[Durham INC] A proposal to change the comprehensive plan

[Will Wilson]

I guess the problem is that unbuildable land still has housing units 
attached to it: Someone might own an 11 acre parcel with 10 acres of 
wetlands, and argue that they should be able to build 11 acres worth of 
houses on the buildable 1 acre. If so, that seems messed up.

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
> 

--