More on the downtown Durham master plan draft review

As I noted here yesterday, I had to miss Tuesday's downtown Durham master plan discussion due to a lingering illness. Big thanks to City Councilman and regular BCR reader Mike Woodard, who came through with a detailed play-by-play on what went down last night; I've republished it with some edits below (which means, naturally, any errors in the relaying are likely my fault, not Mike's). See also today's Herald-Sun for their summary of the meeting.

Downtown Durham, Inc. and its planning consultant, Development Concepts Inc., presented the draft of the downtown master plan last night before an audience of more than 75 people in the City Council Chambers. The session largely consisted of DDI president Bill Kalkhof and DCI consultants Glenn Gareis and Ian Colgan walking the audience through the plan. (The entire plan is available online in PDF format at http://downtowndurham.com/Master_Plan_Update.118.0.html)

Kalkhof began by pointing out the 2007 plan was essentially an update of the 2000 plan; although the plan was due for an update anyway, Kalkhof noted that a great deal had changed over the last seven years and that downtown has many new players. (As we know, all but one member of today’s City Council is new since the last master plan; Greenfire Development and Scientific Properties are also newly arrived, with Capitol Broadcasting in a far expanded role since 2000. And, most importantly, there are many more residents and businesses at play downtown than there were seven years ago.)

Kalkhof also noted that the 2007 plan was drafted through a much broader process than the first version, involving more people, a slightly wider geographic area, and more issues.

Gareis of DCI called downtown Durham a “group of overachievers,” as DDI’s goal of $1 billion in investment in a 10-year period was achieved in seven. He pointed out the five overarching themes of the plan:

1. Maintain the City Center as the focal point;
2. Improve connectivity (fixing the Loop, the railroad tracks at Blackwell, and restoring an active street level);
3. Encourage residential in-fill development;
4. Continue public sector investment; and
5. Enhance the capacity of downtown organizations (including the possibility of expanding to a business development district or downtown development authority as a step beyond the capabilities of today’s DDI).

Colgan presented the plan’s conclusions, which are outlined beginning on page 30 of the plan. Some core items of interest:

A good rule of thumb is that $1 of public investment yields $4 of private investment; some downtowns have actually seen a 1:9 ratio. Colgan mentioned, and Kalkhof later emphasized, the need for a positive regulatory environment, accomplished in part by the adoption of a new development review process and form-based zoning -- both currently under study by the local governing boards.

There was also significant discussion about connectivity, especially at the railroad tracks at Blackwell, around the Downtown Loop, and into the neighborhoods surrounding downtown.

The plan identifies six catalyst projects (p. 57) that offer the greatest positive impact for downtown. These six projects, listed in no particular order, are:

1. Redevelopment or re-imagining the SouthBank site, now owned by Greenfire;
2. Improving the open surface parking lot at Church and Parrish streets, owned by the City, which Colgan argued could be an anchor of Parrish on the east end as the SunTrust building anchors it on the west end;
3. Rethinking the Downtown Loop and adjoining properties, which Colgan said should be reconfigured as a “promenade” rather than removed;
4. Building intentional open (green) space, as opposed to the unintentional open space that currently exists on the former Woolworth’s site (site of Greenfire’s planned office tower) and the pocket park at the corner of Parrish and Mangum (currently City-owned);
5. Finding a more productive use for 212 Corcoran Street, the parking deck and former motel owned by Ronnie Sturdivant and commonly known as the “Oprah Building,” which Colgan called “one of the most prominent sites in downtown”;
6. Redeveloping the former Elkins Chrysler site, now owned by Scientific Properties.

Kalkhof presented the implementation plan for the recommendations, which he called a “to do” list. The full list is contained in the draft plan, but highlights include:

Continuing public-private partnerships. Kalkhof mentioned that the plan calls for 5,000 new residents in the downtown core and 10,000 in the immediate neighborhoods over the next decade; this number is the critical mass a major chain grocery store would consider a prerequisite before locating downtown. (Worth noting that Charlotte only recently scored a downtown Harris Teeter, while Orlando’s first downtown grocery is just now under construction -- and, of course, both are far larger cities than Durham.)

Kalkhof advocated for the development of three or four tall, signature buildings that “make a statement as a community," pointing out that residential density can be achieved in these buildings without “disturbing the neighborhoods.”

In the area of “Infrastructure,” Kalkhof again sounded the call for a dedicated downtown appearance crew and other “day-to-day” services, such as more frequent trash removal by the City’s solid waste department. He opined that the infrastructure downtown would need to expand because “we’re going to grow,” noting that the current mortgage meltdown causing havoc with residential projects in cities nationwide would pass at some point. Kalkhof included police in infrastructure, calling for six police beats downtown instead of the current two.

Continuing with the theme of “Connectivity,” Kalkhof called for a more active street level with store fronts, noting the rule of thumb of desiring to have no more than 25 linear feet of “dead space” along a street or sidewalk. He also urged officials to fix the Loop and to provide traffic calming measures along the Roxboro/Mangum and Duke/Gregson street pairings that lead into downtown.

In speaking about “Management,” Kalkhof was quick to note that he was “not making a pitch for DDI. In fact, it may be a pitch against DDI.” He pointed out that the recommendation for a downtown business improvement district has been discussed by DDI and City officials; the downtown development authority concept, on the other hand, is not currently allowed under North Carolina law.

Kalkhof concluded the presentation portion of the evening by highlighting fifteen particular focus areas for downtown stakeholders:

1. Finish the DAP.
2. Finish Durham Central Park.
3. Obtain the Duke Beltline railroad spur for trail connectivity.
4. Redesign the Chapel Hill Street underpass.
5. Provide better connectivity across the Blackwell Street railroad tracks.
6. Make a decision about the future of the Civic Center: “…expand it or sell it to the private sector. The status quo is not acceptable.”
7. Expand the city center streetscape throughout downtown.
8. Secure a grocery store: “We need 10,000 people living a square mile around a site to get past the corporate vice presidents.”
9. Encourage growth in the city center.
10. Encourage growth in the DAP-Central Park area.
11. Envision future uses for the County building and parking lot on Duke Street, across from the Durham School of the Arts, when the County departments move out upon the completion of the new county social services building.
12. Redevelop the West Village parking lots, possibly as residential areas.
13. Redevelop the Rick Hendricks Chevrolet and University Ford lots: “…not the highest and best use of those properties.”
14. Support future use of the pads around the Durham Station site.
15. Find linkages with adjacent neighborhood projects: Heritage Square, Golden Belt, Rolling Hills.

DDI is accepting comments on the plan through January 25; you can send your thoughts to masterplanupdate@downtowndurham.com. The final revisions will be completed by February 1, and the plan will be submitted to the City Council and the County Commissioners for their review and adoption during March.

Kalkhof opened the floor for a few minutes’ worth of question-and-answer from the crowd. Asked by one audience member about the impact of the current drought, Kalkhof noted that downtown growth allows an emphasis on sustainable and green in-fill development.

Another audience member wondered how long it would take for downtown to reach the 10,000 resident threshold needed to support a grocery store. All the projections for the next three to four years would bring downtown only to around 2,500 residents, Kalkhof replied, noting that downtown has a long way to go to support that kind of facility.

One attendee asked whether local governments could provide any incentives to employees to live downtown, shortening their commutes. Kalkhof demurred to public sector officials on that question, noting that local governments would have to decide on funding any such incentive.

Scott Harmon, a downtown resident, architect and developer (helming the Mangum 506 project), had a range of suggestions and questions:

• How necessary is the Civic Center for economic development? Literature is mixed on this.
• Suggested the city should sell buildings it owns at Five Points, as the private sector can do a better job preserving and developing these buildings.
• Expressed concern at a perceived bias to tear down 212 Corcoran (the “Oprah Building”); should consider leaving reconfiguring, as it is just underutilized.
• Troubled by name “Government Services” district, which Harmon feels provides a disincentive to live or work there.
• Would like the plan to say more about the Loop, with input beyond that of traffic engineers alone. Harmon also noted that the plan was focused too heavily on the west side of downtown, and that the eastern side of the Loop was critically in need of investment and aid.

Kalkhof, thanking Harmon for the suggestions, noted that would recommend a public advisory committee be formed to address the Loop as a whole. Colgan from DCI noted that the draft plan lists two options for 212 Corcoran (demolishing or redeveloping), and Colgan noted a preference for the latter strategy.

The final question, from downtown business owner Frank White, asked whether parking spaces would be lost as a result of the plan. Kalkhof stated that downtown currently has about 5,000 parking spaces but would need another 700-800 spaces over time. Kalkhof noted the trend of wrapping structured parking into building envelopes, a strategy that had been popular in Baltimore and which was now in use in Durham as well (notably at the Station Nine and Lofts at Lakeview apartment complexes.)

Comments

[Dave N.]

Downtown development authorities are not authorized by NC law? Depending upon how we want to categorize our downtown, it is possible that we could take advantage of the the Urban Redevelopment Law (NCGS 150A-500 et seq.).

If that is deemed too aggressive for the City attorney's office, I wonder whether we have given consideration to establishing a Downtown Durham Planning Commission? Cities are already authorized to create more than one planning board under 160A-361. (Cary does this currently for their downtown.) Combining a Downtown planning board with a linked municipal service district for downtown revitalization under 160A-536(2) would seem to accomplish the plan's suggested goals of replacing DDI with something stronger.