[Durham INC] A proposal to change the comprehensive plan

[Tom Miller]

Neighbors:

 

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

Attached please find a proposal I have prepared to add a policy to the
Comprehensive Plan as it relates to minimum residential densities in each
tier.  Currently, our comp plan sets out minimum residential densities for
each tier.  The minimum densities are laid out in the Future Land Use Map
which is changeable by parcel and in a table (2.1) which is not adjustable
by parcel as it applies to the whole tier.  The UDO requires all rezoning
requests to conform to the Comprehensive Plan.  Because the minimum
residential density for the urban tier is 6 units per acre in FLUM and in
the table, a proposal to rezone land in the tier must be to a PDR or other
residential category that has a 6 DU/acre minimum.

 

Here's the problem.  There parcels of undeveloped or underdeveloped property
throughout Durham that are covered by required buffers (often the buffers
that are attached to jurisdictional streams), rights of way, easements, and
difficult topography that take up a significant portion of the buildable
property.  Until recently, these parcels have been ignored by builders and
developers because of the difficulties.  The parcels - at least in the urban
tier - are often zoned single-family with minimum lot sizes that prevent
moving units away from the problem areas.  To get the flexibility to cluster
units, the property must be rezoned - usually to a PDR.  The problem with
this, then becomes that the minimum density rules for the tier force the
developer to concentrate units on the buildable portion of the property in a
way that is undesirable for one reason or another.  The developer may not
even want to cram in the extra units needed to hit the minimum.

 

A case in point is the current proposal to redevelop the Pinecrest property
in Forest Hills.  Pinecrest was the Durahm home of Mary Duke Biddle
(although it was originally built for the developer of Forest Hills).  It
sits on 12 acres just beyond the northern end of Forest Hills Park.  If you
have driven past the property, you probably thought the expansive open and
wooded space was part of the park. Although the land is 12 acres, nearly
four acres is covered by the required buffer of the stream that runs through
the property.  More of the site is taken up by the very large home on the
property and its original carriage house.  The buildings are listed
individually on the National Register of Historic Places and are protected
by policies reposed in our Comprehensive Plan.  The property, like its
Forest Hill's neighbors, lies within the urban tier.  It is zoned RS-20,
however, two units per acre, to match its historic suburban layout.

 

A developer would now like redevelop the Pinecrest property.  They would
like to preserve the historic buildings and add some more single family
houses and some townhouses.  To do this they must apply for a PDR zoning.
Under our UDO and Comprehensive Plan, however, the minimum allowable density
for any such request would be PDR-6 requiring more than 60 units.  Because
so much of the land is unbuildable and the presence of the historic homes
cramps the buildable portion of the rest, it would be very difficult place
so many units on the property in a way that would serve the Comprehensive
plan's policies in favor of respecting existing development patterns and
preserving historic structures.  The developer has enlisted one of the most
creative land planners and architectural designers in the southeast to put
the project together, but the number of units required horrifies the
neighbors and stymies the developer and his planning professionals.
Agreement on the development at a significantly higher density than
currently prevails may be possible, but the 6 DU/acre residential minimum
requirement as it is applied to this property is forcing the developer and
neighborhood into a battle that no one wants. A battle that will come up
again and again for this property in as much as it is caused by the clash of
policies in our plan and not by the people involved.

 

As these parcels, bits of stream-crossed land tucked into our neighborhoods
throughout Durham, become interesting to developers for in-fill development,
we will see more of these situations.  Off the top of my head I can point to
such situations in Trinity park, Rockwood, Tuscaloosa-Lakewood, Lyon Park,
Walltown, Duke Park, and my own WHH.  There are many more I am sure.

 

The solution is to recognize the problem in the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and to build a safety valve into the plan.  What I
propose is a policy that says when a parcel of land is significantly covered
by required buffers, easements, rights-of-way, or some physical impediment
to development, it is permissible to consider residential development at a
density less than the minimum set out in the FLUM or in the tier density
table if reducing the density serves some objective outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan.   Under the language of my proposal, the safety valve
would apply only in limited circumstances.  You must have a significantly
impacted property and you must show that reducing the density below the
minimum serves some public purpose identified in the plan.

 

I would like for INC to adopt a resolution asking the council and BOCC to
add this policy to the comprehensive plan.  Incorporating the proposed
policy into the plan will not necessarily bring our Forest Hills neighbors
and the Pinecrest developer together, but without it I fear that they can
never come together.

 

Tom

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20171122/01323a6f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Add to the language of the note contained in table 2.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 13255 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20171122/01323a6f/attachment.docx>