Zoning Application Denied For Controversial Whitney-Trumbull Project

Seems like City Plan staff picked up on two blatant zoning violations upon which to reject this application. But they missed the main one, specifically, the site is only half the size required for a PDU. Developers run roughshod over our city ignoring zoning and requesting unjustified variances and special exceptions. City Plan must stop approvals of such.

Should have named the company "Attitude Development". Mr Hutter needs to work on his bedside manner. And to drop the demolition plans for historic property on Trumbull.

I'm glad this was denied. Ultimately, the new building should be much larger than what Aptitute proposed here, given the urgent need for housing in New Haven. A building with 1,000 units would be much more appropriate than one with a couple of hundred. Perhaps this should be done through rezoning of downtown and the area around it, rather than the PDU process. Protecting historical buildings is also important, but it's easily possible to save those while adding high-density housing on top of and around them.

@anonymous,
I agree with your comment.

Technically that part of the city is actually still part of Downtown, which is in the very north end just before you start going into Prospect Hill and the East Rock neighborhood.

I honestly didn't really like the building that the developer had proposed either. I had thought that the design and architectural style was too original. Plus, you're also right about how more apartment buildings should be larger with having a lot more units in them. Especially if it's going to be in or around the Downtown area.

In my opinion, I feel that whatever housing development goes there should be at least 20 stories.

anonymous and quinnchionn -I disagree with your comments. This part of Whitney Ave at Trumbull should not have a high rise above the tallest building in that area.
Whitney closer to Grove through Church St makes more sense, as there are many taller buildings there.
I don’t want historic buildings torn down unless absolutely necessary, older buildings and varied architectural styles are part of the city’s appeal and our nation’s history as well as our city’s history.
I don’t want the character and streetscape of new builds in the area to be out of scale or to compromise the neighborhood’s feel. We are not Manhattan or Stamford, and we don’t want to be them with cavernous streets and looming walls of high rises blocking out the sky.
But there are areas of downtown and parts of the Dwight neighborhood closest to downtown and the route 34 connector, and Whalley, Goffe and Dixwell Ave closer to downtown and also near the train station and the hospitals buildings in the Hill or on State St near the train station and highway overpass for the Trumbull exit ramp where some taller buildings would not out of character and would not be out of scale with the surrounding buildings, and parking requirement needs are less due to being next to the train stations or major bus lines.
Church St South and the Coliseum and above the proposed parking garage project at Union Station would be ideal for high rise multi unit development with street level flexible space for retail, restaurants, activities, entertainment, services or residential use as the market needs dictate and fluctuate, and interior parking with air filtration/purification and move in/move out loading zones and delivery vehicle standing spaces and ride services pick up/drop off zones as well as secure bicycle storage. This would make Downtown grow without damaging our streetscape, and would very desirable to future tenants and buyers.

@Heather,

I totally understand where you're coming from... but in this case I actually think that it would be good to mix it up a bit.

The two-story retail/office building that faces Whitney is a complete eyesore in my opinion.. Literally to the point where I actually would rather see a high-rise residential tower take its place.

Plus, it's actually a pretty big space too. So, I can imagine half the space going towards a new building and the other half being something that would really help benefit that area altogether. Maybe some greenspace with walkways and benches that serves as a sitting area? ~ But that's just my take on it, and I appreciate and respect your side of your opinion as well, Heather.

To all who want big buildings, 1000s of units, architectural interest: our regulations don’t make it possible. The highest allowable FAR is 6 in the BD zone (plus a new untested 25 percent bonus for Inclusionary zoning with the GFA per unit reduced to 600SF). This gets us (by my calc) a maximum of 544 units per acre. But only in zones with an FAR of 6. The math is 43560x 6 x 1.25 /600. Not many acre parcels ripe for development.

In reality, with site constraints like yard requirements triggered by side building wall heights in some B and IL zones that force buildings to be “stepped back” from the property lines, the building footprint, height, and unit count will be much smaller and lower. Section 43(g). The ordinance appears to give then takes it away. If you don’t have side yards you can’t put windows in (that’s my understanding anyway; you need at least 5 feet to have windows under the building code or so I’ve been told).

In the RO zone, like here, the FAR is .5 for existing buildings that cover more than 25 percent of the lot area. Which yields about 45 units per acre. Lower Lot coverage can get the FAR up to 1.7 but that’s still less than 150 units per acre in a desirable location like this with tall buildings as the only options.

Contrary to prior comments, a PDU can be done on a half acre lot. See section 65(b)(1) for purely residential developments. But density can only be increased 33percent through the PDU process (and that’s not going to get us to high enough densities to make an impact).

So, I don’t know what the right answer is and it seems that the masses span the spectrum from wanting a small development to wanting a skyscraper.

These debates and wide spread of opinion is really illuminating and exciting. I wish someone could put the urgency in perspective for our policy makers and get some simple and logical changes in the pipeline.

quinnchionn

• I don’t disagree with you on the Whitney Ave “The two-story retail/office building that faces Whitney is an eyesore.”
  But a high rise doesn’t belong there, I would prefer a mid rise apartment building there with a setback for the top floors and with a street level market/deli/cafe for residents and nearby business school and Peabody and New Haven Museum visitors and employees and students. Also the Trumbull building should be preserved on the outside and the inside tastefully converted to really nice condos or apartments without ruining its style.