[Durham INC] FW: [INCexecutivecommittee] Fwd: TC1200012

[Yahoo]

Once again, I hav to miss an INC mtg bc of a conflicting event w the Lowe's Grove PTA. 

It is no surprise that I fully support the resolution below, particularly wrt it's inconsistency w encouraging higher density along planned mass transit.

Sincerely,
Melissa (Rooney)

Sent by iPhone
Melissa Rooney, Ph. D.
www.melissarooneywriting.com

All the darkness in the world cannot put out a single candle.
~St. Francis of Assisi

On Dec 9, 2013, at 9:51 PM, Pat <pats1717 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> I asked Scott to add this to the agenda tomorrow night.  Thanks, pat
> 
> 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
> 
> __._,_.___
> Reply via web post	 Reply to sender	 Reply to group	Start a New Topic           	Messages in this topic (1)                      
> RECENT ACTIVITY:
> Visit Your Group
> 
> Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback
> .
>  
> __,_._,___
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131209/9eaade53/attachment.html>