The Chancellory: Where do we go from here?

(Note: Please see the Comments section for a note about this article's content.)

As per the blurb here at BCR earlier this week, at last night's meeting the Trinity Park Neighborhood Association reviewed renderings for a revised version of The Chancellory condo project proposed for the southern end of Trinity Park on Watts & Lamond.

These new designs arrive just a couple of weeks before a Durham Board of Adjustment meeting where the project will again be reviewed. The BoA deferred consideration of the project for five months' time back in its February meeting.

As you may remember, the initial project design came in for some pretty significant criticism for its height -- seven stories at its tallest, leading some neighbors to float balloons over at West Village's Chesterfield Building to try to understand what that height would mean. Concerns over density (48 residential units on 0.8 acres at the edge of a National Historic District) and parking were also paramount in many neighbors' minds.

Below is the outcome of that debate: revised renderings, first from the Watts and then the Lamond elevations, showing a project reduced in height and slightly in gross square feet (about 90,000 instead of 103,000), but with the same density and parking. The white outline in the first image represents the outlined massing of the original proposal.

The project has a "C" shape from the air, with condo units running along the southern end of the property line (near the Papa John's) and along the eastern end (which borders a medical office, not shown here.) On the northwestern side, five townhouses with street-level entrances are new additions to the project design, creating a sort of density transition as you head south on Watts. Parking (about 1.5 spaces/per unit, assumed to be about 1 space per bedroom) remains underground, with all vehicular egress on Morgan St. As noted above, 48 units is still the targeted number.

These revisions bring to bear two questions: is this project a better fit for the neighborhood than the original proposal, and can this project be salvaged?

On the first question, these changes have brought me at least to the point of saying, yeah, this makes sense. I have always liked the idea of bringing a project of this form to the southern end of the neighborhood. And not simply because it's better than the vacant parking lot there -- which one resident at Wednesday's meeting described as one step above crackhouses for property values -- but because condos are a great fit for the transitional point between Durham's bustling Brightleaf district and the more subdued residential feel of Watts St. and southern Trinity Park.

My big problem with the initial design of the project was the height; the developers seemed to do what they could to push the seven-story maximum height as far back from the neighborhood as possible, but the elephant in the room remained the fact that there was a seven-story structure not far at all from single family homes. Many neighbors were deeply concerned by the height issue, and I for one am glad to see it resolved in the new drawings. (Which bring most of the project's height to 4 1/3 stories.)

Some of the research shared by TPNA board members in Wednesday's meeting has also eased concerns I initially had on parking. The parking ratios suggested by the developer match up well with projects in downtown Raleigh and Glenwood South, which seems to me to be highly analogous to the Brightleaf district in Durham. After all, the person attracted to a condo project like this, 'upscale' as it may be, ain't going to be the person with three Hummers in their massive garage.

To my mind, the 48-unit density is actually not a concern at all -- it's a very positive thing for Durham. For Durham, in the sense that Brightleaf is advancing forward and adding retail and restaurants, but we're only a few years from past challenges and vacancies there. The more residential we add in this part of the Bull City, the greater the base of support grows for the revitalization of downtown. Secondly, projects like this one and West Village should bring density to urban areas. All environmental and traffic benefits aside, denser residential is a fundamental characteristics of successful, vibrant urban areas.

Of course, much of your opinion on this project is likely to come down to what one's concept of urbanity is -- and whether the southern end of Trinity Park qualifies. In my opinion (and as I said with probably too great a tone of annoyance at Wednesday's meeting), we're approaching a moment of truth for the Trinity Park neighborhood. There's a difficult-to-reconcile challenge between the perception of quiet residential streets and the energy of Brightleaf Square. Can there be a line drawn that is opaque between the two? To my mind, there is a difference in what one should expect in terms of neighborhood life living two blocks from Shooters and the Federal, versus what you might expect on Minerva, or Dollar, or Markham, or Norton.

The recent debate over a proposed brewpub at the church at Lamond and Gregson brought some of this controversy to light; the Chancellory brings out still more cracks in the neighborhood. And we'll continue dealing with these issues as a neighborhood, project by project. But until we address the fundamental nature of what it means to live on southern Watts or Lamond, streets that are a literal stone's throw from the "Welcome to Downtown Durham" sign, we'll never be able to find a common ground for expectations of development, density, and the like.

Personally, my hope is that this project will find a way to go forward in the revised configuration. The big question will be, can the neighborhood and the developer find common ground to move forward? As noted here earlier, to my mind the 'flipping' of the hotel site by the condo developer and its subsequent transformation from boutique hotel to a 50%-larger Marriott extended stay pad with a parking deck on-site really seems to have cooled the level of trust between developer and the neighborhood.

