Bull City Rising

Updates: McPherson Townhouses, West Point Park in the Herald-Sun

The local press has updates in today's paper on two stories we've looked at here at BCR recently:

First, Monica Chen provides an update from Monday's design design review team looking at the McPherson Townhouses. As noted here last week, the response from neighbors to date was well described by the H-S as cautious optimism, with a representative of the Neighbors for Sustainable Development in Trinity Park citing positive elements of the design and the Trinity Park Neighborhood Association noting that a committee is reviewing the plans.

The townhouse proposal will next make its way to the Development Review Board. (Jim Wise from the N&O also has an update in today's edition.)

Also up: Ray Gronberg has the Herald-Sun's take on the debate over the 60-acre tract of land just south of West Point Park on the Eno, a site that's been at the center of a minor tempest over the dual possibilities of the city in partnership with other groups buying and preserving the open area -- or of the state doing so in exchange for control over the City-managed West Point Park.

New items from the story: City Councilman Mike Woodard notes the landowner's threat to sue local government if the land is downzoned (which would otherwise be one very, very low cost way of keeping dense development off the sensitive land.) Also, it looks like the landowner and her development partner have optioned land from a local church that would provide access to the land from Roxboro -- a development that makes it easier for the long-time property holder to develop the tract.

Most parties we've talked to, including City Councilwoman Diane Catotti, have signalled an openness to looking at the possibility of state control for the park, but given it seems the ongoing nature of the dialogue, most of the stakeholders involved aren't interested in giving too many specifics just yet on the idea. Expect significant caution from city staff and possibly officials over the prospect of giving up what local officials see as a jewel of the park system.

More on these as we learn about 'em.

Morreene's revenge? CN zoning looks to take a more intensive review route

One of the more unfortunate legacies of Frank Duke's reign over the City/County Planning department was a moment that might best be described as "reign of error" -- the approval of a large warehouse for a wholesale business on the site of a former Morreene Rd. restaurant.

The presence of such a business (or its large industrial structure) wasn't exactly in keeping, neighbors argued, with the intent of the parcel's Commercial Neighborhood zoning, which supports allowing "limited commercial uses to satisfy the needs of the surrounding neighborhood." The Turnage Heights neighborhood appealed the city's approval of the warehouse development, losing before the Board of Adjustment in April.

Jim Wise's coverage of that hearing in the N&O raised the broader issue about Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoning could lead to such a structure's erection, however:

"[The case] demonstrates some real problems and concerns that need to be addressed," said interim City Attorney Karen Sindelar....

"This case highlights the need for a more neighborhood-friendly commercial zone next to a residential area," [activist John[ Schelp said, "[and] clearly shows how important a neighborhood advocate, not a liaison, an advocate, can be....

"At the very least," [resident Will Robinson] wrote in an e-mail response to a reporter's question, "we may have played a large part in sparing other neighborhoods the same injustice we've experienced, and that is no small consolation."

Looks like the experience may indeed help out other neighborhoods struggling with this sort of conflict. City/County Planning staff have proposed another in the ongoing series of text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance, this time focused on -- you guessed it -- CN zoning.

And the proposed changes, set for discussion at August 4's City Council meeting, give the sense that the Morreene Rd. debacle was front-and-center in staff's mind in proposing these changes.

Costly Jordan Lake clean-up rules hit an interesting speed bump

North Carolina's Rules Review Commission met Thursday to look over the state Environmental Management Commission's proposed rules for cleaning up Jordan Lake -- a key part of state government's initiative to force clean-up of the manmade lake, an effort that's drawn criticism from local governments for shifting the cost (hundreds of millions of dollars in Durham's case) back to cities and counties as an unfunded mandate.

According to the Burlington Times-News, which has the story as its lead article in today's paper (the H-S and N&O, oddly, don't appear to have covered this)--

The state Rules Review Commission Thursday sent the Jordan Lake proposals back to the Environmental Management Commission for revision. The panel questioned the authority of the proposed rules to require local governments to adopt certain ordinances. It also cited ambiguity in the environmental proposals.

The Environmental Management Commission will have the opportunity in coming weeks to tighten up the rules and bring them back for further review. That would likely come at the Rules Review Commission's September meeting.

