Reduce Massive Buildings in Blue Hill

Letter to the Town Council

June 5, 2019

Dear Mayor Hemminger and Town Council:

Ever since the first project in the Ephesus-Fordham “Blue Hill” district began construction on Elliot Rd., town residents have been calling on council to amend the ill-conceived form-based code so that new buildings will be less massive and more in scale with their surroundings.  We believe the petition submitted last year by council members Anderson, Gu, and Shaevitz sought to address this concern.  Indeed, the whole point of the form-based code is that developers receive the benefits of expedited review (no public hearings) in return for delivering the kind of new construction the community wants.  In Blue Hill, however, it hasn’t worked out that way; developers are getting the benefits of expedited review and profiting from increased  density allowances, but the community is not getting the kind of new development most council members or town residents want.

According to staff, the goals of adopting additional building standards are: 1) To increase pedestrian connections; 2) To increase view corridors, reduce obstructions of corridors by architecture; and to 3) to reduce architectural impact through upper floor reduction

By taking this soft approach, the staff have neglected the most obvious recommendation which is simply to reduce the allowable building height and to reduce the size of the footprint of the building now allowed in the Code.  

We believe the staff recommendation offers only minor tweaks to building massing and, if adopted will do very little to “soften the visual impact” or “reduce architectural impact” of new buildings. Based on the examples in the slides, new development—like all large projects in the district to date—will still be 6-7 story Texas donuts (apartments or commercial space wrapped around internal parking decks).

To get attractive human scale development—the kind of townscape envisioned in the original Ephesus Fordham Small Area Plan—at least two things need to happen: 1) allowable height needs to be limited to 4-5 stories or to a height equal to the width of the street the building fronts, whichever is less; 2) there must be a shared parking solution for the district so that each project doesn’t have to include its own internal parking deck, which results in excessive block length and building footprint.

Thank you!
From these signers,

Newsletter article with more information

Brief summary of June 5 Council work session discussion

Tony Sease, the town’s consultant, explained how minor tweaks made in complicated ways would address the public and council concerns about size while we believe they do not address the major concern about massive buildings. He suggested some ways to make the buildings seem less massive .  We wish he had taken the direct approach of limiting the size and the footprint of the buildings. A number of council members pushed back on his approach. It seemed the consultant seemed most interested in what would be most financially advantageous for the developers rather than how to achieve the vibrant walkable district the council wants.

Council members Jess Anderson, Hongbin Gu and Rachel Schaevitz pressed for solutions that would rid us of the apartments circling parking decks, and would create public spaces where people would want to visit. These council members particularly  emphasized the importance of a shared vision for the district that would bring town benefits. Nancy Oates said the tall buildings would be OK if they provided affordable housing. Michael Parker wanted to know how more commercial and office could be built. Answering Allen Buansi’s question, if the code is not changed,  then Eastgate, Ram Plaza, and Staples area all could be redeveloped under the present Code, along with many smaller properties. After more than an hour of discussion it was understood that the consultant would bring back more options based on the feedback.  There were no formal votes because it was a work session.