Peace at West (Smokey Hollow)


#153

Where off Wade? I’m in the same area


#154

Never mind on the three backhoes. They were for overnight road work.


#155

Does anyone have an information about the apartments that are going in here? Floorplans? Renderings? That kind of thing?


#156

There’s the community meeting tonight. Maybe they’ll have floor plans their or other information that you seek?


#157

R-Dub, respectfully, should we never build tall buildings around existing condo buildings… because it may mess up their view? If that were the case, then no buildings would ever get built anywhere in any city. Respectfully, tall, beautiful buildings with commercial/residential/retail would be best Raleigh


#158

@TheNightHawk, I get your point and my comment was somewhat in jest.


#159

ah ok… all good. I understand.


#160

You sound so certain. Do you have numbers to back this up?


#161

What I have to back that up is that the property is zoned for mixed use up to 12 stories. Zoning drives land value because it tells us how much you can build on the property as a matter of entitlement. The more you can build on a property downtown, the move valuable the land is.


#162

As mentioned previously in the thread, one reason Rollins Cleaners and maybe some of its neighbors might be kept is to avoid the costs of cleaning up the nasty chemicals in the soil that are inevitable at the site of any dry cleaner that has been there for a long time.

Outside of some reason like that, though, I agree it would not make economical sense for a developer to keep any of those buildings.


#163

This site is in the NCDEQ DSCA Program (DC920048), a program I work daily with as a contractor for the State. There are lots of things that can be done so that the property can be redeveloped. The driver for the DSCA Program is risk. If a developer wanted to move this site along, and work with the Program (which is the situation I have at one of my sites in another City) things can be done to move it along rather quickly. Env. issues affect land value, and potentially use, but there are lots of things that can be done to make the property usable for future projects. So please everyone, stop blaming “environmental issues” as a reason for this property not being developed (yet). If it is owned by Kane, I assure you it will happen. As an aside… there are env issues under North Hills too, and it hasn’t stopped any development that I can see. :slight_smile:

Edit: There is DSCA site and a UST incident (possibly multiple) at North Hills, and 2 DSCA sites at Cameron Village. If you know what to look for, there are likely “env issues” all around you but the the general public just doesn’t know what to look for that I see everyday. All of this info is public record, and I can show you how to look it up if you want.


#164

Does the extent of remediations change if you’re going to be tearing down vs. just reusing the existing structure with minimal disturbances to the soil? I’m just wondering if this might change the economics for reusing the existing building vs. redeveloping into something larger.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind at all if that little group of buildings near Rollins gets kept and re-purposed rather than torn down and redeveloped.


#165

I am not personally familiar with this particular site, so without digging into the historic reports (which are available online)… 1) groundwater contamination shouldn’t be an issue for future use, since it is located within the city and public water is available (IE no water supply wells will be drilled on the property); 2) any soil contamination can be excavated and replaced with clean fill, depending on the depths (which shouldn’t be that deep based on the nearby stream) an amendment can be added/blended into the base of the excavation to further remediate anything left in place; 3) my guess (given the age of the building) would be that vapor intrusion would be the biggest issue for the existing/future building, a Vapor Barrier would surely be necessary in any new development at the site. Or if the first floor was used for parking and occupied floors were not in direct contact with any contaminated material, the env concerns shouldn’t be that big a concern. Yes, there is still material in place, but again, does it pose a risk for any occupant of the building, or the general public. My guess (again, I have no personal knowledge of this site) would be the biggest risk would be that groundwater is discharging into the creek/culvert located under Peace. IF surface water is impacted, a permeable reactive barrier (PRB) could be installed (via subsurface injection) to mitigate the migration of contaminants into the surface water body.


#166


#167

While I love the look of phase 2, and the name Smokey hollow on the building, I did expect it to be taller.


#168

I also like the look, taller would be nice, but make all your the structures a different height, not same height.
Street level looks excellent, but again, make taller, it will fill up ASAP and more residential is needed!


#169


#170

No plans yet for phase 3. They did say that was a location where they want to go taller. Now, will it be taller than the 12 floors that the UDO entitles? Who knows?


#171

Kane Realty emphasized that the plaza experience and the entrance on West @ Tucker were of the utmost importance for phase 2. They need to make that plaza experience top notch if they want to lease those first floor retail spaces.
Phase two slated to break ground next Summer. They speculate 18 months delivery with all of it built simultaneously. Frankly, that sounds really aggressive. I am not sure that they can make that happen. Time will tell.


#172

@TheNightHawk I was at tonight’s session as well. It may not have the height that some wanted, but this is a game changer for Glenwood South. I’m VERY happy with what I saw.