Two issues were brought up regarding the sun concerns by the commissioners.
The first one was road/parking lot icing. If there is an ice event and no sun all day then it may take forever for the ice to melt, making the situation dangerous.
The second one was something they called “right to access to sun”, even if they recognized that there is not something written in law about it. They gave the example of someone wanting to install solar panels. In this particular example, the new buildings would make the install almost useless in winter.
The comissionners said that they have to be careful about sun issues and they will pay more attention to this matter in the future.
Thanks for that summary. There are definitely points to consider, and we shouldn’t be so callous when folks talk about shade. Of course, we have to cut through the bullshit like the Oakwood NIMBYs bitching about height at Smoky Hollow. However, we shouldn’t toss those with real concerns into the same bucket as the unreasonable complainers.
Yes, well said!
The people on the call are living in parcels directly touching the development (1 mills st owner, 2 town homes owners, the owner of the famous garage at WF rd / Whitaker rd and there was a business owner on west side of WF rd).
Of all the zoning change complaints that I have witnessed in my 7 years of following since moving here, this might be the only time that I’ve agreed the neighbors have a legit argument. Trying to put myself in their situation, I’d also welcome the redevelopment with open arms, but would question why this has been the only case that I’m aware of with an extreme discontinuity between non multi-family residential and a development of that height with almost no setback.
Most neighbors including myself thought that a transition height of 4 stories would have been more appropriate…
If they had been able to put the tall buildings against the railroad, things would have been different but this is where the only building they want to keep is (wharehouse), probably to get that industrial trendy style.
One of the neighbors commented at a previous PC meeting that this case seemed unique because of the proximity to existing structures.
He pointed out that North Hills has something a little bit similar on St Albans area with 7 story buildings close to SFHs but, there is a street + nice tree buffer between the two.
Here, the developper talks about a 20ft buffer. That’s not a lot considering the height of those buildings.
I played around with Google maps a bit, and it looks like the closest that the North Hills East buildings get to those houses on the other side of St. Albans is well over 200 ft. In many cases, it’s over 250 feet.
For the Cotton Exchange townhouses, they appear to be about 17-20 feet from their property line. Add 20 feet to that and you only get 37-40 feet. To put that in perspective, measuring 37-40 feet from the buildings at North Hills East only gets you as far as the middle of St. Albans Drive.
So basically what happens now? Usually I’d disagree with people putting up a fight against these type of developments but they have a really compelling case. Think the 15 story building gets trimmed?
Icing? Seriously? Kill a major project for a once a year event? There are places all over America in cities that lack direct sunlight…they use this invention called salt. What about the landowners next to the townhouses who may have wanted to say plant a garden but because those 3 story townhouses were built they don’t have enough sunlight now to do so? Where is the outrage over the deprivation of being able to source their own food because of those giant townhouses!!!
I thought the 6 story building immediately adjacent to the townhomes was the issue, not the 15 story building? 4 floors there seems like a decent compromise.
Looking at the shadow diagram, I thought it was the 15 but it could be the 6. That’d be much easier to change that to 4 then having to change the centerpiece of the project.
I went back and looked at the shadow diagram. It appears that it’s both of them. Instead of just a frozen in time diagram showing the shadow at noon on Dec. 21st, I’d like to see that animated. It might not be that that townhouses are shaded for all that long when it’s looked at across time.
Got a notice for a proposed project at Fairview and Bickett. 2 floors of residential over 2 floors of parking (one underground) and a 2 floor retail building with rooftop patio.
The parking deck situation is better than most buildings, and it sort of reminds me of what was done the Paramount, with one part of the deck accessed from a higher point, while a separate part is accessed from a lower point and carves out a quasi-underground parking garage.
The block plan indicates downtown views; I wonder just how much view that actually is with the trees in the neighborhood? I’ll have to investigate that.
