
{"id":20956,"date":"2011-09-22T12:14:24","date_gmt":"2011-09-22T16:14:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.carrborocitizen.com\/main\/?p=20956"},"modified":"2011-09-22T12:16:41","modified_gmt":"2011-09-22T16:16:41","slug":"proposed-project-wrong-for-space","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/2011\/09\/22\/proposed-project-wrong-for-space\/","title":{"rendered":"Proposed project wrong for space"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Jack Haggerty <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>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. \t <\/p>\n<p>The proposed project consists of two buildings with 114 apartments and 12,000 square feet of commercial space, totaling 126,000 square feet. That\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s a lot of space. The underlying zoning, long in place, intends the zoning district \u00e2\u20ac\u0153to provide space for assemblage and research and development type enterprises.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d The description of the zoning district acknowledges that the predominant buildings in the zoned area are older houses, and this is still true. <\/p>\n<p>\u00e2\u20ac\u0153The continued use,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d says the ordinance, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153of existing residential dwelling units along North Greensboro Street is encouraged.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d <\/p>\n<p>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\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t 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. <\/p>\n<p>There\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s more. There will be something like 147 parking spaces for 114 two-bedroom units, meaning there\u00e2\u20ac\u2122ll 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\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m 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 \u00e2\u20ac\u201c for both tenants who can\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t find parking and the adjacent property owners who will be troubled by the overage. There\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s no on-street parking near the property, and no town lots are close. <\/p>\n<p>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 \u00e2\u20ac\u201c 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\u00e2\u20ac\u2122m afraid, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153affordable\u00e2\u20ac\u009d 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 \u00e2\u20ac\u0153affordable,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d we will be asked to accept the project. <\/p>\n<p>At the hearing, there will be talk of affordability, walkability and sustainability. We shouldn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t be confused by the use of these words. These are commendable ideas, but their currency doesn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t 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\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s 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. <\/p>\n<p>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\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t the bypass full of two-bedroom rental units, with banners flying to proclaim their availability? Don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t 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. <\/p>\n<p><em>Jack Haggerty is an architect in Carrboro. <\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On Tuesday, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen will resume a rezoning hearing on a property on North Greensboro Street. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-20956","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-opinion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20956","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=20956"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20956\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20962,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/20956\/revisions\/20962"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=20956"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=20956"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ibiblio.org\/carrborocitizen\/main\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=20956"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}