktails. One of the girls who works at sidebar now is going to help manage the new space.

[HomePortSupplyCo]

20 hours ago, GR_Urbanist said:

Now if only Cherry Republic and Cousin Jenny's will come over here from Traverse City to join Honest Eyes and Georgina's too!

Cherry Republic just opened a store in downtown Holland last week.  Just in time for Tulip Time, or maybe Stem Fest...depending on the weather.

[EastownLeo]

Church to be Demo'd?  Will a new apartment building take its place?

http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2017/07/142-year-old_grand_rapids_chur.html

 

What would work here?  Row houses with parking behind?

Multilevel complex?

New home development?

 

[joeDowntown]

Tight lot. It would have to be something small. I like this church, too bad it's so beat up. A guess that proves brick is a better choice if you are looking to make it past 142 years.

Joe

[GRDadof3]

4 hours ago, EastownLeo said:

Church to be Demo'd?  Will a new apartment building take its place?

http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2017/07/142-year-old_grand_rapids_chur.html

 

What would work here?  Row houses with parking behind?

Multilevel complex?

New home development?

 

You could do a small grouping of 4 or 5 townhomes if you provide parking out back, 12 stories there if you don't provide parking. 

[ModSquad]

On 7/21/2017 at 6:20 PM, GRDadof3 said:

You could do a small grouping of 4 or 5 townhomes if you provide parking out back, 12 stories there if you don't provide parking. 

Based on the HPC's recent denial of the KCLBA's 3 unit townhouse project on Donald Place, I highly doubt it.  This building is in a Historic district.  IF, and that's a big IF, it is allowed to be demolished, I am not sure what they would allow to be built on this site.  

[GR_Urbanist]

One way or another, it is coming down. The HPC cant stop a building from rotting and falling in on itself.

 

No one wants this thing, and it will continue to be an eyesore until logic takes hold and it is given a dignified send off for something new, because no rich guy is going to show up and save it.

[x99]

11 hours ago, GR_Urbanist said:

One way or another, it is coming down. The HPC cant stop a building from rotting and falling in on itself.

 

That was a hearing for "demolition by neglect".  The city will order the owner to make repairs, and if the owner fails to make them, the city will make the repairs necessary to weatherize the property and then lien it.  The lien will then be foreclosed and the property sold at tax auction.  So, actually, they sort of can stop it, as long as the city foots the bill.

[x99]

13 hours ago, KCLBADave said:

Based on the HPC's recent denial of the KCLBA's 3 unit townhouse project on Donald Place, I highly doubt it.  This building is in a Historic district.  IF, and that's a big IF, it is allowed to be demolished, I am not sure what they would allow to be built on this site.  

Alternative: Can you get a prefab down the street?  Drop two prefabs on the lots and call it good.  Or maybe some Katrina Cottages. I think that was all preserved as an example of cheap workforce housing, so it sort of makes sense to infill it with something inexpensive. Or give the lots to Habitat.  They have done houses in there.  Or, since you are a land bank, SELL THE LOTS.  

Edited July 24, 2017 by x99

[GRDadof3]

26 minutes ago, x99 said:

Alternative: Can you get a prefab down the street?  Drop two prefabs on the lots and call it good.  Or maybe some Katrina Cottages. I think that was all preserved as an example of cheap workforce housing, so it sort of makes sense to infill it with something inexpensive. Or give the lots to Habitat.  They have done houses in there.  Or, since you are a land bank, SELL THE LOTS.  

I don't think the Land Bank is involved in this. Yet anyways. Dave?

I think one big house on this lot, built to HPC standards. It'd only price out around $550,000 or so. 

[wingbert]

On 7/21/2017 at 1:39 PM, EastownLeo said:

Church to be Demo'd?  Will a new apartment building take its place?

http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2017/07/142-year-old_grand_rapids_chur.html

 

What would work here?  Row houses with parking behind?

Multilevel complex?

New home development?

 

I think it's a great spot for a Dollar General.

[ModSquad]

3 hours ago, x99 said:

Alternative: Can you get a prefab down the street?  Drop two prefabs on the lots and call it good.  Or maybe some Katrina Cottages. I think that was all preserved as an example of cheap workforce housing, so it sort of makes sense to infill it with something inexpensive. Or give the lots to Habitat.  They have done houses in there.  Or, since you are a land bank, SELL THE LOTS.  

