The Condo Project, and the role of the neighborhood group "NFSDTP"
In City Hall at the end of February the Board of Adjustment met to decide on permit requests for extra height and density for the proposed Chancellory Condominiums at the corner of Watts and Lamond Streets. The permits were not approved, largely due to the testimony of a group of neighbors who formed a group called NFSDTP (Neighbors for Sustainable Development in Trinity Park). The group presented independent drawings and evidence by experts which moved the Board of Adjustment to not approve the permits.
On the listserv, NFSDTP has been referred to as the *south-end neighbor group.* It is however, a group of Trinity Park neighbors, without any geographical limitations who support the legal and appropriate development of the former McPherson Hospital sites. These neighbors, most of whom are also members of the Trinity Park Neighborhood Association, stepped forward to hire legal representation at a time when no other legal counsel was representing the neighborhood, forming the non-profit NFSDTP in the process. The group sought reliable legal information to ensure that the rights of nearby neighbors in Trinity Park were protected, that city procedures were being followed, and that neighbor concerns were given a voice in the process. At the hearing, as a result of the compelling evidence presented to the Board of Adjustement by NFSDTP and the TPNA Board regarding negative impacts to the surrounding area, the condo developers pled to the Board of Adjustment (BoA) for a chance to meet with the neighbors to make changes to the project before a final vote. Several BoA members expressed a reluctance to consider the request for further negotiations, but the BoA finally decided to delay the vote until a future hearing. They instructed the developer to include both TPNA and NFSDTP in any negotiations and expects both groups to be satisfied with the changes to the project before it comes before the BoA again to take a final vote. The chairman made it clear that height and density were the prime issues that needed to be addressed and changed. The revised plan will, of course, also have to comply with all other provisions of the Unified Development Ordinance. If for whatever reason, the condo developers are not willing to conduct serious and constructive negotiations to come to agreement, it is likely that the BoA will deny the special use permit requests. In this case, the NFSDTP is confident that the height and density limits of the existing Ordinance combined with market forces will lead to sustainable development on these sites.
John Swansey, Board Member, NFSDTP nfsdtp@gmail.com
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Testimony presented by Linda Wilson - Trinity Park Resident
My name is Linda Wilson. I live at 302 Watts Street, in the original Watts Hospital. We are one block north of the proposed development. I served as a member of the Trinity Park Neighborhood Board from March 2000 through April 2006. Prior to that, I was a member of the Board from 1976 through 1982, serving as President 1981. I am a lifetime member of the Trinity Park Neighborhood Association. I have spent my entire adult life in Durham, and have worked for 40 years on neighborhood and school issues, serving on the Merger Issues Task Force and as President Elect of the InterNeighborhood Council. In 1992 I founded a non-profit business to address issues of community and education in Durham’s low-income neighborhoods. My business, though small, achieved a national reputation, and in 1995 I was named Volunteer of the Year for my work.
I want to be sure that you have a clear picture of the ways in which the neighborhood has worked with Park City Developers and their partners since the announcement of the hotel and condo projects in October of 2004. Either as a Board member or as a private citizen, I have attended every Association meeting at which the developers made a presentation except one. I have also attended every presentation to which the developers have invited me except the recent Christmas party. I did not attend the charette held by the developers in March 2006, but I gathered information and did a short article on it for the Trinity Park Newsletter. I have also been a part of several ad hoc committees formed over the last two years to address issues that have arisen around this project and the hotel project. I have met one-on-one with one of the developers, and participated in a focus group sponsored by them.
I believe that this massive exposure to the project qualifies me to tell you a bit about the process that has brought us to today. I have copies of this statement for each of you, and attached to those copies is a chronological list of presentations, meetings and encounters that will support what I am about to tell you.
To be sure, the developers have come to the TPNA quite often to talk about their project and to ask for the support of the Association. Without exception, a significant number of neighborhood residents and TPNA Board members have expressed concern about this project each time it has been discussed. In the early months, the concern was about the impact of the condo project combined with the impact of the hotel project. Aspects of the size and quality were a part of the Board’s earliest concerns. When the developer asked for neighborhood support for a rezoning of the hotel property, an ad hoc committee formed to examine the issue carefully. The developers were asked repeatedly to provide a development plan. They steadfastly refused, often reminding us that the then current zoning would allow for any number of undesirable uses. Eventually, wanting to take as positive a posture toward the developers and the project as possible, the Board agreed to support the rezoning, but with grave reservations.
This kind of refusal to provide specifics while beseeching the neighborhood for its support has become an all-too-familiar pattern. Until approximately six months ago, the developers continued to show the neighborhood the same computer-generated drawings they had shown at the first meetings, and they have continued to tell us that these are just general ideas – not specifics. Even now, at this incredibly late date, the developers refuse to commit to the elements pictured in the drawings that they present to us.
