Just in from Land-Use Land

-Now we know why the “for sale” sign on Beach Drive’s “Painted Lady” (aka the Satterlee House) has moved all the way to the front of the house: The city just issued a permit for the short-plat that will allow three homes to be built in what’s currently the historic home’s front yard. We’re working to find out what happens next and when.


A land-use permit’s also been issued to allow a new commercial development where the burned-out Schuck’s store shell now sits, kitty corner from Charlestown Cafe.


8 Replies to "Just in from Land-Use Land"

  • Jen May 30, 2007 (6:06 pm)

    *crosses fingers for Shucks’ spot to be a Trader Joe’s*

    *also wishes first item about Saterlee House a really, really late April Fools joke*

  • CandrewB May 30, 2007 (8:44 pm)

    Hopefully they will put a new Shucks’ in front of the Saterlee House.

  • Tom May 30, 2007 (8:50 pm)

    Ooooh yeah! Trader Joe’s!

    And.. if the front lawn of the Saterlee House has to be “done unto” in some fashion why not have the parks dept buy it and make another small park? Win-Win.

  • WS Guy May 31, 2007 (12:06 am)

    Short platting does not necessarily mean that houses can be built there. Permitting for construction is a second application.

  • J.R. May 31, 2007 (1:14 pm)

    WS Guy: Well, yeah, but a short plat establishes those as legal building lots. Obtaining building permits for new houses on those lots is merely a formality.

  • Forest May 31, 2007 (1:15 pm)

    Three houses are permitted on the Satterlee plot. This was pointed out to neighbors when they rallied against a townhouse proposal several years ago. At that time, neighbors testified to the City Council that they would rather have three single houses than five or six townhouses.

    Problem with single family houses is they are exempt from design review by the City.

    Ideally the plot would be made a public park, but the Parks Department looked at the property and decided against buying it. If I remember correctly, Parks decided that it couldn’t justify the purchase expense and the maintenance costs because there is no public beach access and the park would have mostly benefited nearby neighbors instead of the general public.

    Maybe things have changed since then, but I kind of doubt it. We’ll see what happens.

  • d May 31, 2007 (3:58 pm)


    Right on, whether you meant it or not. GENERAL PUBLIC, or neighbors. If the neighbors are really concerned, let them buy it.

    I was faced with a similar situation some years ago on Palm Avenue, but I sure didn’t see any of my neighbors “bellying” up to the bar.

    Result, one hugely hideously “Bellevue” house in an old neighborhood. But it wasn’t that bad, it’s only 3 houses down from 2 Omni houses that are just as ugly. Maybe moreso.

  • WS Guy May 31, 2007 (6:18 pm)

    It depends on whether the landmark encumberance is transferred to the new lots. I have been to that house and talked to the selling agent. The landmark encumberance concerns the facade and view of the house from the street. If the new plats carry that encumberance then it would severely limit what could be built there. Well, I’m checking with the city landmark coordinator.

Sorry, comment time is over.