[Durham INC] TC1200012

Mon Dec 2 15:23:00 EST 2013

Hi Pat,

Thanks for all of your work over the holidays to crawl through this
proposed UDO amendment and identify these concerns!

I have to admit that I don't know the UDO to this level of detail.    But
at a high level I agree that there is reason to be concerned if these
changes are being made for a single
developer or development, if the density will be higher just by changing
the rounding or truncation formula of the calculation, and if there are
special case situations (such as
the service road change) that are not intuitive.

I recognize that this issue is time sensitive, and that in order to comment
then we need to expedite the review process.   However, I am concerned
about quickly pushing
through a resolution where most of the delegates do not understand it well
enough to see the pros and cons of each side, and in this case where some
or most of the executive committee
may also be in the same boat.    I trust you and Tom completely in your
ability to digest the UDO and determine whether changes might be harmful or
not to neighborhoods, but
in order to have the INC support this resolution, I think we need to have a
more clear understanding of the proposed changes, why the planning dept is
proposing them, and
what are the negative consequences that we envision.

Are you proposing that we discuss this at our delegates meeting and have
only an exec committee vote at the meeting, since the delegates would not
have had a month to
take back to their boards?    Or if not, then what process do you think we
can use to take some type of position on this?

Thanks.

Scott

Scott Carter
__O
Project Manager, IBM xSeries OEM Sales & Operations
_'\<,_
phone: (919) 543-2436   t/l:  8-441-2436   fax: (919) 486-0380  email:
carterjs at us.ibm.com        (_)/ (_)
address:  IBM,  Dept 8R0A / Bldg 205 / Rm L109,  3039 Cornwallis Rd, RTP,
NC  27709           ----------------

From:	Pat <pats1717 at hotmail.com>
To:	inc listserv <inc-list at durhaminc.org>,
Date:	11/28/2013 07:05 AM
Subject:	[Durham INC] TC1200012
Sent by:	inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org

Given our holiday schedule, can we discuss this resolution over e-mail and
vote on it at our December 10th meeting?  The Planning Commission is voting
on the proposed change at about the same time as our meeting.

A Resolution Regarding Proposed Changes in Density of Multi-Family
Developments, TC1200012

Whereas Durham’s governing bodies are being asked to consider TC1200012,
changing the Unified Development Ordinance to generally increase the
density allowed for multi-family residential zones by
    1.       Adjusting  current  density  allowances to remove fractions of
    dwelling units;
    2.       Modifying the existing Residential Suburban-Multifamily (RS-M)
    Major Roadway Density Bonus to include frontage along service roads;
    3.       Allowing  higher  densities,  but  only  with  approval of the
    governing body through rezoning with a development plan; and
    4.      Allowing the use of density bonuses for multifamily development
    in  non-residential  districts in the Suburban and Compact Neighborhood
    Tiers,  consistent  with  what  is currently permitted within the Urban
    Tier, and.

Whereas  removing  fractions of dwelling units from the multiplier does not
eliminate  the need to sometimes round the result (since the property could
have, for example, 12.5 acres), and

Whereas  removing  fractions  results in as much as a 14.2% increase in the
number  of dwelling units (for example, going from a multiplier of 3.5 to 4
for 10 acres goes from 35 to 40 units), and

Whereas rounding the result of multiplying a fractional number of units per
acre and the “allowed acreage” has seemed to work in the past, and

Whereas  changing  multiplies that have been decided on through a political
process  and  based  on best national practices should not be done lightly,
and

Whereas  there is no guarantee that a development along a service road will
use  that  service  road as the primary access, or than the service road is
not already identified as having failing intersections, resulting in either
more  traffic  injected  into residential streets behind the property or an
even  more  dangerous intersection with the main road (can anyone seriously
propose  that  we put more traffic on the service road on the south side of
15-501 east of Garrett Road?), and

Whereas  the  higher  densities around transit areas with development plans
are  necessary  to  create the kind of density needed to make transit work,
allowing  any  suburban area is just diluting the incentive to build around
transit, and

Whereas  Durham  has  shown  its  support  of  transit through its planning
processes and vote to use a sales tax to support it, and

Whereas  the UDO requires two parking spaces per unit, which will create an
immense amount of impervious surface when there are 20 units per acre, and

Whereas  these  changes are being made at the request of a developer trying
to squeeze more units onto a property too small for their profits, and

Whereas  developers  have the right to ask for changes in the rules but the
public good determines any change in the rules, and

Whereas  changes  to  the  rules  for  the  benefit of a single development
usually have many unforeseen pernicious consequences, and

Whereas  the Planning Department has done excellent work in identifying the
issues with the developer’s original proposal, therefore

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the InterNeighborhood Council (INC) of
Durham by its delegates duly assembled that the City and County of Durham
should reject TC1200012.  Also although the INC does not agree with the
current proposal from the Planning Department, the department is to be
commended for its efforts to improve the original proposal.
_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
list at durham-inc.org
http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20131202/1ec78db8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20131202/1ec78db8/attachment.gif>