But the process moved forward after the neighborhood supported the rezoning and the developers, who had told us how excited they were about building a high-quality boutique hotel with a maximum of 70 rooms, sold the property. First they sold a partnership to a hotel owner from Virginia. Next he sold a portion of the ownership to a developer of extended stay hotels, and eventually the original developers sold their interests to the extended stay folks, telling us how sorry they were that we would not be getting that lovely boutique hotel, and that they had just not been able to control the process. So now we are staring down the barrel of a 101-room extended stay hotel with a parking deck! I realize that the hotel project is not directly at issue here today, but I believe that it is important as an indicator of the reliability of the developers.
Without exception, at every one of the presentations or meetings that I listed earlier, the developers were asked to provide details about the proposed hotel and/or condo buildings; size, configuration, footprint, materials, style. I know this for a certainty, because on a number of occasions, I was the one who asked! And without exception, in every one of those presentations and meetings, the developers refused to tell us anything other than what is required in the site plan.
This pattern has repeated itself so often that at the January 2007 TPNA Board meeting, when the most recent set of revisions began to cause extreme opposition to the condo project, I proposed that the developers find a way to “bond’ themselves to a series of committed elements. The developers agreed readily, and the TPNA empanelled a team to work with them. That team has spent some six weeks trying to come to an agreement, only to have the developer shut down negotiations last week.
So it incorrect to say that the developers have worked with the neighborhood; rather, they have asked repeatedly for neighborhood support, but have given the neighborhood virtually nothing in the way of bankable assurances as to what they plan to do.
I ask you today to carefully consider the chronology that I have given you, and keep in mind that whatever else anyone says, the Trinity Park Neighborhood Association has made every effort to work with these developers for more than two years. It has never turned its back on them, it has never threatened them, and it has never, not once, shut down negotiations with them. Of course the Association will never be able to deliver the vote of every person in the neighborhood…. this is still a democracy. But I am convinced that the vast majority of residents in Trinity Park want an elegant, beautiful condo project on the corner of Watts and Lamond Streets, and that the developers can build that project if they will interact and work with the neighborhood rather than delivering ultimata.
I want to be sure that you have a clear picture of the ways in which the neighborhood has worked with Park City Developers and their partners since the announcement of the hotel and condo projects in October of 2004. Either as a Board member or as a private citizen, I have attended every Association meeting at which the developers made a presentation except one. I have also attended every presentation to which the developers have invited me except the recent Christmas party. I did not attend the charette held by the developers in March 2006, but I gathered information and did a short article on it for the Trinity Park Newsletter. I have also been a part of several ad hoc committees formed over the last two years to address issues that have arisen around this project and the hotel project. I have met one-on-one with one of the developers, and participated in a focus group sponsored by them.
I believe that this massive exposure to the project qualifies me to tell you a bit about the process that has brought us to today. I have copies of this statement for each of you, and attached to those copies is a chronological list of presentations, meetings and encounters that will support what I am about to tell you.
To be sure, the developers have come to the TPNA quite often to talk about their project and to ask for the support of the Association. Without exception, a significant number of neighborhood residents and TPNA Board members have expressed concern about this project each time it has been discussed. In the early months, the concern was about the impact of the condo project combined with the impact of the hotel project. Aspects of the size and quality were a part of the Board’s earliest concerns. When the developer asked for neighborhood support for a rezoning of the hotel property, an ad hoc committee formed to examine the issue carefully. The developers were asked repeatedly to provide a development plan. They steadfastly refused, often reminding us that the then current zoning would allow for any number of undesirable uses. Eventually, wanting to take as positive a posture toward the developers and the project as possible, the Board agreed to support the rezoning, but with grave reservations.
This kind of refusal to provide specifics while beseeching the neighborhood for its support has become an all-too-familiar pattern. Until approximately six months ago, the developers continued to show the neighborhood the same computer-generated drawings they had shown at the first meetings, and they have continued to tell us that these are just general ideas – not specifics. Even now, at this incredibly late date, the developers refuse to commit to the elements pictured in the drawings that they present to us.
But the process moved forward after the neighborhood supported the rezoning and the developers, who had told us how excited they were about building a high-quality boutique hotel with a maximum of 70 rooms, sold the property. First they sold a partnership to a hotel owner from Virginia. Next he sold a portion of the ownership to a developer of extended stay hotels, and eventually the original developers sold their interests to the extended stay folks, telling us how sorry they were that we would not be getting that lovely boutique hotel, and that they had just not been able to control the process. So now we are staring down the barrel of a 101-room extended stay hotel with a parking deck! I realize that the hotel project is not directly at issue here today, but I believe that it is important as an indicator of the reliability of the developers.
Without exception, at every one of the presentations or meetings that I listed earlier, the developers were asked to provide details about the proposed hotel and/or condo buildings; size, configuration, footprint, materials, style. I know this for a certainty, because on a number of occasions, I was the one who asked! And without exception, in every one of those presentations and meetings, the developers refused to tell us anything other than what is required in the site plan.
