As the N&O and Herald-Sun both reported today, the City Council approved the necessary rezoning for a 300+ unit apartment complex on Garrett Rd, across from Annoying-Bobblehead-Guy Toyota and behind the shopping center at Garrett & 15-501. As we've discussed in recent weeks here, an ad hoc citizen's group called New Hope for Durham came out in force to oppose the project, with 35 folks signed up against the project and 7 for.
The support of Council for the project, however, ultimately seemed to rest on a few factors -- notably among them, the fact that those seven proponents included neighbors and organized neighborhoods who had stridently fought against an earlier Centex Homes townhouse project on the site that would have included one-third the number of units.
An odd turn of events? Not from the perspective of the Garrett Farms neighborhood association's board of directors president and a former director, who both spoke out strongly in favor of the rezoning, noting that it reflected what they felt had been a serious commitment to negotiation by developer Trammel Crow Residential to make this project work. The head of the New Hope Creek committee, another vocal opponent of the Centex plan, also spoke out in favor of the TCR project.
As Leah Ogden, a leader in the fight against the Centex project, explained to Council, she and other activists had pointed to the existing Alexan apartments on Garrett as an example of the kind of environmentally-appropriate development they wanted when fighting the Centex plan; she and others were satisfied that this standard was met with the new project.
Central to these discussions were a few negotiated points between these associations and TCR, including a 250' setback from Garrett Road for any two-story buildings; major road improvements (by the developer or NCDOT) to the deadly Garrett Road/15-501 intersection in advance of any certificates of occupancy being granted; and significant preservation of open space and greenway easements.
Opponents to the rezoning application fell into two main camps and had a range of questions about the project. Ellen Dagenhart and John Compton with Preservation Durham were concerned about the historic Garrett farmhouse, which TCR is proposing to give to PD along with up to $10,000 to move the home. Dagenhart argued forcefully that preservation in place, in the original site, is critical; Eugene Brown (former PD president) later demurred, noting his own site-visit conclusions that the visible presence of the massive Toyota dealership had already impacted the authenticity of the site.
The New Hope for Durham folks based one of their arguments around the challenges of density, and were concerned that the high density of this project was inappropriate given that 15-501 is at 126% of capacity. Many of their other arguments seemed to be less project-specific and more focused on broader development issues in Durham: the health of Jordan Lake, the ongoing drought and water supply pressures, school crowding and capital costs, and most especially the lack of a City ordinance requiring stormwater to be treated on-site and used for irrigation and other purposes.
Diane Catotti made the most forceful attempt to address these concerns as a set, with some of her arguments and requests for clarification echoing points we made here in an analysis last week on whether a development moratorium was needed in Durham:
- While 15-501 is an overcrowded road and the Garrett Rd. intersection troubled, Catotti got staff reassurance from Wesley Parham that the developer improvements planned here plus NCDOT's 15-501 widening project currently underway would add the necessary capacity.
- Catotti addressed the density issue in a way that homeowners may not have liked, but which targets some of the 'smart growth' interests that the City has in its long range future -- namely, that Durham's comprehensive plan calls for higher-density housing along transit corridors, of which 15-501 is intended as one (via light rail, bus rapid transit, or another system.) Catotti implied that this is exactly the kind of density-meets-transit project Durham should encourage more of.
- The Councilwoman also noted the planned water capacity increase projects underway in the City, describing a 50-year time horizon for water planning and noting that some of the increase in water/sewer rates hitting homeowners at present was directed towards some of the reservoir and supply projects. (By which we assume she means the Lake Michie expansion and Teer Quarry projects, which along with increased draws from Jordan Lake should give ample water capacity, as we discussed here earlier.)
- On the subject of overall growth, Catotti noted that Durham's current trend was a 1.9% per annum growth rate, which is in line with local government expectations in the Comprehensive Plan.
The stormwater re-use arguments from Hope Taylor, executive director of Clean Waters of N.C., a non-profit advocacy group, were intriguing; Steve Medlin noted that this issue is supposed to come up on the agenda at a December City/County joint meeting. It would be good to see more examination of this, and possibly to see local governments enact ordinances that move development in this direction.
Still, on net, the project opponents had a tough task at hand, with their arguments focused more on macro-level issues of development in the face of other citizen groups' support and the project aligning with the City's own plans for growth. The project rezoning passed in a unanimous 6-0 vote. (Mayor Bell was an excused absence for the evening.)
. . .
Quick update: Gary's got a piece over at his site talking about the loss of the Garrett Farm farmhouse. One head-scratcher from my perspective, though there was no way for me to ask it under the Council's rules of order last night -- why not save the farmhouse in situ?
The attorney for TCR, Ken Spaulding, emphasized twice that this could not be done because the committed elements negotiated with the Garrett Farms neighborhood association and other community stakeholders forbade any two-story buildings within 250' of the road. The puzzler for me was, did the community groups actually intend that to include the farmhouse, or just new development? Would they have been open to changing that committed element to include the farmhouse?
It would have been interesting to see Council ask that question.
Kevin,
From the beginning of the conversation with Trammel Crow in July, Preservation Durham focused on saving the farmhouse and its outbuildings on site. Not much mentioned was that this is a rare site archaeologically. That is one reason for the emphasis in saving the site itself.
PD did learn from city staff that it would have been possible to tweak the committed elements at the council meeting to include the one and a half-story farmhouse, without delaying the project. Trammel Crow was not willing to budge on that, though PD tried to negotiate that up until council meeting. Trammel Crow also cited the liability of the presence of the farmhouse, and concerns about appearance, maintenance and upkeep - issues which PD offered to allay by placing protective covenants on the property.
What absolutely seemed to baffle some people is why it mattered to save this humble little house and its surroundings - one Garrett Farms resident expressed utter amazement that PD would "go to the mat for this house." It's one of 420 special places in Durham. When will Durham get serious about saving these places? When there are 400 left? 300? 200? Isn't it about time we stopped naming things for special places, then tearing down the original?
I wish I could say I was optimistic about the prospects of moving and preserving the farmhouse. I'm not, because moving homes is expensive hard work. The loss of this part of Durham's rural history is just sad, and unnecessary.
Posted by: Ellen D | November 21, 2007 at 05:27 PM