The KCLBA got these two lots from the City along with a requirement that the home built on it is sold to a family making at or below 80% AMI.  We looked at building two small SFH's on the lot but could not make that work financially as it relates to the 80% AMI requirement.  The townhouse project allowed us to create an economy of scale to keep pricing down, which is imperative due to the affordability requirements. Building 3 units at one time on one site lowers our cost per square foot.

Recent changes to Grand Rapids zoning allows these to be built without having to go through the very costly process of a zoning variance. Also, being able to build attached single family homes and not having to bear the expense of developing condominium documents certainly allows us to bring these type developments to the Grand Rapids market and make them affordable.

Habitat could not make the numbers work either.   The KCLBA lost $25,000 on this failed development!  I could go on and on and on with my frustration about the denial of this project but will leave it for another day.

Actually, selling the lots is exactly what we are doing.  Lot For Sale signs are on site now, or should be shortly.  Here is what I will watch closely though, how many people wanting to build a single family home on this lot are willing to put the amount of $ on the street to go through the HPC application, hoping it will not be turned down?  We will see...

[GRDadof3]

25 minutes ago, KCLBADave said:

The KCLBA got these two lots from the City along with a requirement that the home built on it is sold to a family making at or below 80% AMI.  We looked at building two small SFH's on the lot but could not make that work financially as it relates to the 80% AMI requirement.  The townhouse project allowed us to create an economy of scale to keep pricing down, which is imperative due to the affordability requirements. Building 3 units at one time on one site lowers our cost per square foot.

Recent changes to Grand Rapids zoning allows these to be built without having to go through the very costly process of a zoning variance. Also, being able to build attached single family homes and not having to bear the expense of developing condominium documents certainly allows us to bring these type developments to the Grand Rapids market and make them affordable.

Habitat could not make the numbers work either.   The KCLBA lost $25,000 on this failed development!  I could go on and on and on with my frustration about the denial of this project but will leave it for another day.

Actually, selling the lots is exactly what we are doing.  Lot For Sale signs are on site now, or should be shortly.  Here is what I will watch closely though, how many people wanting to build a single family home on this lot are willing to put the amount of $ on the street to go through the HPC application, hoping it will not be turned down?  We will see...

Whoa, I missed all that. Where are said lots? 

[ModSquad]

1 hour ago, GRDadof3 said:

Whoa, I missed all that. Where are said lots? 

301 & 305 Donald.

[MJLO]

9 hours ago, x99 said:

That was a hearing for "demolition by neglect".  The city will order the owner to make repairs, and if the owner fails to make them, the city will make the repairs necessary to weatherize the property and then lien it.  The lien will then be foreclosed and the property sold at tax auction.  So, actually, they sort of can stop it, as long as the city foots the bill.

I am hoping this is tongue and cheek and that the city would never waste the money to preserve that beast.  Which would likely not be rehabbed even if they did.  

Not looking to poke at those who support the HPC, but when was the last time the Hindering Progress Commission preserved anything of note?  Or anything anyone cared about? It seems over the last 10 years mostly all they have done is make it damn near impossible for neighborhoods to get rid of eyesores that aren't particularly significant at all.  But if there are examples I'd like to know.  All I ever see are stories about hideous dilapidated churches that are forbidden to be demolished, there has to be another side to their work? 

[GRDadof3]

6 hours ago, KCLBADave said:

301 & 305 Donald.

I think I posted that project here somewhere. Or I saw it on an agenda somewhere and meant to post it here. It got shot down? 

[GRDadof3]

13 hours ago, x99 said:

Alternative: Can you get a prefab down the street?  Drop two prefabs on the lots and call it good.  Or maybe some Katrina Cottages. I think that was all preserved as an example of cheap workforce housing, so it sort of makes sense to infill it with something inexpensive. Or give the lots to Habitat.  They have done houses in there.  Or, since you are a land bank, SELL THE LOTS.  

This looks worse than the houses that are already on Donald Place? You've gotta be kidding...

Prefab or built by the Amish, these homes aren't any better than any other non historic district part of Grand Rapids. 

 

[joeDowntown]

That's a shame. Donald place is a cesspool of shoddy built houses rented by slumlords. I know this first-hand because my father-in-law loved in one and became a crappy slumlord.