This pattern has repeated itself so often that at the January 2007 TPNA Board meeting, when the most recent set of revisions began to cause extreme opposition to the condo project, I proposed that the developers find a way to “bond’ themselves to a series of committed elements. The developers agreed readily, and the TPNA empanelled a team to work with them. That team has spent some six weeks trying to come to an agreement, only to have the developer shut down negotiations last week.
So it incorrect to say that the developers have worked with the neighborhood; rather, they have asked repeatedly for neighborhood support, but have given the neighborhood virtually nothing in the way of bankable assurances as to what they plan to do.
I ask you today to carefully consider the chronology that I have given you, and keep in mind that whatever else anyone says, the Trinity Park Neighborhood Association has made every effort to work with these developers for more than two years. It has never turned its back on them, it has never threatened them, and it has never, not once, shut down negotiations with them. Of course the Association will never be able to deliver the vote of every person in the neighborhood…. this is still a democracy. But I am convinced that the vast majority of residents in Trinity Park want an elegant, beautiful condo project on the corner of Watts and Lamond Streets, and that the developers can build that project if they will interact and work with the neighborhood rather than delivering ultimata.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Timeline created by Linda Wilson - presented at BoA Hearing
The following chronology is taken from the Trinity Park Board Minutes as posted on the Trinity Park website and from my personal notes. Quotation marks represent quotes taken directly from the minutes.
October, 2004: Park City, represented by Steve Ortmann, announces that it has purchased an option on the North Carolina Eye and Ear property spanning the intersection of Watts, Morgan and Main Streets. No specific plans are available at this time, but Ortmann promises to report monthly to the Board.
November, 2004: John Dagenhart reviews with the Board a wish list for the property to be developed by Park City. The list includes: preservation of the historic house, preservation of the main hospital building, buffers between developed areas and existing homes and businesses, rooflines in keeping with the roof of the main hospital building, no big box or drive-through stores, no student housing, no developments similar to Partners’ Place. No development plan or committed elements at this meeting.
December, 2004: Lou Goetz mentions the possibility of a boutique hotel on the hospital site. He says that Alliance Architecture is involved with the project, that they are still considering options, that townhouses with below-grade parking are also a possibility. He says that saving the house and original hospital building are problematic. Goetz asks for the support of the neighborhood in the string of city and county approvals that he will need. TPNA Board reiterates its wish list. Goetz cannot give any specific plans.
January, 2005: No news from Park City
February, 2005: No news from Park City
March, 2005: Lou Goetz meets with Board, says Park City is considering building townhouses and condos on the property. But maybe will build a boutique hotel and use the house as a spa. Moving the house is “likely to happen.” Might build 90 units. No committed plans or drawings.
April, 2005: General membership meeting is scheduled for May 4 so that Park City can present its project for comment though all drawings and elevations are described by Park City as not final.
May, 2005: General membership meeting. Park City announces exploring a partnership with Peter Greenberg of The Morrison House in Alexandria, Virginia to build a boutique hotel on the hospital side of the site. A fallback plan would be to build condos. Park City says it will consider neighborhood’s traffic concerns, will work with neighbors and will keep neighborhood informed “at every step.” Neighborhood agrees to support Park City’s request for rezoning of hospital side: this would put the hospital side in the DDO3 and rezone it to residential, thus allowing mixed use development. TPNA Board forms ad hoc committee to stay abreast of developments and report to the Board. No firm plans are available, but Park City promises a high-quality project.
June, 2005: No minutes available.
July, 2005: TPNA members appear with Park City before Planning Committee to support rezoning. Park City has preliminary drawings, but no committed elements.
August, 2005: “Still no site plan.” Board acknowledges that the next step in the process is approval of the rezoning by City Council.
September, 2005: Board plans for City Council hearing on rezoning. Park City says that plans for boutique hotel are moving forward. No committed elements.
October, 2005: Park City now distinguishes Phase I as hospital side of site, Phase II as parking lot side. Says that Peter Greenberg has committed to the hotel project. Park City is seeking a builder for Phase II. Concept drawings are available, but Park City says they are not final – just preliminary ideas.
November, 2005: No report recorded.
December, 2005: No report recorded.
January, 2006: Historic Preservation Society of Durham reports that the moving of the house will cost $185,000, “considerably lower than that {price} quoted by Lou Goetz.” TPNA Board is informally supportive of boutique hotel concept, though there are still no final plans or drawings.
February, 2006: Park City reports that it is trying to get a loan to move the tan house. This is reported as “quite a surprise” to members of the TPNA Board. No firm plans available, though concept drawings are presented at every opportunity.
March, 2006: No minutes available. Charette to be held on March 11. TPNA Board members are invited.
April, 2006: Park City reports that a loan has been secured and the tan house will be moved. No timeline or plans available.
May, 2006: No activity reported.
June, 2006: TPNA Board observes that Boutique hotel site plan to be approved by City Council on June 19. No report from Park City.
