[Durham INC] Planning staff now favors [751 Ass.] rezoning

[Melissa Rooney]

See the HS article below. And please pass this info on to every Durham citizen you know.

In a nutshell, the Planning Dept has reversed their decision and is now recommending approval for the 751 Ass. project adjacent to Jordan Lake.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Citizen communication with the planning department (PD) has resulted in the following PD statements:

1. "We have acknowledged in the staff report that there is conflicting direction contained in the Durham Comprehensive Plan. That the FLUM does
in fact indicate a residential land use designation at a much lower density from what is being proposed."

"Staff has pointed out that one area of concern is the intensity/density of the project as related to the existing land use pattern and the FLUM."

2. The planning department is "limited in [its] role to making a recommendation solely based on the compliance of a project to the UDO and the Comprehensive Plan." 

3. "However there is a written policy which basically states that mixed use developments within the suburban tier should be encouraged where one of the uses is reflected on the FLUM (in this case residential is shown as one of the proposed uses). As this is a written policy practice has been to give these more emphasis."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My question is this; If the PD must make a recommendation based on compliance to the UDO and The Comprehensive Plan, why is it that the Comp. Plan/ FLUM's  'encouragement' of 'mixed use developments' trumps the same Comp. Plan/FLUM's 'indication' of a 'residential land use designation at a much lower density from what is being proposed"? The former argument is being used to support the developer's rezoning, while the latter apparently lacks the same import to be used to oppose the developer's rezoning.

Am I the only one confused by the inconsistency here?

* Furthermore, there has been no indication that the developers have committed to BUILDING (not just planning for) a residential component (homes) BEFORE they build any retail here. 
    Nor is there any mention of the developers committing to restricting the maximum size of a single given retail space. 
    A lack of commitment to these two points essentially means that, should this rezoning pass (and certainly should the land be 'flipped'/sold to another party) this development could turn into just another big box strip mall, with little to no residentical component. 

Thus, unless the developers commit to the above things, the planning department should still recommend denial because the developers are avoiding true commitments to put in a TRULY mixed-use development here. In other words, we have another loophole folks.

* With regard to the land being donated for a school -- does this 'donated land' still contain county and state designated wilderness/environmentally-sensitive areas, such that if Durham were to build a school here it would have the same problems that the planning department has now said the developers have solved?

* Finally, the developers apparently still won't commit to abiding by the Jordan Lake rules when they are finally implemented. Doesn't instill much confidence in their assurances that this development will have NO adverse impact on Jordan Lake, does it?

All of this needs to be pointed out to the commissioners. Unless the developers commit to the above things, the planning department should still recommend denial based on lack of fulfillment of the intent (as well as specific statements) of the comprehensive plan and based on the development's lack of accountability regarding the Jordan Lake Cleanup Rules, for which we tax payers will have to pay.


Please write the planning director, the county commissioners (and cc the city council) with your concerns. Here's the contact info (remove any spaces that may sneak into these email addresses):

beckymheron at nc.rr.com;  ereckhow at gmail.com;  bhowerton at co.durham.nc.us; jbowser2 at nc.rr.com;  mdelanopage at aol.com; steve.medlin at durhamnc.gov; mruffin at co.durham.nc.us;

council at ci.durham.nc.us; Bill.Bell at durhamnc.gov; tom.bonfield at durhamnc.gov; Eugene.Brown at durhamnc.gov;  Cora.Cole-McFadden at durhamnc.gov;  farad.ali at durhamnc.gov;  diane.catotti at durhamnc.gov;  Howard.Clement at durhamnc.gov;  mike.woodard at durhamnc.gov;  
 
Thanks for your involvement and your persistence!
Melissa (Rooney)
 

