Tuscaloosa-Lakewood neighborhood protection overlay before Planning Commission tonight

The Tuscaloosa-Lakewood proposal to add a neighborhood protection overlay (NPO) to a wide swath of their southwest Durham neighborhood comes before the City-County Planning Commission this afternoon at 5:30 for what's likely its last round of review before heading to City Council later this spring for a final vote.

NPOs were a new feature in the sometimes dazzling, always dizzying world of Durham's Unified Development Ordinance, the brainchild of planning director Frank Duke, who managed to hit I-85 north for Virginia just as implementation issues started coming to a head. An NPO designation is designed to allow neighborhoods and small community areas to establish a set of principles for development that can help preserve the core essence of a neighborhood and to help neighborhoods maintain their character over time.

Tuscaloosa-Lakewood Neighborhood Association president Christian Ferney notes that the drafting of the NPO has been an often-arduous multi-year process for the residents working on the issue. "We've learned a whole lot" about the UDO and zoning -- more than any citizen should ever have to, Ferney noted wryly.

Still, a number of events in the past decade in the TLNA district, which includes homes from the turn of the 20th century all the way through new construction, spurred the neighborhood to action with the NPO route became available.

Ferney noted in particular the clear-cutting of tree stands on Lexington St. in the 1990s for new construction and successful community opposition to a rezoning petition that would have allowed two-structure-deep development on US 15-501 Business as key catalysts towards neighborhood action.

As proposed, the draft NPO would have a few key impacts on new-construction development in the district:

• Existing trees other than pines would have to be maintained on lots (with limited exceptions) to maintain the tree canopy and character of the neighborhood
• Building elevations for new construction must be varied on a single "block face," helping to maintain the neighborhood's architectural diversity, and likely to minimize the possibility of an economy-minded developer coming in and filling up a street chock-a-block with uninteresting identical structures
• One-car garages would be required for front of lot structures; two-car garages could exist in the home's rear
• A large portion of the area would be rezoned from RU-5(2) to RU-5, a similar dense urban zoning that does prohibit duplex and semi-attached houses, reflecting the desire to balance homeownership in the T-L area with the neighborhood's substantial rental community. (So-called 'multiplex' multifamily housing would still be permitted.)
   
• Structures converted from residential to non-residential use would need to retain a residential appearance
• Maximum building height would be limited to 35 feet, with "flag lots" -- deeply set back residential lots with only enough street frontage for a driveway -- prohibited.

One controversial point in some reviews has been the neighborhood's desire to have these overlay rules apply to new development but not renovation of existing structures, something Ferney noted the TLNA team felt was essential to maintain a consensus among neighbors and to ensure broad support.

An important factor, since the NPO path can be fraught with peril. Hope Valley sought in recent memory to create an overlay district for its historic neighborhood but quickly ran into neighborhood opposition that derailed the whole process. The TLNA, Ferney noted, avoided including renovations in the scope of the NPO coverage in order to maintain broad support within the neighborhood.

Ferney hopes to have a strong turnout in support of the NPO from the neighborhood tonight; even should a few property owners not be on board with the plan, Ferney feels that it represents a broad consensus from the neighborhood.

Expect to see a big turnout from supporters at this evening's important hearing; while the plan proceeds to City Council in any event, a recommendation for the NPO from the Planning Commission helps to smooth the path to final adoption by the City Council.

Read the draft and learn more about the plan at the TLNA web site.

Comments

[anon]

Kevin,

Am I understanding this correctly - all houses are "required" to have a one car garage facing the street? Maybe I misread your summary, but that sounds rather suburban.

[Christian Ferney]

In response to anon's post above, the Tuscaloosa-Lakewood neighborhood is predominantly made up of smaller houses without garages at all. The NPO allows for up to a single-car garage facing the street or a two-car garage behind the house. While it's a generally heavily wooded neighborhood, there's no mistaking it's urban feel, and that was something we wanted to keep.

Christian Ferney
TLNA president

[Lewis]

What's wrong with pine trees? This is the Land of the Long Leaf Pine you know. They deserve protection too.

"Here's to the land

of the long leaf pine,

The summer land

Where the sun doth shine,

Where the weak grow strong

and the strong grow great,

Here's to 'down home,'

the Old North State!"

[KeepDurhamDifferent!]

You can't cut down your trees? Yikes.

Sounds to me like the change to RU-5 is intended to keep out the poor and drive up the cost of housing. Infill development? Fat chance!

[Christian Ferney]

Re: pine trees: We discussed their inclusion or exclusion at length. The issue comes from cutting parts out of stands of pines which have grown together in order to place a house. While pine trees are as stable as most other trees when planted in isolation, they tend to rely on each other when planted in groups. We decided that while we couldn't be certain, the risks to new houses in these situations made inclusion of pine trees untenable. In addition, I believe urban forestry guidelines generally exclude trees of the pinus genus, so we're more or less following precedent. Not sure about the specifics off the top of my head, but that's my recollection.

With respect to changes to RU-5(2) and multifamily zones, the purpose of the NPO is to protect a neighborhood's predominant character. There are few duplexes in the neighborhood; at least some of those that do exist would not be allowed to be built where they stand under current zoning (RU-5 doesn't allow duplexes). Tuscaloosa-Lakewood has a substantial stock of rental properties -- close to 50% -- and mostly consists of small and smallish houses. This is a neighborhood made up in large measure of people with fixed or relatively low incomes. When we moved here in 2003 as renters, we made less than $15,000. Throughout this process, we have been keen to avoid putting financial burdens on residents while preserving what gives the neighborhood its "feel." Part of that is a preponderance of relatively low housing density.