July, 2006: Park City reports that it has purchased hospital property from McPherson partners. Tan house is being moved. Condo project, as presented at charette, will be 7 stories with 42 units, and will require Special Use Permit for height and density. No drawings or plans noted in minutes. Park City reports that Mark Laport, of Concord Hospitality, has partnered with Park City and Greenberg to build hotel. Says that hotel will have “some extended stay rooms.” Agrees to bring all partners to September TPNA Board meeting.
August, 2006: No activity reported.
September, 2006: Concord presents plans at TPNA Board meeting. Says that there will be 100 “suites as opposed to rooms.” Hotel will be marketed for extended stay, and will have a 2-level parking structure that will extend to the sidewalk on Buchanan. Asks TPNA to ask city to close turn lane on Buchanan Blvd. New site plan shows changes to previously approved plan.
October, 2006: TPNA Land Use Committee asks for site plans.
November, 2006: TPNA Land Use Committee reports letter indicating Concord’s willingness to work with TPNA to incorporate some requested changes.
December, 2006: Park City reports that a name has been chosen for condo project: The Chancellory at Trinity Park. Sales office has been opened at Brightleaf, neighborhood is invited to Christmas party. Drawings are available, but Park City will not divulge details of design.
January, 2007: Park City presents 7-story scenario, introduces Landex Corporation as new partners. No committed elements on plans. Park City will not specify building materials, floor plans, etc.
February, 2006: Park City/Landex present plans, with model. Concepts and reliability of developers are challenged by TPNA members. Park City/Landex agrees to negotiate a bonding arrangement with TPNA that would ensure quality construction, design and materials. TPNA Board appoints committee of 3 to enter into negotiations.
October, 2004: Park City, represented by Steve Ortmann, announces that it has purchased an option on the North Carolina Eye and Ear property spanning the intersection of Watts, Morgan and Main Streets. No specific plans are available at this time, but Ortmann promises to report monthly to the Board.
November, 2004: John Dagenhart reviews with the Board a wish list for the property to be developed by Park City. The list includes: preservation of the historic house, preservation of the main hospital building, buffers between developed areas and existing homes and businesses, rooflines in keeping with the roof of the main hospital building, no big box or drive-through stores, no student housing, no developments similar to Partners’ Place. No development plan or committed elements at this meeting.
December, 2004: Lou Goetz mentions the possibility of a boutique hotel on the hospital site. He says that Alliance Architecture is involved with the project, that they are still considering options, that townhouses with below-grade parking are also a possibility. He says that saving the house and original hospital building are problematic. Goetz asks for the support of the neighborhood in the string of city and county approvals that he will need. TPNA Board reiterates its wish list. Goetz cannot give any specific plans.
January, 2005: No news from Park City
February, 2005: No news from Park City
March, 2005: Lou Goetz meets with Board, says Park City is considering building townhouses and condos on the property. But maybe will build a boutique hotel and use the house as a spa. Moving the house is “likely to happen.” Might build 90 units. No committed plans or drawings.
April, 2005: General membership meeting is scheduled for May 4 so that Park City can present its project for comment though all drawings and elevations are described by Park City as not final.
May, 2005: General membership meeting. Park City announces exploring a partnership with Peter Greenberg of The Morrison House in Alexandria, Virginia to build a boutique hotel on the hospital side of the site. A fallback plan would be to build condos. Park City says it will consider neighborhood’s traffic concerns, will work with neighbors and will keep neighborhood informed “at every step.” Neighborhood agrees to support Park City’s request for rezoning of hospital side: this would put the hospital side in the DDO3 and rezone it to residential, thus allowing mixed use development. TPNA Board forms ad hoc committee to stay abreast of developments and report to the Board. No firm plans are available, but Park City promises a high-quality project.
June, 2005: No minutes available.
July, 2005: TPNA members appear with Park City before Planning Committee to support rezoning. Park City has preliminary drawings, but no committed elements.
August, 2005: “Still no site plan.” Board acknowledges that the next step in the process is approval of the rezoning by City Council.
September, 2005: Board plans for City Council hearing on rezoning. Park City says that plans for boutique hotel are moving forward. No committed elements.
October, 2005: Park City now distinguishes Phase I as hospital side of site, Phase II as parking lot side. Says that Peter Greenberg has committed to the hotel project. Park City is seeking a builder for Phase II. Concept drawings are available, but Park City says they are not final – just preliminary ideas.
November, 2005: No report recorded.
December, 2005: No report recorded.
January, 2006: Historic Preservation Society of Durham reports that the moving of the house will cost $185,000, “considerably lower than that {price} quoted by Lou Goetz.” TPNA Board is informally supportive of boutique hotel concept, though there are still no final plans or drawings.
February, 2006: Park City reports that it is trying to get a loan to move the tan house. This is reported as “quite a surprise” to members of the TPNA Board. No firm plans available, though concept drawings are presented at every opportunity.