They really just need to implode Donald and Robie. Replace them with nicely built affordable housing and get on with it. The only thing historic about these houses is that it shows that they built crappy houses in the good ole days too.

Joe

[ModSquad]

9 hours ago, GRDadof3 said:

This looks worse than the houses that are already on Donald Place? You've gotta be kidding...

Prefab or built by the Amish, these homes aren't any better than any other non historic district part of Grand Rapids. 

 

There is a little more to this saga than the rendering above.  Here is a breakdown of the process:

KCLBA staff and our architect had a preliminary meeting with City Planning and HPC stadd to review our conceptual drawings and site plan and received the following feedback:

              o For planning we only need to submit to the Planning Commission there was no need for a zoning variance.

              o A neighborhood meeting would be very important

              o It would be good to offer the neighbors choices.

              o Was told it was ver important to get approval from the neighbor to the South as he was very active with HPC

              o We took this feedback and authorized our architect to produce more complete drawings.

• Invited the entire block of Donald to Sparrow’s coffee for a meeting. Two neighbors showed up, one of them being the neighbor to the South. KCLBA staff reviewed the two building designs and the site plan for the 3-unit attached single family home project. Both neighbors approved the project. Their salient points were:

            o Neighbors liked the amount of off street parking as they said on street parking was a problem from time to time.

            o Appreciated that it was home ownership and not rental.

            o Neighbor to South requested that the drive and parking be moved to the north end of the development.

            o One neighbor did not necessarily have an opinion on the building design, neighbor to South really wanted a pitched roof.

• The KCLBA relayed the feedback from the neighbors to our architect and the site plan changes were implemented and full drawings with a pitched roof was authorized.

• Attended the Historic Preservation review meeting to receive more feedback on the proposed drawings and site plan. Received feedback and our architect implemented more changes to the drawings.  Of note the HPC members really liked the flat roof design.  However, for final approval we had to move the pitched roof design forward.  We had our architect implement the other design changes to the pitch roof design

• Attended the Historic Preservation Commission meeting for final approval where the neighbor that approved it at the meeting now opposes the development, especially the roof design that the neighbor specifically requested.   Everyone was concerned about "massing" the visual size of the project.  The decision was tabled until the next meeting.

• Since the neighbor that we were told to please now opposed the pitched roof design and the HPC members preferred the flat roof design, the KCLBA had our architect submit the flat roof design for final approval.

• At the final HPC meeting neighbor to south came out again and had a letter with a few signatures on it opposing the project.  It was unanimously rejected.  There were two reasons given: 1) Neighbor opposition 2) Massing.

We cannot do anything about neighbor opposition but in regard to "massing" the following is the federal guidelines: 

"New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment."

I am not sure what the heck HPC Members see about this project that make it not compatible with the historic integrity of the property and its environment.  Look at the scaled rendering below.

In closing, how in the heck did Green Cane's MASSIVE housing/retail development along Crofton pass this "massing" litmus test?

Needless to say the KCLBA is out $25,000 and a TON of staff time.  Never again in a Historic District, never again.

Rant over...

 

[GR_Urbanist]

Quote

Needless to say the KCLBA is out $25,000 and a TON of staff time.  Never again in a Historic District, never again.

HPC + letting some "Neighbor" have that much control and input, despite having not one cent involved = disaster.

How many more examples of sabotaged developments do we need in this area before this stuff stops?

[GRDadof3]

1 hour ago, KCLBADave said:

There is a little more to this saga than the rendering above.  Here is a breakdown of the process:

KCLBA staff and our architect had a preliminary meeting with City Planning and HPC stadd to review our conceptual drawings and site plan and received the following feedback:

              o For planning we only need to submit to the Planning Commission there was no need for a zoning variance.

              o A neighborhood meeting would be very important

              o It would be good to offer the neighbors choices.

              o Was told it was ver important to get approval from the neighbor to the South as he was very active with HPC

              o We took this feedback and authorized our architect to produce more complete drawings.

• Invited the entire block of Donald to Sparrow’s coffee for a meeting. Two neighbors showed up, one of them being the neighbor to the South. KCLBA staff reviewed the two building designs and the site plan for the 3-unit attached single family home project. Both neighbors approved the project. Their salient points were:

            o Neighbors liked the amount of off street parking as they said on street parking was a problem from time to time.

            o Appreciated that it was home ownership and not rental.

            o Neighbor to South requested that the drive and parking be moved to the north end of the development.

            o One neighbor did not necessarily have an opinion on the building design, neighbor to South really wanted a pitched roof.

