Wed 27 Sep 2006
Large numbers of community members from Park Place, and a host of other local community organizations and non-profits have worked hard over the last year to protect the neighborhood. In fact, today we had the support of ACORN (http://acorn.org/contactus/state.php?st=PA) who showed up in force to support us before council.
Thanks to the tremendous participation of *you*, in the community throughout this year long process, we have gained enough support from City Council and the Mayor’s office to succeed in bringing Walgreens back to the table with some serious concessions.
Late last night, I was contacted by Arnie Horovitz our lawyer, informing me that the developers were willing to accept for the most part, the last proposal we were exploring with them. That is, they would restrain themselves to only taking one house, the closest one on South Braddock, and that in return for allowing them to do that, they would buy, and renovate and sell as RESIDENCES the two home that would be bordering their property.
This would help off-set the intrusion into the residential zone by significantly upgrading the condition of the two remaining homes, thus helping the surrounding properties retain their value and potentially improve upon it.
It would also mean that no individual that did not purchase a home next to a commercial lot, would be faced with having a commercial lot next to them.
There are still details to be worked out. In particular, the amount of land from the East End lot is still in question, and details of how this agreement would be executed still need to be worked out. This is a concern, but discussions are still in flux and the final determination is not yet set.
Based on conversations with the board members I held late last night, I agreed with the developers that we needed more time to work out the final details of their offer, and to then present the final offer to the community next Thursday for consideration at our normal GPPNA meeting.
I asked council to delay the vote for two weeks, with the developer’s permission, to allow us this chance to see if we can make this final proposal work. The board will look at the final proposal and make a recommendation to the community, and then ask for everyone to provide input and vote next Thursday. (Church of the Nazarene, corner of Peebles and Waverly, 7:00pm)
Please stay tuned for more details. I’ll share them as I know them.
Will the East End lot still have a driveway with ten feet of the lot gone?
The long-term viability of the property as a family home needs to be addressed and this is an important detail to resolve via the site planning process. We should keep an open mind at this point, but keep this question top of mind. 10 feet would be about the middle of the driveway so this suggests some sort of accommodation would be required. Vehicular access into the property via a right of way through the commercial zone or dedicated parking space(s) come to mind and need to be explored as the site plan evolves. At this point I’m inclined to think of the zone in question as an area that must be explored to suit the needs of both properties and am optimistic that the developer feels similarly.
Other questions? Anything specific anyone like me to ask the developer?
I had similar thoughts about the garage in addition to the driveway. It is clear the third bay would need to go and thus likely the entire garage will go. If so, it would be nice to see the site plan accommodate the possibility for a garage to be replaced by a future home owner. I’d certainly like to see off street parking option remain tied to the site… I think it is highly desirable for a house of this scale –especially next to commercial where the extra piece of mind will help ensure the property is attractive to a wider range of perspective buyers.
I’m also assuming the trees all go and expect the plan will attempt to deal with this in some small way that will likely disapoint many of us. Access, parking, and the loss of the trees seem to be the big concerns we will want to look at closely.