Follow us on Twitter Follow Us on Facebook

  DRC Home | Committees | Applicants Guide (PDF) | Submittals Checklist (PDF) |Application Form (PDF) | Agendas

Northeast Design Review Case Report

DEMO AT 15519 WATERLOO RD

Back Return to Case List | Start Over | Print Report (PDF format)

Project Information

Northeast Case #  NE 2017-020

Address: 15519 Waterloo Rd
Company: Northeast Shores Development Corp/ CCLRC
Architect: CCLRC
Description:

Proposed demolition of a two story, commercial structure.

Notes:  

Committee Actions/Submissions

Date: June 7, 2017
Committee: Staff
Action Type: Initial Plan Submission
Conditions/Notes:  
 
Date: June 13, 2017
Committee: Local Design Review Committee
Action Type: Tabled
Conditions:  

Voting Members Present

  • T. Veider 
  • A. Lukacsy (declined to vote)
  • R. S. Niewswander 
  • P. Brown (CH)
  • C. Poh (2nd)
  • N. Reich (1st)

 

 

Project presented by Camille Maxwell and Joe Barbaree of Northeast Shores Dev. Corp.  Details were presented on the history of the property, costs of rehab vs. demo, condemnation, and plans for the site post-demo.

 

 

Committee Comments, Questions, Concerns

  • Is Waterloo Rd on the national register of historic places? Was it ever nominated?
  • What is the age of the building?
  • What is the plan for the re-use of this collection of parcels?  NES does have ideas on interim uses for the site (art, community events, container retail modules, RFP process for longterm development with adjacent parcel, etc).
  • Can a temporary plan be created for the site post-demo?
  • Removing this building would create a missing tooth for the intersection.  Plans need to be in place to re-use the space immediately as this site is vital for the continued revitalization of Waterloo.
  • Any immediate re-use of the site post-demo should hold the street edge.
  • Suggest that NES takes a look at a project called Proxy in San Francisco, CA.  Implemented quick, pop-up food trucks and eateries as an interim use.
  • Do you have developers interested in the site right now?
  • A. Lukacszy (NES boardmember) stated that the board members have been having these conversations about demolishing this building since 2016.  Noted that time was available to create a significant plan for re-use before coming to design review to request the demolition.  A plan is needed to direct development of this site.
  • Is there a timeline associated with the when the CCLRC monies can be used?
  • Please return with plans for the immediate interim use/development of the site in case quality, permanent development does not happen right away.

 

 

Councilman Polensek is in attendance and in support of the demo.  The Councilman stated that the development corporation does not have the funds to maintain the building or demo without the CCLRC dollars.  He feels that Waterloo is at a critical point. The site needs to be demolished for new development to continue revitalization.

 

Motion to table to till the 18th of July. Please return with plans for the site (to include a drawing, plan view, elevations/sketches, and narrative) to guide development of this site thru the next 3-5yrs.  Plans can include a rotating scheme of events for the site but they must have some impact on the community and intersection.

Date: July 13, 2017
Committee: Staff
Action Type: Initial Plan Submission
Conditions/Notes:  
 
Date: July 18, 2017
Committee: Local Design Review Committee
Action Type: Approved
Conditions:  

Voting Members Present

  • N. Reich (2nd)
  • P. Brown (CH)
  • C. Poh (1st)

 

 

Demolition and concept for interim use presented by Camille Maxwell and Joe Barbaree of Northeast Shores Development Corp.  Presented the unifying of the subject lot and adjacent lot with concrete slab walkways to mirror the Waterloo streetscape, grass mounds for seating, movable furniture for seating, art murals, green wall/fence of landscaping, and a stage for performances.

 

Committee Questions, Comments, Concerns

  • Are there any concerns about the stability of the adjacent building once the subject building comes down?  Is there a shared wall?  Cheryl Stephens from CCLRC was available to provide comment on this question.  She stated that because it was built so close together that it is almost a share wall scenario and they would have to saw-cut the wall to create two separate walls to complete the demo.
  • Is the concept presented today overplanned?  Is it flexible enough to meet the communities needs for programming and activating the space?  John Farina provided his opinion by stating that he felt the concept was indeed overplanned for the activities the community is used to having on Waterloo.
  • One committee member is concerned that the concept plan does not hold the hard edge of the corner and a demoliton will forever change this space.  The committee member is also concerned that the concept plan does not speak to an artistic statement, it can do more to address the artistic flavor of the neighborhood.
  • Is there any plan or funding for the maintenance of the property if implemented?  Camille Maxwell stated that NES uses a paid contractor to maintain all of there community greenspaces and bioswales.  This space would be added to the contract for maintenance by NES.
  • One committee member is concerned that there is no forthcoming, permanent development scheme in place for this property.  C. Maxwell, C. Stephens, and J. Farina commented that the structure must come down before development interests are piqued due to the location and context of Waterloo.
  • One committee member states the concern that the building is indeed unsafe and blighted, but does not support the concept plan as presented.
  • The committee requests that the demolition and concept plan be two separate items to vote upon.

 

 

Councilman Polensek is in attendance to again state his support for the demolition as it provides opportunity for redevelopment and a meaningful re-use of the space.

 

Cheryl Stephens and Steve Billington from CCLRC available to comment on the county's funding mechanism, the process for demolition, and the partnership with NES.

 

Jerry Schmidt is a stakeholder on Waterloo.  He is in support of the demolition.  Mr. Schmidt stated that he has been in the neighborhood for years.  He is concerned about the state of the building and walking near it.  He is also concerned about its impact on businesses on the west end of Waterloo re: visibility and safety.

 

John Farnina is president of the Waterloo Merchants Club.  He commented that the WMC looked for ways to work around this building when planning events and programming the adjacent spaces.  He felt the demo would help to connect both ends of Waterloo, as the building is dangerous & unsafe it is a hinderance to neighborhood cohesiveness.  He also states that the concept as presented is overplanned when it should be more flexible for programming.  He also states that the concept plan as presented is too costly of an investment for an interim use at this site.

 

Adam Tulley is a boardmember for Waterloo Arts.  He is in support of the demolition because it hinders event planning, festivals, etc.

 

 

 

Motion to demolish the building as presented is approved by all Committee members present.

Motion to disapprove the concept plan as presented by all Committee members present.  Committee recommends to simply protect using bollards and green the lot post demolition.

 
Date: July 21, 2017
Committee: City Planning Commission
Action Type: Approved
Conditions: