Quote:
Originally Posted by Terminus
It is my reading of SPI 16 that frontal parking would require an administrative variation if these changes are a modification to the ViewPoint development. However, depending on whether or not this is a separate development on its own lot, it might be considered side parking; side parking is allowed. It really comes down to whether or not the block is being subdivided.
There's nothing in SPI 16 to require properties to build to the adjacent lot line. Said requirement only exists in Downtown's SPI 1 along "Storefront Streets."
|
Thanks. Based on the tax assessor's website, the Starbucks development is a separate parcel owned by Loudermilk and the parcel along 6th Street is part of the same Novare-owned parcel that includes the new 100 6th Street development. Both parcels are subdivided from the Viewpoint lot, so I guess the side parking will be allowed. It seems short-sighted to me for them to develop new surface parking in such a high profile area, but I guess we're helpless to prevent it if the code allows for it and since the design review committee loved the project so much.
As for the Storefront Streets designation in SPI 1 - do you know if there's been any discussions about revising SPI-16 to include a similar designation and zero lot line requirement?
Last question for you or anyone else familiar with SPI-16. Novare didn't have to bury the powerlines along Spring Street behind Skyhouse. What language would be lacking in the code that allowed them to sneak by without burying the power lines behind their parking deck on Spring Street?