> Planning staff now favors rezoning
> 05.05.10 - 09:51 pm
> By Ray Gronberg
> 
> gronberg at heraldsun.com; 419-6648
> 
> DURHAM — Reversing the advice they gave to an advisory board last 
> month, city/county planners are now saying County Commissioners should 
> approve zoning that would allow a developer to build up to 1,300 homes 
> and 600,000 square feet of business space next to Jordan Lake.
> 
> The change followed concessions by the would-be developer, Southern 
> Durham Development Inc., that addressed complaints from state officials 
> about the proposed 751 South project’s potential effect on wildlife in 
> the area.
> 
> Officials in the City/County Planning Department also said that despite 
> maps labeling the 167-acre project site suitable only for low-density 
> housing, Durham’s written land-use policy allows mixed-use development 
> anywhere in the suburbs.
> 
> They cited a provision of Durham’s “comprehensive plan” that says 
> officials should allow mixed-use projects wherever “one of the 
> [proposed] uses is shown” as being acceptable as a future land use. The 
> only exception to that is for industrial development. The 751 South 
> site qualifies because the land is already earmarked for residential 
> use.
> 
> Planners conceded, however, that approving 751 South could undermine 
> regional transit planning and the incentives builders now have to 
> invest in central Durham.
> 
> The project site — near the southern edge of Durham County at the 
> intersection of N.C. 751 and Fayetteville Road — isn’t on any existing 
> bus line and isn’t anywhere near the corridor officials think may 
> someday get rail service.
> 
> “Encouraging medium- to high-density growth without transit service and 
> outside of designated transit nodes could reduce demand for 
> higher-density development” in those nodes “in the near to medium 
> term,” planning staffers said.
> 
> Moreover, a large project on the edge of the city like 751 South can 
> “create conditions that ‘drive’ community wide infrastructure 
> investments to the urban fringe and away from the core areas already 
> planned for infrastructure improvements,” they said.
> 
> Nonetheless, the 751 South site is handy to RTP and Chapel Hill, 
> putting it in “an area of historic high growth and market 
> desirability,” the planners said.
> 
> The wildlife issue came up because of the site’s proximity to Jordan 
> Lake. State regulators want a buffer around the lake wide enough that 
> animals can move around the area even when a rising lake floods its 
> uplands.
> 
> Project designers have conferred with regulators and are now offering a 
> set of concessions that all told are protecting about 36 acres of the 
> site.
> 
> That done, Southern Durham Development has now “fulfilled [its] 
> responsibility” to protect the natural areas bordering its property, 
> planners said.
> 
> City/county had cited the wildlife issue as their main reason for 
> opposing the project when it went to the Durham Planning Commission 
> last month for an advisory review.
> 
> Planning Commission delegates, however, have turned in written comments 
> that say the project’s likely impact on transit planning and 
> center-city development is a much more significant reason to oppose it.
> 
> Many also noted that the developers have avoided all but the bare 
> minimum of concessions, preserving their ability to make big changes to 
> the plan or flip the site to another developer.
> 
> Among the biggest problems, county Planning Commission delegate George 
> Brine said, is that Southern Durham Development won’t commit in advance 
> to honoring the new anti-pollution regulations officials are drafting 
> to meet state mandates to protect Jordan Lake.
> 
> That could put taxpayers on the hook for cleaning up after the project 
> if developers obtain permits before the new regulations go into effect, 
> Brine said.
> 
> “The project plan is eye candy,” added Linda Huff-Smith, a county 
> delegate the County Commissioners recently denied a new term on the 
> board. “[It] is vulnerable to considerable opportunity for bait and 
> switch. In an economy where the developer is dealing with shrinking 
> retail and residential markets, anything could end up in this space as 
> long as it satisfied the strict numerical commitments.”
> 
> Officials hope to open hearings on the rezoning request late this month.
> 
> Critics of the project, however, are trying to assemble a formal 
> protest petition from neighboring landowners that would force 
> proponents to gain support from four of the five County Commissioners. 
> City/County Planning Director Steve Medlin has given them until May 17 
> to file it.
> © heraldsun.com 2010
> 



      
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed