INC NEWS - All the issues we raised can be addressed; Duke submitted mostly blank Development Plan

[John Schelp]

folks,

Tom Miller and I spoke with Frank Duke after getting
his email. We've spoken with others. All the issues we
raised can be addressed in one way or another with
appropriate committed elements in the Development
Plan. 

Keep in mind that many of these issues were first
raised by Duke (ie. that eastern section of Central
Campus will be a mix of residential uses like Trinity
Heights).

We are simply trying to clarify what Duke has stated
in public meetings.

Our concern, and the concern raised by many (including
City Council members and the Herald-Sun) is that Duke
submitted a mostly blank Development Plan. 

The stakeholders have met several times over the past
two 1/2 years. None of the issues raised at the Duke
meetings is addressed in the Development Plan
submitted by Duke.

Our group includes several merchants and neighborhoods
near Duke -- including Watts Hospital-Hillandale,
Morehead Hill, Trinity Heights, Tuscaloosa-Lakewood,
Ninth Street, Brightleaf, Northgate Mall and Old West
Durham. We're also talking with homeowners who live on
what is now Central Campus.

Over past few weeks, we have asked Duke several times
to meet to work out the issues we've raised.
University officials have been unable to set a date.

Tom is sending another request to Duke's Peter Lange
today and we will share what we hear. 

On past campus rezonings, we've walked with Duke into
City Council chambers shoulder to shoulder. There's no
reason why we can't do it again. 

We are working in the spirit of moving this project
forward.

Below is a helpful summary of our concerns.

have a good day,
John Schelp

****

1. That future development on the eastern side of
Central Campus be a mix of residential uses like
Trinity Heights.

2. That the residential character of Swift Avenue be
protected.

3. That the three stream-bed "hollows" and identified
wetlands remain natural, open space.

4. That at least 10% of the western side of Central
Campus be natural open space.

5. That at least 15% of the middle of Central Campus
be natural open space.

6. That a 75' wide vegetative buffer protect
residential uses from other uses.

7. For the non-residential areas, that height limits
for buildings be 80' on the hospital side and 65' in
the Anderson St area.

8. That the handful of historic houses remaining be
protected and used for single family residences.

9. That the size, locations, and uses for all retail,
entertainment, restaurant, and other non-residential
and non-university/academic development planned for
Central Campus be clarified and limited in amount.

10. That the route of the proposed roadway serving the
new "village" on Central Campus be clarified and
shown.

11. That the location of all parking be clarified and
shown.

12. That plans for street trees and streetscaping be
clarified and shown for Campus Drive, Anderson, Swift
and Erwin.

Again, all these issues can be addressed in one way or
another with appropriate committed elements in the
Development Plan. 

The stakeholders are willing to be flexible in how
these concerns can be addressed in the Development
Plan.

We are looking for the university's cooperation and
the Planning Department's guidance and assistance.

Again, we are working in the spirit of moving this
project forward.