March, 2006: No minutes available. Charette to be held on March 11. TPNA Board members are invited.
April, 2006: Park City reports that a loan has been secured and the tan house will be moved. No timeline or plans available.
May, 2006: No activity reported.
June, 2006: TPNA Board observes that Boutique hotel site plan to be approved by City Council on June 19. No report from Park City.
July, 2006: Park City reports that it has purchased hospital property from McPherson partners. Tan house is being moved. Condo project, as presented at charette, will be 7 stories with 42 units, and will require Special Use Permit for height and density. No drawings or plans noted in minutes. Park City reports that Mark Laport, of Concord Hospitality, has partnered with Park City and Greenberg to build hotel. Says that hotel will have “some extended stay rooms.” Agrees to bring all partners to September TPNA Board meeting.
August, 2006: No activity reported.
September, 2006: Concord presents plans at TPNA Board meeting. Says that there will be 100 “suites as opposed to rooms.” Hotel will be marketed for extended stay, and will have a 2-level parking structure that will extend to the sidewalk on Buchanan. Asks TPNA to ask city to close turn lane on Buchanan Blvd. New site plan shows changes to previously approved plan.
October, 2006: TPNA Land Use Committee asks for site plans.
November, 2006: TPNA Land Use Committee reports letter indicating Concord’s willingness to work with TPNA to incorporate some requested changes.
December, 2006: Park City reports that a name has been chosen for condo project: The Chancellory at Trinity Park. Sales office has been opened at Brightleaf, neighborhood is invited to Christmas party. Drawings are available, but Park City will not divulge details of design.
January, 2007: Park City presents 7-story scenario, introduces Landex Corporation as new partners. No committed elements on plans. Park City will not specify building materials, floor plans, etc.
February, 2006: Park City/Landex present plans, with model. Concepts and reliability of developers are challenged by TPNA members. Park City/Landex agrees to negotiate a bonding arrangement with TPNA that would ensure quality construction, design and materials. TPNA Board appoints committee of 3 to enter into negotiations.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Saturday, March 10, 2007
Nathan Isley Testimony at BoA
Testimony Presented by Nathan Isley
Introductory remarks:
Nathan Isley introduced himself, thanked the Board of Adjustment for hearing the testimonies, and asked them to deny the special use permits for 48 units and for the additional height. He also provided the following information: He lives at 115 Watts Street, diagonally across the street from the project. He has a Bachelor or Environmental Design degree, a Batchelor of Architecture degree, and a Master of Architecture in Urban Design degree. He is a licensed architect and a principal of the Durham firm Isley Hawkins Architecture. He is a native of Durham and has lived at 115 Watts Street for 6 years. He has designed renovations to two houses within the shadow of this complex that have received preservation awards.
An outline of Nathan Isley’s testimony:
Many neighbors in the immediate vicinity of the project are against the Special Use Permits because they adversely affect them.
But first, explanations of a couple of items advocates of the special use permits have brought up:
1. A counter explanation of the so-called eleventh hour objection. We only found out the truth about density at the eleventh hour. Hearts and minds of Trinity Park Residents were changed due to the discovery of incorrect information about density. If the developer had said from the start that they were entitled to 12 units but were seeking 38 or 48, they would have been told right away that would be unacceptable.
2. A counter explanation of the so-called community design. There was no design charrette, they simple presented three options. Nobody in the neighborhood helped set the goals of height, density or uses, and nobody helped draw or design anything. They did tell us that they could build 38 units by right, so we departed this meeting thinking the project was too big – but that there was nothing we could do about it. Had it been properly stated that 12 units was the maximum allowed by ordinance, things would have been very different from the start.
3. A counter explanation of the suggestion that in cases like this where one might have difficulty deciding what the right number of units and the right height is, one should see that the proper process was followed, and thus grant the developer what he is asking for. It was explained that the developer’s process was actually a very poor one. Incorrect information, lack of community input, lack of one-on-one communications with closest neighbors [can’t rely on list serve or TPNA board minutes], lack of cooperation by the developer, lack of disclosure about the approvals/recommendations process [apparently two DDRT meetings and one city council meeting occurred without the neighborhood’s knowledge], lack of disclosure of method of density calculations/lack of distribution of site plan submittal sets. Lack of specifics of the plan though they were requested many times to provide specifics. If one wants to use the process to gauge whether the special use permits should be granted, then the answer is clearly “no”. If one needs direction to determine how much is too much – then just look to the ordinance for the answer: 12 units and three stories.
