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.