[Myers Sugg]

David:

I don't always know how to take your comments. Your "loud and proud" Libertarian comments often make me wonder why you don't live on a compound in Appalachia comprised of corrugated metal buildings stocked full of MREs.

Have you spent time in our neighborhood? Do you know the issues we face? Do you know how many people (insert volunteers), who have jobs/families/outside responsibilities, have devoted at least 18 months to try and make a little positive difference in our community, for ourselves, and for those who follow us when we leave? To make off the cuff comments about "keeping out the poor" and "can't cut down trees" only perpetuates misperceptions about what we, as a community, are trying to do with this NPO. Perhaps for example you feel that the residential area behind Fosters Market, which was once lush Tuscloosa Forest with old growth trees, and uneven terrain, but now a leveled, treeless area, with residential properties that have little to no character, is better than anything that "them folks at City Hall" could tell me to do? David, when you open your open your mouth (or in this case, type at your computer) in the future please add something constructive and productive to the conversation instead of spouting off the first thing that comes to you.

And to the majority of vested stakeholders who want to make Tuscaloosa Lakewood a better place, I personally thank you. We are a neighborhood with a conscious, and we deal with some of the same struggles that many of Durham's urban neighborhoods do. We live here, because we choose to live here. We try and make things better because that same conscious tells us to.

Myers Sugg

[David Rollins]

Part of what compels me as a community activist is my fervent belief that the proper role of government is to protect those who are traditionally marginalised due to race or class issues. This belief also fuels my volunteer work and involvement in issues such as animal rescue and historic preservation.

Change can be bad or good, but attempts to preserve the status quo are often naked power grabs at the expense of those yet to come. I know plenty of people in Tuscaloosa-Lakewood -- in fact I mentor a group of young boys in this area -- and in this case I see an attempt to preserve low density as a means to raise property values through zoning. While the intention may not be to eliminate affordable housing, that is the result.

[durhamfood]

I have few issues with maintaining the trees or with the prohibition on front-facing two car garages. That's just aesthetic, honestly.

The prohibition on duplexes, though, is clearly anti-renter. Myers and Christian: how else can this provision be seen? What precisely is its purpose? In the current housing market, would it be better for a 2,500 sq ft two story house to sit empty on the market for ages or for someone to buy it, convert it into a duplex and rent it out?

[Myers Sugg]

David, thank you for your reply. I commend you on your mentoring activities in my neighborhood.

Your passion for historic preservation issues seems to be contradictory to your above comments. A major component of historic preservation is neighborhood stability....finding ways for the character of a neighborhood to be maintained, and to improve it whenever possible. Carving up previously single family homes costs more in the long run, by further destabilizing a neighborhood, promoting disinvestment. There is a plethora of examples of this in Durham.

To steer this discussion towards race/class is unfounded, unless you feel that those who experience race/class suppression deserve to live in a poorly built, quadraplex, as a renter, which is often the case. I do not claim to be very knowledgeable about affordable housing issues. My personal preference, based on my limited knowledge, is to find any way possible for folks to become stakeholders in a neighborhood by low interest mortgages, and other incentives. I do know that flooding a modest, primarily single family, fairly dense neighborhood like ours (average lot sizes I suspect are 1/4 acre or less,) by clear cutting the land, and building multiple quadraplexes isn't the solution to affordable housing.

We have attempted to strike a balance in this NPO plan. I personally and some others would have loved to have put much more in it, but the proposal is modest, and something that has received positive consensus. This is not a naked power grab. It's an attempt by committed Durhamites to promote our neighborhood, and to help foster some level of stability. I maintain that our imperfect neighborhood deserves these additional protections. Thanks again to all who have passionately been a part of this process.

Myers

[KeepDurhamDifferent!]

I know it is frustrating to work through the NPO process, having been through several myself. Lord knows by this point you're just hoping to "get it done" after innumerable adjustments in the name of consensus. If the NPO fails I'm sure it will be easy to blame conservative politicians or evil property developers; I'm urging you to consider another perspective, one with the best interests of the poor in mind.

I don't fault the TLNA for wanting to preserve their homes and neighborhood. I simply think zoning is the wrong way to go about it. For every example of single family houses being cutup and "promoting disinvestment" I can cite plenty more where infill development has led to higher home ownership, more affordable housing, a smaller ecological footprint, and a more walkable community. And yes, even higher property values. It's going on across the street from me at 1409 Norton. With pre-fab construction, no less.

To answer your question, I guess I'd rather see four families living in a quadraplex than crowded together in a single family house with temporary partitions and unsanitary conditions. Or a vacant house, as DF suggests.

[fletchfoto]

DF,
My girlfriend and I rent in TL. The house next door to us is occupied by renters. So are four houses across the street. This is all on one block. I can't say that I have a particularly intimate knowledge of the entire neighborhood, but I can only think of a handful of two story houses, and I would say that most of the houses here are probably 1500 sq ft or less. I don't really think the NPO is going to result in a neighborhood full of empty 2500 sq ft homes, or four families living in a single family home.

[durhamfood]

We rent in TL as well, in a two story house that was converted into a duplex. Each of the two apartments is about 1200 sq ft...