Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nichols Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planner and Nichols team present downtown redevelopment plan seeking three extra apartments
Summary
Planning staff summarized VAR 2504, a request by Nichols to add three apartments across two historic downtown buildings; the applicant emphasized adaptive reuse and shared parking while staff flagged legal and parking questions.
Planning staff opened the Nichols Hardware agenda item by identifying VAR 2504, an application to increase the number of by‑right apartment units per building in the C‑4 downtown district for Nichols properties at 131 North 21st Street. Staff said the application targets two firewall‑separated buildings and that, by right, two apartments are permitted per building; the proposed change would result in three additional units total across the cafe and hardware buildings.
The planner framed three key issues for the board: (1) whether the request is an area/physical variance or an impermissible change of use, (2) whether the applicant has a unique physical hardship tied to the historic structures, and (3) parking and infrastructure impacts. Staff noted the buildings are historic and unlikely to be demolished, limiting possible options for accommodating modern unit sizes.
Architect and applicant representative Gaber Nichols presented a vision to "energize the street," describing adaptive reuse of underutilized second‑floor space into smaller loft units (700–1,000 sq ft). He said smaller units would better serve employees and downtown needs and offered shared parking for residents: "We think we can have 20 spaces," he said, noting the current lot holds fewer spaces. Richard Beard, manager of Nichols Hardware, described sales declines and said adding residents to 21st Street would support businesses and meals‑tax revenue.
Staff cautioned that downtown C‑4 properties are often exempt from on‑site parking requirements, which limits the board's leverage; the planner said Nichols has expressed willingness to provide or commit to shared parking but would not be strictly required by the zoning district. The staff report and discussion left unresolved legal questions about whether an economic‑viability argument satisfies the statutory variance standard and flagged parking, fire safety and water/sewer impacts as follow‑up items if the board chooses to advance the application.
