INC NEWS - Morreene Road development

Fri Oct 26 17:58:44 EDT 2007

My point is that the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zone is a dangerous zone as it is now specified -- if you can put a nightclub at the Morreene Road site, you can put one in any CN-zoned property, which affects a LOT of neighborhoods (I think some planned-neighborhood clubhouses are zoned CN).  

The initial interpretation that there is really no limit on "storage" in a commercial building also means NONE of us has meaningful protection against huge warehouses in our backyards.

I don't know what the right answer on the Morreene Road case is, but I would certainly advocate fixing the flaws in the process, Planning Department and/or UDO that allowed it to happen.

Regards, pat

> Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:40:16 -0700
> From: mmr121570 at yahoo.com
> To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
> Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Morreene Road development
> 
> Though I, too, found the "guest opinion" piece
> informative and felt empathetic with D&L, I can't help
> but agree with Pat. The writers would have done well
> to omit the last sentence. 
> 
> It may be a reality check, and one that should prompt
> neighbors and gov't officials to preventative action.
> Nonetheless, it sure sounded like a veiled threat to
> me. We heard the same thing with Jordan at Southpoint.
> During initial talks with S. Durham neighbors, the
> developer/contractor told us that they 'could always
> submit the same plan as a conservation subdivision'--
> this might sound to some like a good thing, until they
> find out that submitting as a 'conservation
> subdivision' avoids the need for DRB and BOCC
> approval, and thus any public hearings.
> 
> It sounds like D&L is a good NC business. I am
> empathetic to their frustrations and agree that, at
> the end of the day, it isn't their fault. 
> 
> But replacing a small eatery with a larger (by 62%)
> commercial store like this should have prompted
> gov't/planning's communication with immediate
> neighbors, particularly since it involved ordinance
> interpretations hidden to the common layperson. 
> Certainly, these neighbors shouldn't have been stroked
> and told not to worry, as they have reported. This is
> all the more disturbing, since it appears that the
> planning department made some judgment calls that were
> not in keeping with the intent of the long-standing
> zoning of the property.
> 
> I certainly welcome what the D&L's article refers to
> as "the Planning Department's evolving discretion,"
> and I hope that it will prevent another situation like
> the one at hand.
> 
> Melissa Rooney
> (I have attached the initial HS article (by neighbors)
> below)
> 
> _________________
> 
> Column: Controversial Morreene warehouse mocks real
> planning
> By Will Robinson, 21 Sept 2007, Herald-Sun
> 
> Dirt roads and farmland were about all that you would
> have found at the intersection of Durham's Morreene
> Road and American Drive in the 1930s. That and a
> little barbecue joint. This was the Turnage Farm owned
> by Woodrow Turnage, the cotton buyer for Erwin Mills.
> The farm and the barbecue joint were perhaps more a
> hobby for Turnage, who entertained business associates
> there from time to time.
> 
> Durham resident Jim Warren grew up working at the
> barbecue joint, and after returning from WWII, Warren
> came back to work for the restaurant, bought the
> business and moved it just down the street to the lot
> at 608 Morreene Road, where he ran a popular
> restaurant called "Turnage's" for almost 30 years.
> This was the same "Turnage's" that made headlines by
> becoming Durham's first integrated restaurant in the
> early 1960s.
> 
> During those 30 years, the restaurant and neighborhood
> were incorporated into Durham's city limits and zoned
> accordingly. While the neighborhood was rightly
> designated as residential property, all the neighbors
> agreed that Warren, who also lived in the neighborhood
> himself, be given a "Commercial Neighborhood" (CN)
> zoning to continue his business. His barbecue was
> certainly a welcome part of the community that had
> been developed on the old Turnage Farm acreage.
> 
> Unfortunately for the residents of the Turnage
> Heights/University Estates neighborhood, today, no
> such enthusiasm exists today, in part because the
> restaurant that used to share the neighborhood's name
> no longer exists. And in part because of what is going
> up in its place. When the old restaurant was torn down
> earlier this year, neighbors who called to inquire
> were told by city planning officials that a retail
> store was going up, which was in keeping with the
> property's CN district, and not to be worried.
> 
> Maybe they were naive; maybe the name "city planning"
> actually led them to believe someone downtown was
> looking after the best interest of the neighborhood
> and planning accordingly. It was only when the
> bulldozers came in to grade and the steel girders were
> off-loaded on the site that folks realized something
> terrible was happening. In place of the old
> restaurant, plans had been approved by the city for an
> appliance and appliance parts company to build a
> 13,000-square-foot store and warehouse -- smack dab in
> the middle of their neighborhood.
> 
> Calls to the store's owner and to the city only
> produced disillusionment. As a result, neighbors now
> find themselves fighting against the city over what
> appears to be an obviously bad example of city
> planning and are being told that not much can be done.
> The parcel of land zoned CN is only about an acre and