As a neighbor who's been active in a legal fight against the hotel noted last night, the new owners of that site got a free pass without legally-binding restrictions on the development plan to hold them to assurances made by the original developer. All, of course, after the neighborhood supported the project's rezoning when the property was first controlled by Park City Developments. Which doesn't exactly lead to warm-and-fuzzy moments singing kumbiya around the campfire with your friendly neighborhood developer.

And of course, all of this change is happening in the shadow of a mere two weeks' time until the next BoA meeting.

Stay tuned.

Comments

[Bull City Rising]

A quick disclaimer: As some readers know, I'm on the board of the Trinity Park Neighborhood Association (though only since April, so I wasn't around for the first round of smelly goodness on this little shindig.) That said, this blog post represents only my opinion, and doesn't attempt to reflect _in any way_ the opinion of the TPNA board. This post is based only on information presented during the public meeting of the TPNA on Wednesday, July 11.

[GK]

As a reader posted to me, I think Cleveland-Holloway would gladly give the proposed, much shorter and less dense Level-IV, locked-down facility for youth with severe behavioral problems to Trinity Park if it is looking to trade projects. And that's actually proposed for a local historic district, unlike Trinity Park.

My point being, I agree with you on the issues of density and urbanity. I wasn't at this meeting, but the proposal seems to address the primary issue of concern to me, which was the height. This is not much different than the height of historic apartment buildings in the neighborhood, including the demolished Beverly Apts. which were directly across the street.

http://www.endangereddurham.org/Photos/beverlyapts.jpg

I'm all for neighborhoods taking control of their destiny, but it's highly unlikely that exactly what the most recalcitrant neighbors want is going to be built there. Digging in the heels too much can come back to bite a neighborhood, simply because the neighborhood can't control the whole process. I've seen it several times - the proposed project fails, and the next guy to come along builds something on the cheap that requires the least amount of review. This isn't to suggest that the neighborhood should act out of fear - but the neighborhood be wary of acting out of revenge as well.

GK

[mike]

Basically, bottom line... they need to go ahead and build the thing. It a parking lot right now. You can't please everyone and it seems like they have done a good job of pleasing the rational people.

[Bull City Rising]

Gary -- thanks for the comments. I actually wonder how many TP folks know that a group home for (IIRC) homeless persons suffering from AIDS was approved on Buchanan right at the neighborhoods' edge at a recent City Council meeting? And I wonder what the reaction would have been if they had?

Personally, I'd love to see these facilities spread out more -- among north, south and central Durham. Concentration in the East is not sustainable, humane, or right.

Mike -- not sure I would agree that those opposing the plan are being irrational. They're actually a well-educated, erudite bunch including some architects, designer-engineers, attorneys, etc. I haven't talked with them about why they dislike the project, though my assumption from some of last night's discussions is that density is the issue. Which comes back to your definition of what an urban neighborhood should be. I think they've thought their concerns out well and have justified them well... if you agree with that base premise of urbanity. (Also, don't forget the whole hotel history, which is not confidence inspiring.)

[Mike Woodard]

And I wonder how many TP residents even know that there has been a group home on Buchanan for homeless persons suffering from AIDS, adjacent to the new project, since 2000?

http://www.acra-org.com/Houses.htm

I'd be willing to bet not many, since it has blended into the fabric of the community.

[Michael Bacon]

I'm having a little bit of trouble interpreting the elevations there. I assume that the first one is the view from across Buchanan, whereas the second is the view along Main? If so, what's the small building to the right in the first one?

Aside from that, while I understand a lot of the complaints that have come up from TPers, if the current design is well represented in the elevations here, then I have essentially zero sympathy for any remaining complaints. Concerns about height, historic design, architecture, street frontage, seas of parking, etc., are all valid in my opinion, but density-phobia is not. I'm suspect of it just about everywhere, but density-phobia at the intersection of Main and Buchanan for a measly 48 units/acre is absolutely insane.

One of Caleb Southern's favorite pop quizes was to ask people where the highest residential density for a single complex in Durham was. The answer? In Trinity Park! At Guy Solie's Governor apartments (http://www.trinitypropertiesapartments.com/Durham%20Governor%20Dreamweaver.htm).
I don't remember the number he cited, but just glancing at the photos and the parcel maps, I think it squeezes 48 units onto just a half-acre of land. Caleb's point was two-fold. One, when the parking is on-street, it's a lot less noxious, but more importantly, when density is built into the fabric of the neighborhood, people don't get so uptight about it.

I'd like to see an aerial map of the new Chaunceoulluriee plans, because where the parking goes is obviously a devil that often hides in the details, but I mean, really people. This is on MAIN STREET for cryin' out loud.

[Michael Bacon]

Grrr... it won't let me edit. The way TypePad HTML-ified that last post, it left the closing parenthesis in the URL. So when you click on it, you'll get "Not Found." Just delete the parenthesis and the period at the end of the link, and you'll be golden.