The houses adjacent to this development in this National Historic District are exactly what the ordinances are meant to protect. A project that complies with the ordinance (12 units, three stories maximum) would meet my expectations of an appropriate development. 12 units would already reflect an increase in density over the three houses one would normally find on that size parcel. There would be a number of negative aspects associated with a 48 unit project that was up to 7 stories tall. It would negatively impact the character of the historic district and it would devalue my property. Traffic would likely increase a sizable amount, especially during the times when we are home at nights and on the weekends. There are usually only relatively few parking spaces available on Lamond and Watts streets. A 48 unit project with dedicated parking at less than 2 cars per unit would surely generate the need for some offsite parking. And if just three units out of the 48 hosted a dinner party or similar function at the same time, there might be, say, 15 cars or more trolling the neighborhood streets in search of parking spaces.
Winter sunlight is a valuable commodity. The proposed project will cast shadows on our property in the morning and in the evening when we are all home. Shadows would be significantly more than what we would receive by having normal-sized homes on each side of us. You will see more on shadow studies later, but my house will be in shadow in the morning until after the time when we have left for the day and will again fall in shadow before I return home from work during a large portion of the winter.
My house was built in 1917. When we received an award for its restoration a few years ago, it was mentioned in the presentation that this house is an important piece to the gateway of the neighborhood. I agree. My wife and I found buyers for two vacant and boarded up houses on the block across the street from us (one on Watts and one on Lamond). We have taken a personal stake in preserving the integrity of the Trinity National Historic District, and that hard work can be erased by this one project. It is out of scale with the adjoining properties, and the massing is far from sympathetic. The supersized project does not respect the rules of the historic district and is completely out of character with the historic properties.
I want to briefly talk about the requirements of the DDO-3 overlay zone for this property.
Density
4.8.1 Purpose of the DDO
C. DDO-3 is the portion of the DDO adjacent to the surrounding neighborhoods where the scale of downtown development should taper to be compatible with the residential context.
A density of 48 units on 0.8 acre (that would normally support 3 units) is a painful spike in the density of the area. No amount of design skill can mitigate the problem of trying to stuff 48 pounds of potatoes into a 12 pound bag. Even a nationally known design firm cannot design their way out of this problem that the developer has created with their unrealistic desires for height and density.
Height
Scale, proportion and harmony in design are significant because these things are specifically mentioned in the Design Manual and the DDO-3. Our neighborhood for many blocks around this area consists of two storey houses, one story commercial buildings and two story commercial buildings. The 4 - 7 story elements are just far too tall and that portion of the project doesn’t even come close to fitting.
I prepared a scale drawing of the project using drawings from the developer’s site plan submittal and photos of the surroundings that were scaled to be the right size. I find the height and mass are excessive and a real shock to the neighborhood. It blocks out the sun, it blocks views, it pumps more cars onto the street and produces more cars in need of resident parking spaces, guest parking spaces and delivery parking spaces.
Look at the size of nearby houses to get a feel of the scale of this project…. A transition or a tapering to a commercial area would be 2 stories, not this.
4.8.5 Height Requirements
B.2.b [It is required that] The proposed development adequately protects surrounding properties from any adverse effects of the proposal including adverse impacts of the height of the structure considering in particular the height of structures in the immediate vicinity.
The historic McPherson hospital is the tallest building in the area at three stories above grade. It is a special historic property in a special historic district. It is the context, referenced in the ordinances, that must be respected.
Historic District
Others will also speak about the preservation aspects, but I will say I agree that this National Historic District must be preserved. And the edges, the fringes of a neighborhood, are most at-risk and in need of protection. DDO-3 states:
4.8.6 Residential Density Requirements
A. Residential Density for DDO-3 shall be between 8 and 16 units per acre. [We could be talking about 8 units per acre, not 16.] Which would yield 6 to 12 total units.
C. In some situations these densities may not be appropriate due to environmental conditions (such as site constraints) or existing development patterns (such as proximity to an historic district or established neighborhood). [We are both of those] In such cases, the approving authority may require a reduction in the number of units per acre.
Though we could be talking about a reduction of units per acre, I suggest 12 units per acre (the high end) as being appropriate. This provision for the protection of historic neighborhoods was written exactly for our situation – where the DDO abuts an historic district.
The Design Rules in the Neighborhood
The project is indeed supersized, and departs from the scale and massing of the surrounding context to do so. It seeks to reap things – a charming neighborhood, great views, trees, walkability (these things are touted in their advertisements)… it seeks to reap those things at the expense of the rest of us.
Our views are taken.
Our sun is taken.
Our canopy of huge oak trees is taken.
We are the charming surroundings for this hulk, but it is not a charming surrounding for us.
I think condominiums or townhouses are a great use of the site. And I believe it is appropriate to transition to something a little denser as the neighborhood changes to commercial uses. All the good qualities associated with this project are also achievable at the 12 unit/s story size.
I think the developer is mistaken in thinking his project in this historic neighborhood can ignore:
the pattern and scale of our neighborhood,
and the historic nature of our neighborhood.