> the old restaurant fit nicely on that property. But
> apparently, somewhere in the 900-page (read "not
> user-friendly") Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
> governing development in Durham, exceptions allow for
> a builder to purchase adjacent residential
> (RS-district) lots and allocate their acreage to meet
> the buffer/yard requirements for his commercial
> property.
> 
> This permits the builder in this case to more than
> double the size of his new commercial building going
> up. And thus a 5,000-square-foot restaurant becomes a
> 13,000-square-foot monstrosity in the blink of an eye.
> What's even more befuddling is that the city seems
> perfectly comfortable that this new appliance and
> parts store and warehouse will "complement and satisfy
> the needs of the surrounding neighborhood" as the UDO
> states, even though no one in the neighborhood wants
> it.
> 
> The UDO is 900 pages because development exceptions
> are bound to arise in a county growing as fast as
> ours. The problem is that those exceptional clauses
> are intended to permit favorable development in cases
> where the standard requirements of the UDO would
> normally inhibit such positive growth. However, in
> this case, Durham City Planning has simply taken the
> UDO, with all of its exceptions, and "cherry-picked"
> it to permit decidedly bad development, which leaves
> us to scratch our heads and wonder whose interest is
> really being served here? It is certainly not the
> citizens of University Estates and Turnage Heights. 
> 
> The UDO was implemented to help steer growth in
> positive ways in Durham -- to "protect existing
> neighborhoods, preventing their decline and promoting
> their livability," and to "encourage an aesthetically
> attractive community."
> 
> Permitting this warehouse makes a mockery of the real
> spirit of the UDO. In this case, what the citizens of
> Durham are left with is a City Planning Office with a
> gutless UDO in hand using the letter of the law to
> justify serving every commercial development interest
> that darkens its door. And in so doing, they lose
> sight of the forest for the trees, and the vision of a
> better Durham for our tomorrow. Must we stand by and
> watch our neighborhood being pockmarked with
> unscrupulous commercial development? Stay tuned for a
> warehouse coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
> 
> The writer is a former resident and current property
> owner in Turnage Heights.
> 
> --- Marge Nordstrom <mnordstrom at nc.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > I came away from reading the article with the same
> > impressions as Kelly.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org
> > [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org]
> > On Behalf Of Kelly Jarrett, DISC
> > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 11:40 AM
> > Cc: listserv, inc
> > Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Morreene Road development
> > 
> > Pat--
> > I actually found their opinion piece to be
> > informative and persuasive. 
> > It sounds to me as if they've followed procedures
> > and are willing to try
> > 
> > to address some of the neighborhood concerns. I took
> > their concluding 
> > remark less as a threat that as a reality check. I
> > agree with you that 
> > there may be a problem with how various types of
> > zoning are defined and 
> > with the planning/development process, but they
> > aren't to blame for 
> > those problems.
> > 
> > Kelly
> > 
> > pat carstensen wrote:
> > > I just happened to see the following "guest
> > opinion" piece in the 
> > > Herald Sun.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/columnists/guests/68-892019.cfm
> > >
> > > by the folks trying to build a "commercial
> > neighborhood" building in 
> > > the Morreene Rd. neighborhood. 
> > >
> > > It concludes:
> > > "At the end of the day, if the Planning
> > Department's evolving 
> > > discretion and our immediate neighbors' passions
> > won't allow D&L to 
> > > become operational at the site, we will be forced
> > to sell to the 
> > > highest bidder. The highest bidder could be a
> > late-night convenience 
> > > store or a night club serving folks who stay up
> > much later than we
> > do."
> > >
> > > I find the threatening tone appalling.  Behavior
> > like this is why 
> > > neighborhoods treat any development in their area
> > as a threat.  It 
> > > also shows why all Durham neighborhoods need a
> > type of zoning that 
> > > permits useful commercial enterprises that will
> > serve the neighborhood
> > 
> > > while controlling the size, lights, traffic, and
> > so on that keep it at
> > 
> > > a scale appropriate to a neighborhood.
> > >
> > > Regards, pat
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Climb to the top of the charts!  Play Star
> > Shuffle:  the word scramble
> > 
> > > challenge with star power. Play Now! 
> > >
> >
> <http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_
> > oct> 
> > >
> > >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > INC-list mailing list
> > > INC-list at rtpnet.org
> > > http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
> > >   
> > _______________________________________________
> > INC-list mailing list
> > INC-list at rtpnet.org
> > http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > INC-list mailing list
> > INC-list at rtpnet.org
> > http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list

_________________________________________________________________
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20071026/44a3e203/attachment-0001.htm 