Jack Haggerty
On Tuesday, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen will resume a rezoning hearing on a property on North Greensboro Street. The hearing is specifically about rezoning, but if the zoning change is approved, the developer of a proposed project on the property will have a reasonable expectation that the project itself will be approved.
The proposed project consists of two buildings with 114 apartments and 12,000 square feet of commercial space, totaling 126,000 square feet. That’s a lot of space. The underlying zoning, long in place, intends the zoning district “to provide space for assemblage and research and development type enterprises.†The description of the zoning district acknowledges that the predominant buildings in the zoned area are older houses, and this is still true.
“The continued use,†says the ordinance, “of existing residential dwelling units along North Greensboro Street is encouraged.â€
The proposed project disregards both the existing context and the uses the zoning ordinance allows. Essentially, the developer is asking for downtown density at a large scale in a place that isn’t downtown, and in a location characterized by smaller structures, a good portion of which still function as single-family homes. The underlying zoning is intended to provide a transition area for both use and size, from the larger downtown commercial buildings to the surrounding residential areas. This project annuls any smooth transition.
There’s more. There will be something like 147 parking spaces for 114 two-bedroom units, meaning there’ll be approximately two spaces for one out of every four units. Some two-bedroom units may use only one parking space, but will three out of four of them use only one space? I’m all for reducing the amount of space given over to parking, but only when the un-provided-for vehicles can be reasonably managed, where the reduction in parking benefits all of us, not just the developer. The current proposal could be a recipe for a perpetual headache – for both tenants who can’t find parking and the adjacent property owners who will be troubled by the overage. There’s no on-street parking near the property, and no town lots are close.
The major feature of the site design is double-loaded drive aisles. Where there is not parking, there is building. I suspect we will see minimal trees remaining – only those required by ordinance. The unit density and unrelieved parking will be explained and defended as necessary to keep costs manageable. This is what, I’m afraid, “affordable†housing will be: a series of compromises resulting in unarticulated buildings, extensive surface parking that is still insufficient and sites designed by maximizing the building footprint in conjunction with optimizing the amount of double-loaded drive aisles. Because the units are “affordable,†we will be asked to accept the project.
At the hearing, there will be talk of affordability, walkability and sustainability. We shouldn’t be confused by the use of these words. These are commendable ideas, but their currency doesn’t necessarily reflect their value in this case. The lot and its location should determine what kind of project could be done on the lot. That rezoning is required tells us the proposal disturbs and goes against the town’s approved planning vision. That might be acceptable, and even necessary, if conditions have changed, but nothing has changed in that area other than a developer seeking an opportunistic rezoning.
What type of development might be good for the area? What about two- or three-story wood-framed buildings scattered artfully across the site, rather than warehoused units and regimented parking? There could be some smaller, appropriately scaled commercial buildings on the street, in keeping with the zoning. Might a variety of unit sizes and shapes provide Carrboro with a richer housing stock? Isn’t the bypass full of two-bedroom rental units, with banners flying to proclaim their availability? Don’t smaller streets, rather than expansive asphalt lots, better serve walkability? The developer has misread the site, the situation and the opportunity. The board of aldermen should not confirm this misreading.
Jack Haggerty is an architect in Carrboro.
Very insightful analysis. Thanks Jack.
I’ve been to two of the public hearings about the Shelton Station project. I’ve also met with the developer and his landscape architect to discuss their plans, so I’m rather familiar with their proposal.
I’m an architect who lives in Carrboro and works in Durham. I live about a block and a half from the site and walk by it a couple times a week so I’m very interested in what might happen here. My wife and I went to the first public hearing with some skepticism and were relieved and even excited about what was presented.
I come to different conclusions than Jack Haggerty does.
I don’t think the project disregards the context at all. And I don’t think of this site as being “a place that isn’t downtown”. This site is on the north side of Parker Street. On the south side of Parker Street is Southern States, then Harris Teeter and Carr Mill Mall. Immediately to the north of this site is the Fitch warehouse #4.
My understanding is that the front lot has already been rezoned to allow the building that is planned for it. It’s the back lots that are in question.
I also understand that the development team has designed more parking spaces that bring the design in line or nearly so with the standard number of spaces required by the asked-for zoning. Some of the parking will be in a surface lot and some will be below the back building. In any case this lot is far smaller than the lot in front of Harris Teeter and only a small portion of it fronts onto North Greensboro. That portion is set back from the sidewalk, will have a planting bed in front of it, and then a low brick wall to screen the car headlights. This parking lot doesn’t scare me.
I agree that the lot and its location should determine what kind of project should be done. I consider this lot to be downtown and welcome an urban, higher density building. The front building is two stories tall along North Greensboro and is set back to align with the house to the north. This wide sidewalk could have cafe tables and chairs for a new restaurant. The building then steps to three stories tall, and the back building is also three stories. That size seems reasonable to me for a site that is at the edge of downtown and makes a transition to adjacent houses and other multifamily lots.
I’m concerned about the suggestion for “two or three story wood framed buildings scattered artfully across the site” as that sounds like a sub-urban solution applied to an urban site.
Finally, as in all discourse about public policy, I think it’s important to make distinctions between statements of fact and statements of opinion. The buildings will total 126,000 square feet, that’s a fact. That that size is too big or too dense is an opinion.
In my opinion this is a good project. I think that investing $15 million worth of new construction in our local community is beneficial to all of us. I think that having another 150 or so residents living within walking distance of our shops and restaurants is a great thing. I think that adding a restaurant and shops and office space is also good.
Mixed use, dense, walkable development adjacent to downtown sounds good to me.
I encourage the board to vote in favor of this project.
I think this will be a great project for Carrboro. It will help businesses downtown and is way more sustainable than McMansions. They cannot build it too fast. And as far as parking, everyone can take the bus, it’s free!!!
I have to agree with Mr. Haggerty’s detailed analysis of the proposed project for the North Greensboro Street property. It’s a pretty dream to think that all these new residents and magic shoppers would be walking to and from mixed-use buildings; however, Free Buses notwithstanding, Carrboro’s traffic congestion has been increasing, not decreasing, over the past several years. And the project’s plan for parking, in an already overcrowded and problematic area, is indeed a recipe for further traffic/parking headaches. I do hope the Carrboro BOA does not rezone the property until a more appropriate plan emerges for the site.
I cannot believe anyone is negative about this project, it is the vision for Carrboro’s future! I think it will be just beautiful!