In an uncharacteristic decision, the City Planning Commission flexed its muscles August 8 and unanimously voted to reject the preliminary site plan for a four-storey, 27-unit Fifeville development that would be located a few hundred feet from Walker Square.
Developers of the 850 Estes St. property call it “mixed-use” despite reserving only 835 square feet, a mere 1.9 percent, for commercial “office” space. Commissioners found that such a small percentage violated a zoning ordinance, despite staff recommendation to approve the project as it fit the letter—if not the spirit—of the zoning.
Situated in the Cherry Avenue corridor, 850 Estes isn’t required to have a certain percentage of commercial space, though most parts of the city require 25 percent for mixed-use development.
“We didn’t want to put a commercial piece in,” says Rich Carter, vice president of Southland Homes, who is developing the project with Mickey Dickers. They composed the current by-right plan after City Council effectively denied a special-use permit for a 30-unit, all-residential development last fall.
“I found that 1.89 percent is not true mixed-use, certainly not the type of mixed- use we want to see in these quarters of the city,” says Cheri Lewis, commission member.
“I envisioned a coffee shop, a bakery, a convenience store—something that would bring some life to the street level and engage the neighborhood and attract residents.”
Part of the scorn for the Estes project stems from frustration with the Walker Square “mixed-use” development. Lewis’ original understanding was that a daycare center would go there, but instead the so-called commercial space is used for a private gym for their residents. “The commercial element there did nothing for the neighborhood,” Lewis says.
Estes developers now have essentially two options: go back to the drawing board and redesign the project to meet guidelines from the planning commission, or appeal to the circuit court within 60 days. Unlike permit requests, site plan appeals don’t go before City Council.
“We’re looking into all available options,” says Carter, who was on vacation when the meeting took place. “We’re obviously very disappointed at how the outcome came about.”
There might be legal questions for the decision to deny the by-right plan. “The planning commission is clearly of the belief that they’ve done the right thing,” says Lisa Kelly, deputy City attorney, who says she hasn’t seen a court appeal in her six years working with the commission. “We’ll have to see how it plays out legally if the applicant decides to appeal.”
Categories