[Durham INC] A proposal to change the comprehensive plan

[Will Wilson]

Tom,
Why can't the 12 acres be subdivided into two parts, one that includes 
the buffers and historic buildings and another that could be rezoned to 
the higher density? Say that was 6 acres, then there'd be something like 
36 units on that part, not 60.
Thanks, and Happy Thanksgiving!
Will

On 11/22/2017 3:13 PM, Tom Miller wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
> 

--