Most of the speakers, including representatives from the City of Durham and other local governments, opposed the proposed rules. (One speaker in favor was Elaine Chiosso, of the Haw River Association, an organization that's been a strong advocate for Haw River and Jordan Lake clean-up.)

Two other interesting pieces of data in the Times-News article:

• Because over 10 letters of protest have been received on this administrative rule, the issue must be reviewed by the General Assembly in their 2009 session; the legislature could choose to disapprove the rules or work out alternative regulations, something the body did with coastal stormwater issues last year.
• According to the Durham representative, 50% of the stormwater systems in Durham are not owned by the municipality. That includes, we presume, many neighborhoods whose stormwater management systems are under the aegis of homeowners' associations, and whose dues are intended in part to be used for system maintenance and improvement. Should these rules come to pass, with the City fund improvements -- or will residents of many neighborhoods face surprising assessments to complete the work? Pure speculation on our part, but an issue to watch as this one moves through the legislative grinder.

New townhouse plan for McPherson: Lower-density plan draws quick praise

It's been almost a year to the day since the ambitious plan for The Chancellory at Trinity Park was defeated, with the massive condo complex proposed for the former McPherson Hospital parking lot falling to organized neighbor (and neighborhood) opposition.

So you're a developer with a reportedly sizable investment in a big hunk o' asphalt at the southern end of one of Durham's most desirable neighborhoods. An empty parking lot, of course, not being the highest and best use of four-fifths of an acre of land:

You've previously struck out trying to build 48 units on the plot of land, a density almost four times higher than the 16 dwelling units/acre permitted for the site, which sits nestled just within the downtown overlay district.

So what do you do with an expensive piece of land on which you can't build more than 13 units without going mixed-use? Why, build 13 luxury townhouses, of course:

Bill Fields dreams up renovation -- on a budget -- down on Gregson St.

I realize most BCR readers are faithful patrons of Gary Kueber's excellent Endangered Durham blog, but for the couple who aren't -- this is too good to miss.

As Gary noted, Saturday's issue of The Durham News contains a story by David Newton on the inimitable Bill Fields -- Ninth Street property owner, veteran, and self-proclaimed lover of Durham -- and his plans to renovate the long-dormant Medical Arts building.

(This building, featured earlier by Gary at ED, has sat vacant for many years, though it did garner some local attention for its large "Fred Smith for Governor" signs back during the May primary; Fields' son worked for the Johnston Co. homebuilder and one-time gubernatorial candidate.)

West Point Park: City dodges state takeover and preservation overtures?

A debate over development plans near the Eno River has taken a strange turn in recent weeks, bringing to bear a debate over one of the City's most treasured parks -- and whether a horse-trade opportunity with the state would help preserve, or impair, the public's use of Durham's aquatic treasure.

As Jim Wise has reported over at the N&O, one of the last vestiges of the much-despised Eno Drive roadway proposal has reared its ugly head in recent months, as a local development team's floated proposals to develop Mildred Lee Ray's 60-acre parcel near the Eno River in North Durham.

That parcel received permission for high-density development a few decades back, when Eno Drive was expected to create a Northern Durham beltline connecting the two ends of I-85. Despite the road's demise, as Wise noted in his May 31 article, a Chapel Hill developer proposed the creation of almost 250 homes and townhouses on the parcel, which sits to the south side of the Eno River and the City's park on the river, West Point Park on the Eno.

(The Ray parcel appears in light purple along the southern boundary of West Point Park in the image at left.)

Although other suburban subdivisions flank the Ray parcel (and the Eno in general), this 60-acre tract has attracted intensive attention from the non-profits active in the preservation of the Eno corridor due to its sloping towards the river, rather than away from it as most developed parcels along the Eno do.

"We're not even open to talking about any other ideas than preservation," says Dave Owen, treasurer of the Friends of West Point on the Eno Park, a local association dedicated to protecting and enhancing the city park. "This is one piece that's got to be saved."

A sentiment that raises what could be a very pricey proposition for government: can the parcel be bought out, and if so, by whom -- and at what cost?

Did we suddenly turn the real estate clock back to, like, 2005?

There are certain advantages to living in a popular in-town neighborhood like Trinity Park or Watts-Hillandale (or sought-after areas like Woodcroft, for that matter), in that there's usually a steady stream of buyers looking for houses when they go on the market -- or, in some cases, before they do.