• The KCLBA relayed the feedback from the neighbors to our architect and the site plan changes were implemented and full drawings with a pitched roof was authorized.

• Attended the Historic Preservation review meeting to receive more feedback on the proposed drawings and site plan. Received feedback and our architect implemented more changes to the drawings.  Of note the HPC members really liked the flat roof design.  However, for final approval we had to move the pitched roof design forward.  We had our architect implement the other design changes to the pitch roof design

• Attended the Historic Preservation Commission meeting for final approval where the neighbor that approved it at the meeting now opposes the development, especially the roof design that the neighbor specifically requested.   Everyone was concerned about "massing" the visual size of the project.  The decision was tabled until the next meeting.

• Since the neighbor that we were told to please now opposed the pitched roof design and the HPC members preferred the flat roof design, the KCLBA had our architect submit the flat roof design for final approval.

• At the final HPC meeting neighbor to south came out again and had a letter with a few signatures on it opposing the project.  It was unanimously rejected.  There were two reasons given: 1) Neighbor opposition 2) Massing.

We cannot do anything about neighbor opposition but in regard to "massing" the following is the federal guidelines: 

"New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment."

I am not sure what the heck HPC Members see about this project that make it not compatible with the historic integrity of the property and its environment.  Look at the scaled rendering below.

In closing, how in the heck did Green Cane's MASSIVE housing/retail development along Crofton pass this "massing" litmus test?

Needless to say the KCLBA is out $25,000 and a TON of staff time.  Never again in a Historic District, never again.

Rant over...

 

Jeesh, that sucks.

I'm not a fan of that flat-roof design in this context, to be honest.

Massing being the problem? That makes no sense. Maybe they wanted it to be more massive? 

[ModSquad]

2 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

I'm not a fan of that flat-roof design. 

But massing being the problem? That makes no sense. Maybe they wanted it to be more massive? 12 floors? 

The flat roof works better for our attached SFH projects because each unit literally owns its own roof individually.

[GRDadof3]

Just now, KCLBADave said:

The flat roof works better for our attached SFH projects because each unit literally owns its own roof individually.

Ah, and it's not like there isn't a precedent. There are flat roofed townhouses/rowhouses right around the corner from there. Or a block away. 

[x99]

49 minutes ago, GRDadof3 said:

Ah, and it's not like there isn't a precedent. There are flat roofed townhouses/rowhouses right around the corner from there. Or a block away. 

I did a little more thinking about this. I think the issue was that it 1) was a town house and 2) looked like 3 conjoined buildings. Both are "new" to that immediate area. That's the "massing" issue more than the size and tips the scale toward disapproving. Prospect between Cherry and Wealthy has some examples of conjoined buildings that do not look conjoined.  Are they as attractive?  Arguably not, but massing on a townhouse was never going to be great, so maybe if all of the rest was hitting on 8 cylinders for "compatibility" it would have worked...  The best project in the world can still going to go down in flames if it does not begin from an understanding of the standards that will be applied to it.

Here's how I would have done it:  Find the widest building on those streets, preferably an original side by side duplex.  Figure out how that one fits into the neighborhood.  Design project facade similarly, but 20% to 30% larger so I could explain how it was not that much larger.  Nail every last element other than size, from railings, proportions of trim, siding reveal, window size and spacing, etc.  Yes, it's distinguishable, but only because it is bigger.  Everything else is bang on compatible.  Then layer up with a dozen similar historic buildings, even if in other neighborhoods.  Boom.  Project approved.  HPC is usually good about that if it hits standards even if neighbors don't like it. And if not?  Hello, appeal.  Unfortunately, architects rarely design like this and rarely understand well the standards they have to meet and how they are applied, so many regularly go down in flames.  When they put all the HPC packets online, I skimmed through a lot of them.  Most of the presentations are bad. Just a bunch of pictures, with no explanation.  In NYC or California or many, many other areas, it is common to hire a pro who puts together a lengthy package explaining how a larger project meets historic standards.  No one in GR bothers.  This is not the expertise of most architects (around here), so it is not surprising there is frustration.

Edited July 25, 2017 by x99