They propose to quadruple the amount of units they are allowed by right – 400%. Where development creates an abrupt split or shear between two scales of development, history shows that it is likely that nearby homes lose their value, the environment is degraded due to shadows, traffic, parking woes and noise. Properties turn over to other uses. Properties are town down because the land is more valuable as the footprint of another big slab project. The historic district – the very thing that makes the place special – is gradually destroyed. We have already had teardowns in Trinity Park.
A 400% increase in density and up to seven stories in this context is a substantial shear that will erode the neighborhood.
I certainly feel the burden of proof is on the proposer of this compound to demonstrate that this project at 48 units and up to 7 stories is not injurious to nearby properties. I believe we have demonstrated that it does in fact harm the adjacent neighbors, all of which are against the special use permits. I want to emphasize that we are all for this development at the right size – as established by the ordinance. And no matter how many people are in favor of the larger version, it does not matter if it harms the property owners in the immediate vicinity. We look to the ordinance to protect us and we look to each of you to protect us by not allowing this supersized project to happen. It just doesn’t come anywhere close to fitting in. However badly any other group or any other individuals want more housing, it cannot be at the expense of us who live in the shadow of this project.
It is not fair for the developer to propose a project that is injurious to us in order to maximize the number of dwelling units here regardless of motive.
Thank You.
Introductory remarks:
Nathan Isley introduced himself, thanked the Board of Adjustment for hearing the testimonies, and asked them to deny the special use permits for 48 units and for the additional height. He also provided the following information: He lives at 115 Watts Street, diagonally across the street from the project. He has a Bachelor or Environmental Design degree, a Batchelor of Architecture degree, and a Master of Architecture in Urban Design degree. He is a licensed architect and a principal of the Durham firm Isley Hawkins Architecture. He is a native of Durham and has lived at 115 Watts Street for 6 years. He has designed renovations to two houses within the shadow of this complex that have received preservation awards.
An outline of Nathan Isley’s testimony:
Many neighbors in the immediate vicinity of the project are against the Special Use Permits because they adversely affect them.
But first, explanations of a couple of items advocates of the special use permits have brought up:
1. A counter explanation of the so-called eleventh hour objection. We only found out the truth about density at the eleventh hour. Hearts and minds of Trinity Park Residents were changed due to the discovery of incorrect information about density. If the developer had said from the start that they were entitled to 12 units but were seeking 38 or 48, they would have been told right away that would be unacceptable.
2. A counter explanation of the so-called community design. There was no design charrette, they simple presented three options. Nobody in the neighborhood helped set the goals of height, density or uses, and nobody helped draw or design anything. They did tell us that they could build 38 units by right, so we departed this meeting thinking the project was too big – but that there was nothing we could do about it. Had it been properly stated that 12 units was the maximum allowed by ordinance, things would have been very different from the start.
3. A counter explanation of the suggestion that in cases like this where one might have difficulty deciding what the right number of units and the right height is, one should see that the proper process was followed, and thus grant the developer what he is asking for. It was explained that the developer’s process was actually a very poor one. Incorrect information, lack of community input, lack of one-on-one communications with closest neighbors [can’t rely on list serve or TPNA board minutes], lack of cooperation by the developer, lack of disclosure about the approvals/recommendations process [apparently two DDRT meetings and one city council meeting occurred without the neighborhood’s knowledge], lack of disclosure of method of density calculations/lack of distribution of site plan submittal sets. Lack of specifics of the plan though they were requested many times to provide specifics. If one wants to use the process to gauge whether the special use permits should be granted, then the answer is clearly “no”. If one needs direction to determine how much is too much – then just look to the ordinance for the answer: 12 units and three stories.
The houses adjacent to this development in this National Historic District are exactly what the ordinances are meant to protect. A project that complies with the ordinance (12 units, three stories maximum) would meet my expectations of an appropriate development. 12 units would already reflect an increase in density over the three houses one would normally find on that size parcel. There would be a number of negative aspects associated with a 48 unit project that was up to 7 stories tall. It would negatively impact the character of the historic district and it would devalue my property. Traffic would likely increase a sizable amount, especially during the times when we are home at nights and on the weekends. There are usually only relatively few parking spaces available on Lamond and Watts streets. A 48 unit project with dedicated parking at less than 2 cars per unit would surely generate the need for some offsite parking. And if just three units out of the 48 hosted a dinner party or similar function at the same time, there might be, say, 15 cars or more trolling the neighborhood streets in search of parking spaces.
Winter sunlight is a valuable commodity. The proposed project will cast shadows on our property in the morning and in the evening when we are all home. Shadows would be significantly more than what we would receive by having normal-sized homes on each side of us. You will see more on shadow studies later, but my house will be in shadow in the morning until after the time when we have left for the day and will again fall in shadow before I return home from work during a large portion of the winter.
My house was built in 1917. When we received an award for its restoration a few years ago, it was mentioned in the presentation that this house is an important piece to the gateway of the neighborhood. I agree. My wife and I found buyers for two vacant and boarded up houses on the block across the street from us (one on Watts and one on Lamond). We have taken a personal stake in preserving the integrity of the Trinity National Historic District, and that hard work can be erased by this one project. It is out of scale with the adjoining properties, and the massing is far from sympathetic. The supersized project does not respect the rules of the historic district and is completely out of character with the historic properties.
