Pardon the baseball analogy, but with The Chancellory at Trinity Park project coming back up for review this week before Durham's Board of Adjustment, from this writer's vantage, the odds of the project getting the necessary variances look slimmer than at any point in the past two months.
To summarize how we got here: A local developer, Lou Goetz, first approached the Trinity Park Neighborhood Association about two years ago with his plans for a hotel/luxury condo project in the area, and actually won some significant support within the neighborhood, not least of which by moving an historic home that would be lost in the redevelopment to a new home up Watts Street.
First strike: After getting the neighborhood's support for the "boutique hotel," Goetz flips that part of the land to another developer, Concord Hospitality, and the luxe-hotel concept becomes an extended-stay hotel. Whoops. Not a way to build trust with the community. That said, based on the level of support for the project at a January TPNA meeting, the board agrees to support the project despite the density/height issues, subject to binding agreements from the developer on issues like construction materials, setbacks, and so forth.
Second strike: Goetz and his financial backer on the condo project, Baltimore-based Landex, were initially arguing for a variance to allow them to build 48 units on the condo portion of the property instead of the 38 they claimed they were allowed to build by right under existing zoning, and the TPNA began negotiating with them on these grounds. Unfortunately for the developers, it turns out their calculations of residential density were based on the combined hotel and condo parcel. With the McPherson Hospital parcel already sold to Concord Hospitality, however, the 0.8 acre parking lot supporting The Chancellory only is zoned under Durham's Unified Development Ordinance for between 12 and 19 units. Another whoops.
As of an email yesterday from the TPNA board, the board won't support the needed variances for height and density for The Chancellory. This represents a reversal to the board's initial support, and the developer raises good questions, including the fact that the plans -- including the proposed height/density -- were initially broached in March 2006 and fully revealed, per the TPNA meeting minutes, in June 2006. The developers have withdrawn from negotiation with TPNA, apparently over questions of the project's height, with the neighborhood now requesting a five-story limit for the project.
To be honest, I'd be a bit surprised if the Board of Adjustment would approve a
variance to allow the project go forward, with as much as three times
the density allowed by right, without the community's support. The Downtown Design Review Team and the Development Review Board both gave their endorsement to the project, but under what appear to be the incorrect (20 units/ac. as opposed to 60 units/ac.) density assumptions. From a
development perspective, I find myself scratching my head as to how
Goetz or his backers could have not realized their actual density
by-right, as I can't believe they would have made the same decisions
over negotiations and the hotel parcel if they had.
What's on the line for Goetz? The number I've heard floated for the developers' basis in the parking lot property is $2 million, which if true (and I'm not sure) would be a reasonable $42,000/unit for a 48-unit design... and an unbearable $165,000/unit at the lower 12-unit figure. (The rule of thumb is that land should be one-third the cost of new development, which means we'd be talking luxury townhouses actually on the market around $600,000, which doesn't seem feasible.)
As usual, Gary Kueber's got an excellent analysis of The Chancellory project over at Endangered Durham. I agree that having denser housing so close to Brightleaf is the right direction for the community, but that there are some question marks on this particular project. Ultimately, we'll have to see how the Tuesday BOA meeting goes to know more.
Correction: This posting was edited on Sunday, February 25, to correct two errors (one in fact, one in inference) in the original post.
The post initially claimed that the design (including the seven-story height of the project) was not revealed until after the hotel portion of the project was sold to Concord Hospitality. This is incorrect; the project's potential designs were initially presented in charette form in spring 2006, and the minutes from the June 2006 TPNA board meeting show discussion of the project's inclusion of elements that incorporate 6 and 7-story heights.
The posting has also been corrected on the point of the recent end to negotiations between the developer and Park City/Landex, as this posting initially made a conclusion (regarding the point in time at which the issue of height was raised anew as a concern) that the developer had withdrawn from the most recent negotiations over terms other than height. Based on recent assetions by Goetz in an email to the Trinity Park mailing list, this assumption may have been too hastily reached.
BCR regrets the errors.
Posted by: Bull City Rising | February 25, 2007 at 03:07 PM