Watching the local real estate market over the past few months, it's been gratifying to see houses in our corner of northern Trinity Park generally moving well, though there's always those properties -- usually the under-renovated, over-priced ones -- that sit around for a bit.

Still, this week's eyebrow-raiser from the real estate section has to be 1411 N. Gregson, a home that just got listed for a cool million bucks -- $998,000, to be exact.

Which is all the more surprising in that, according to the (sometimes unreliable) folks over at Zillow, this house last sold around Thanksgiving '07 for a mere $400,000.

City to re-assess Walltown, Trinity Ave. pools -- adding funding for South Durham rec center to boot

Ray Gronberg of the Herald-Sun had some of his usual good work in the daily fishwrap on Monday, covering Mayor Bell's wise interest in reopening the most painful scab on the post-Thomas Stith City Council when it comes back together in August.

To wit: an evaluation of how the proposed Walltown Park pool and the City's acquisition of the old Trinity Ave. YMCA from Duke might actually be able to "complement each other."

[A]dministrators of late have also talked up the idea of including splash pools and other kid-friendly amenities in the project. That and the potential addition of Duke's pool to the mix has Bell wondering if the plan for Walltown should change.

"My first thought was since we'd have an indoor pool at Trinity, maybe we could do with something different at Walltown that's maybe not as costly," Bell said, adding that one possibility is turning the Walltown project into an outdoor pool.

An outdoor pool could actually make some sense for a variety of reasons. The closure of the one at Duke Park still smarts in a number of local neighborhoods after so many years, and there remains only three for the whole city (at Long Meadow, Hillside and Forest Hills.) Yet these remain popular outdoor options especially for kids and families.

And in the case of Walltown, that's what the whole point of the approved rec center and proposed pool are intended to be: creating positive options for youth and teens outside of the dangerous, easy draws of mischief.

Wake's Little River decision: Durham's ant meets Wake's grasshopper?

Once upon a time, yea though it was many eons ago, the people of the kingdom called Triangle did suffer through an abomination of dryness. For lo, the rains did not come for a fortnight, or a fortnight next, and so forth. And the town crier declared, "It will be to the bottled water with all of you!"

Yea, though, the skies finally broke, and the water did flow, and it was cool and good; and, verily, it madeth Ted Voorhees sweat less, and Sir Eugene Brown turn a lighter shade of pink. And the good people of the shire of Derm and their neighbors did follow good water practices forever more.

--Of course, it really wasn't so long ago that the drought happened. Heck, by some definitions we're still in a period of extreme dryness.

But why does it seem that Ye Olde County of Wake seems to think that the drought was just a fairy tale from olden days?

The Wake County Commissioners unanimously voted down a proposal to restrict development along the Little River after dozens of people turned out Monday against the plan.

The vote is a defeat for Raleigh officials who argued that the restrictions would improve the city's chances of getting regulatory approval to build the proposed Little River Reservoir in the county's northeast corner....

"I don't want to send the message that the Little River Reservior isn't important. It is," Commissioner Paul Coble said. "But it's not so important that we leave the public out." [...]

"We don't have as good a story to tell to the regulators," [Raleigh public utilities director Dale] Crisp said. "But we're going to tell them a story."

Hmmm, a story to tell. Maybe you could tell 'em that fairy tale about the drought. I hear that's a good one.

Wait, you know what would make a better story, Mr. Crisp. How about the one about the grasshopper and the ant?

INC to consider resolution on development practices

Development practices in the Bull City have been under a microscope in recent months, from two very different perspectives.

On the one hand, the City Council has been working with staff on a development review process to address complaints, usually from developers, that plan review and approval is an over-lengthy, and sometimes unpredictable, process open to a great deal of staff interpretation.

On the other hand, residents, particularly those in less-settled eastern and southern Durham County, have been raising louder and louder concerns about suburban development practices such as mass grading, stormwater, and water source protection.

In the wake of last year's drought -- and the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources' attempt to pin Jordan/Falls Lake cleanup costs on municipalities over their development practices, an action contested by Durham but which could cost north of $340 million for cleanup -- these latter complaints are getting more scrutiny than ever before.

One local player looks to come to the forefront in the next month: Durham's Inter-Neighborhood Council, which will consider in July a draft resolution intended to impact residential development practices in the county.