I want to briefly talk about the requirements of the DDO-3 overlay zone for this property.
Density
4.8.1 Purpose of the DDO
C. DDO-3 is the portion of the DDO adjacent to the surrounding neighborhoods where the scale of downtown development should taper to be compatible with the residential context.
A density of 48 units on 0.8 acre (that would normally support 3 units) is a painful spike in the density of the area. No amount of design skill can mitigate the problem of trying to stuff 48 pounds of potatoes into a 12 pound bag. Even a nationally known design firm cannot design their way out of this problem that the developer has created with their unrealistic desires for height and density.
Height
Scale, proportion and harmony in design are significant because these things are specifically mentioned in the Design Manual and the DDO-3. Our neighborhood for many blocks around this area consists of two storey houses, one story commercial buildings and two story commercial buildings. The 4 - 7 story elements are just far too tall and that portion of the project doesn’t even come close to fitting.
I prepared a scale drawing of the project using drawings from the developer’s site plan submittal and photos of the surroundings that were scaled to be the right size. I find the height and mass are excessive and a real shock to the neighborhood. It blocks out the sun, it blocks views, it pumps more cars onto the street and produces more cars in need of resident parking spaces, guest parking spaces and delivery parking spaces.
Look at the size of nearby houses to get a feel of the scale of this project…. A transition or a tapering to a commercial area would be 2 stories, not this.
4.8.5 Height Requirements
B.2.b [It is required that] The proposed development adequately protects surrounding properties from any adverse effects of the proposal including adverse impacts of the height of the structure considering in particular the height of structures in the immediate vicinity.
The historic McPherson hospital is the tallest building in the area at three stories above grade. It is a special historic property in a special historic district. It is the context, referenced in the ordinances, that must be respected.
Historic District
Others will also speak about the preservation aspects, but I will say I agree that this National Historic District must be preserved. And the edges, the fringes of a neighborhood, are most at-risk and in need of protection. DDO-3 states:
4.8.6 Residential Density Requirements
A. Residential Density for DDO-3 shall be between 8 and 16 units per acre. [We could be talking about 8 units per acre, not 16.] Which would yield 6 to 12 total units.
C. In some situations these densities may not be appropriate due to environmental conditions (such as site constraints) or existing development patterns (such as proximity to an historic district or established neighborhood). [We are both of those] In such cases, the approving authority may require a reduction in the number of units per acre.
Though we could be talking about a reduction of units per acre, I suggest 12 units per acre (the high end) as being appropriate. This provision for the protection of historic neighborhoods was written exactly for our situation – where the DDO abuts an historic district.
The Design Rules in the Neighborhood
The project is indeed supersized, and departs from the scale and massing of the surrounding context to do so. It seeks to reap things – a charming neighborhood, great views, trees, walkability (these things are touted in their advertisements)… it seeks to reap those things at the expense of the rest of us.
Our views are taken.
Our sun is taken.
Our canopy of huge oak trees is taken.
We are the charming surroundings for this hulk, but it is not a charming surrounding for us.
I think condominiums or townhouses are a great use of the site. And I believe it is appropriate to transition to something a little denser as the neighborhood changes to commercial uses. All the good qualities associated with this project are also achievable at the 12 unit/s story size.
I think the developer is mistaken in thinking his project in this historic neighborhood can ignore:
the pattern and scale of our neighborhood,
and the historic nature of our neighborhood.
They propose to quadruple the amount of units they are allowed by right – 400%. Where development creates an abrupt split or shear between two scales of development, history shows that it is likely that nearby homes lose their value, the environment is degraded due to shadows, traffic, parking woes and noise. Properties turn over to other uses. Properties are town down because the land is more valuable as the footprint of another big slab project. The historic district – the very thing that makes the place special – is gradually destroyed. We have already had teardowns in Trinity Park.
A 400% increase in density and up to seven stories in this context is a substantial shear that will erode the neighborhood.
I certainly feel the burden of proof is on the proposer of this compound to demonstrate that this project at 48 units and up to 7 stories is not injurious to nearby properties. I believe we have demonstrated that it does in fact harm the adjacent neighbors, all of which are against the special use permits. I want to emphasize that we are all for this development at the right size – as established by the ordinance. And no matter how many people are in favor of the larger version, it does not matter if it harms the property owners in the immediate vicinity. We look to the ordinance to protect us and we look to each of you to protect us by not allowing this supersized project to happen. It just doesn’t come anywhere close to fitting in. However badly any other group or any other individuals want more housing, it cannot be at the expense of us who live in the shadow of this project.
It is not fair for the developer to propose a project that is injurious to us in order to maximize the number of dwelling units here regardless of motive.
Thank You.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)