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

Tue Dec 10 01:15:25 EST 2013

Will note again for record that this does not allow some 'hoods (mine, at
least one other) sufficient time to get our Board to determine our vote and
allow our rep or delegate to participate. We are beginning to be in the
position of always abstaining and not having a voice in votes. N'gate is
probably able to converse on email to reach a vote decision, but a single
day is too short a span for us to get on everyone's radar even there, moreso
in this season. For future ones is it possible we can have a few days' lead
time so as to be able to participate more fully? 

Thank you, 

Debra, NGP rep 

  _____  

From: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org [mailto:inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org] On
Behalf Of Yahoo
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 10:09 PM
To: Pat
Cc: inc listserv
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] FW: [INCexecutivecommittee] Fwd: TC1200012

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

__._,_.___

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/INCexecutivecommittee/post%3b_ylc=X3oDMTJwOG9
hdjM0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzgwMDg4MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTE3MTE5NgRtc2dJZAM
xNjIEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMzg1Nzc5MjIw?act=reply&messageNum=162>
Reply via web post 

<mailto:rbford at aim.com?subject=Re%3A%20Fwd%3A%20%5BDurham%20INC%5D%20TC12000
12> Reply to sender 

<mailto:INCexecutivecommittee at yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Fwd%3A%20%5BDu
rham%20INC%5D%20TC1200012> Reply to group 

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/INCexecutivecommittee/post%3b_ylc=X3oDMTJmb2Z
paHAzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzgwMDg4MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTE3MTE5NgRzZWMDZnR
yBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzODU3NzkyMjA-> Start a New Topic 

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/INCexecutivecommittee/message/162%3b_ylc=X3oD
MTMzNXNhbTg5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzgwMDg4MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTE3MTE5NgRt
c2dJZAMxNjIEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMzg1Nzc5MjIwBHRwY0lkAzE2Mg-->
Messages in this topic (1) 

Recent Activity: 

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/INCexecutivecommittee%3b_ylc=X3oDMTJmdjF2djhw
BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzgwMDg4MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTE3MTE5NgRzZWMDdnRsBHNs
awN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzODU3NzkyMjA-> Visit Your Group 

<http://groups.yahoo.com/%3b_ylc=X3oDMTJlZmxqam1lBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzg
wMDg4MDQxBGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTE3MTE5NgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM4NTc3OTI
yMA--> Yahoo! Groups

Switch to:
<mailto:INCexecutivecommittee-traditional at yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20D
elivery%20Format:%20Traditional> Text-Only,
<mailto:INCexecutivecommittee-digest at yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Deliver
y:%20Digest> Daily Digest .
<mailto:INCexecutivecommittee-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscrib
e> Unsubscribe .  <http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/> Terms
of Use .
<mailto:ygroupsnotifications at yahoogroups.com?subject=Feedback%20on%20the%20r
edesigned%20individual%20mail%20v1> Send us Feedback 

.

<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=80088041/grpspId=1705171196/msgI
d=162/stime=1385779220> 

__,_._,___

_______________________________________________
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/20131210/40c7ceee/attachment-0001.html>