Engineering firm The Interfield Group is hoping to score a trio of variances that will allow it to swap out its existing dingbat office building (above) at the Heights landing point of the Studemont St. bridge for a much larger mixed-use development (depicted at top) dubbed Heights Gateway. The new 8-story complex rests on the stealth-bomber-shaped parcel at 401 Studewood outlined in the aerial above. It’s split between a residential portion (shown beneath the lettering in the rendering) and a glass curtain-walled office section to the north — all of which rests atop a floodable 2-story parking garage plinth.
Its lowest parking level — indicated in the site plan below — includes a main entrance off Studewood that runs between the work and live sections of the complex:
***
Among the 3 variances up for consideration this week: a request to terminate Threlkeld St. — indicated at the top left above — in a T-shaped turnaround rather than a cul-de sac, a request to scoot the building 10 ft. up closer to Studewood than the 25-ft. minimum setback would normally allow, and a request to permit this kind of commercial structure to occupy the flooded-out, formerly residential adjacent lots that the developer bought up and that now comprise the property’s northern wing.
The section below slices through the office portion that’d sit on that northern side of the property, showing how parking and workspace stack up above ground-floor retail:
Rendering, site plan, aerial, and section: The Interfield Group. Photo of 401 Studewood: LoopNet
looks like their original plans fell through- as this same property applied for similar reduced building line variances for a similar building design back in 2015
I turn left to head North on Studewood after exiting I-10 Eastbound every evening. That turn has already become a choke point for traffic, sometimes backing up past the I-10 on-ramp. It will probably become unbearable if this development goes forward since there’s no space to add a left turn lane on Studewood into “Heights Gateway”, and it’ll back up to where it’s already backed up.
I turn left to head North on Studewood after exiting I-10 Eastbound every evening. That turn has already become a choke point for traffic, sometimes backing up past the I-10 on-ramp. It will probably become unbearable if this development goes forward since there’s no space to add a left turn lane on Studewood into “Heights Gateway”, and it’ll back up to where it’s already backed up.
Engineering firms should not design buildings. ijs…
Duderino is correct. Left turns and u-turns in that block screw up traffic entering the Heights from I-10 and points south on Studewood. The only way this could work is if the option to turn left before White Oak is eliminated. Never mind the stupidity of building in the flood zone. That’s the problem of those who use the space. The traffic issue will affect all who travel this block. In any case, the cut allowing a left turn/u-turn in that block of Studewood must be closed.
Lunacy.
something to remember- you’re not sitting in traffic, you *are* the traffic!
If you have to ask for not 1, not 2, but 3 variances, you’re setting yourself up for failure. Particularly in the Heights, for a project that would affect inbound traffic for half the neighborhood. Do they actually believe this will get approved?
Waiting to turn left – sadly it probably will pass. The city planners are idiots. They approved TWO large Alexan apartment complexes on Yale even though the traffic already had an F rating. Terry Fisher’s unfinished monster in the 800 block of Yale has been rotting for the better part of a year. It’s completely out of place, yet here again, he go approval and now we are all having to suffer for it. The neighbors have begged for the city to put a right turn lane at Yale and frontage road but that has fallen on deaf ears. During most parts of the day you can guarantee that you will sit through 3-4 light cycles just to be able to turn right to access I-10. The west heights feels your pain but there is no rational thought in this city. Just look at White Oak Music Hall. Developers pay for campaigns, elected officials cater to developers. Simple as that.
Yeah, you can’t allow for left turns there. What if they build an off ramp clover leaf? Ha!
@stuck in traffic
While I hate traffic, I have nothing against new projects that increase density and in turn add to nearby congestion. It’s the natural progression of a growing city and population and leads to local moments of walkability in an otherwise car-centric city. The stretch of Yale with the Alexan, BLT, Heights Mercantile, etc. will soon connect all the way up to Eight Row Flint, Heights Central Station, etc. and will become a great area for the neighborhood.
My comment about this project was more pragmatic- why would a developer set themselves up for failure by requiring 3 separate variances in order for their site plan to work, particularly in a neighborhood that will likely come out in full force to oppose it.
I also assumed that this part of Studewood was NOT a Major Thoroughfare- turns out it is. So, my question to them now is, why are you asking for a setback variance? If you’re providing groundfloor retail as shown in the section and siteplan, you should qualify for a 5′ setback through Section 52-154.
That removes the 1st variance, and the additional site area may allow you shift the building eastward and fit a roundabout on Threlkeld, which would get rid of the 2nd variance. And do you actually need the 3rd variance, or do you just to replat the property to include the new adjacent lots you plan to build on?
If you don’t actually need any variances, then the whole thing is entirely as-of-right, and the neighborhood can’t say anything.
“floodable 2-story parking garage plinth”
Great. Good to know you’re investing in a building that doubles and looks like a barge.
What retail in their right mind would rent there? Yale is already dead to me due to traffic caused by overbuilding, now Studewood and lord knows what will happen with that new Shepherd/Durham consortium……how are we supposed to get out of or into the Heights in the future? Flying cars?