Quote:
Originally Posted by wardlow
The live-work townhouse units were taken out because of a couple of things: (1) the Winter Club, who previously owned the land, put a caveat on the sale that any development would have a high amount of accessory parking (1.5 stalls per unit). The developer could have gotten a major reduction through a variance, but they weren’t allowed to because of the caveat. Apparently the Winter Club was worried about spillover parking taking up their many surface parking spots around their dumpy fortress of a building.
|
Is this even something allowed and/or legally binding? Once they own the land couldn't they just ignore it and build as they please? Or the city decide "sorry, 1 stall/person maximum at TOD" ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
It is often used as overflow parking when the other WWC lot fills up... if it isn't used on a daily basis, then it's close.
BTW your description of the WWC as a dumpy fortress is quite apt... I wish there was some way to make it look less horrendous. Perhaps the day will come when the land reaches a value that makes it worthwhile for WWC to sell to developers and rebuild its facility somewhere else.
|
Even a fresh coat of paint and some landscaping would do wonders. I don't understand how
this is even allowed? Doesn't the city rules have rules regarding requirements for decorative fencing and landscaping along sidewalks?