I certainly don't feel that it should be looked at as an "intrusion" into the neighborhood, but rather a continuing evolution of the area. I'm not sure I understand why single family occupancy land is seen as so sacred. That is not to say that I am against the idea of property owners speaking out against anything they feel could harm their property values or enjoyment, but I feel their concerns are often misplaced, especially in developments like this one.
I'd love this type of thing in my neighborhood. I'd think it would increase property values and make it more livable at the same time by adding more businesses and services.
The whole "area of growth" vs. area of "stability" map is kind of silly. Is nothing allowed to ever grow and change? Do we really believe that everything is built to completion and can't be improved/adapted over time?
Maybe they can get away with a two-story residential structure like townhouses or something at least.
Part of the issue here is a failure in the zoning code for small lot development. If a developer wants to build a small infill project for apartments on sites like this, mixed-use zoning is about the only option you have. The multifamily zoning requires some very large lot sizes and ignores the idea of small infill.
I can see the concern here on commercial much more than the 31st & Peoria site given this is set back from Peoria and 36th Street isn't what I'd consider a 'main' street. I do find it funny most of the comments talk about traffic moving too fast - maybe we should promote road calming like road diets. As soon as people try to do this though everyone complains about slowing traffic.
Sometimes it seems like people want to complain just to complain and hear themselves talk (like the dude who spent more time talking about how many garages his house had then why the development was bad haha). I don't think it'd be inappropriate to have apartments here and ideally along a corridor like Brookside you want to have a transition zoning from higher density commercial to higher density residential to low density residential. Frankly, that's what an apartment building here would do. It's not really that much different than the three story townhouse to the north, just apartments.
The dramatics behind how anything will degrade property values is just the stupidest arguments one can make for zoning changes. You'd think the developer is trying to build a nuclear power plant next door.
Just a note to the 'neighbors' concerned about property values... this is much better for your property value than if they were demoed for a giant surface parking lot next to your house. Increasing density in your neighborhood boosts the underlying land values in the entire area which = more value to your home. Not the other way around.
This is something else I do find as a bit of a failure in our zoning code too is I wish there was a zoning for commercial offices (dentist offices, doctors, etc.) that would likely love a space like this and wouldn't be an intrusive type of 'retail' like have an outdoor cafe next to your house. It does seem to cause concerns with retail because you don't know what tenant is going to go in next door, and I can see those concerns as being warranted. It's something the city really needs to figure out so we can find a middle road for people who live near commercial zones and the need for the city to become more dense and walk-able.
