[Durham INC] FW: [INCexecutivecommittee] Fwd: TC1200012
Scott Carter
carterjs at us.ibm.com
Tue Dec 10 10:50:14 EST 2013
Hi Deb,
Your concern is noted. I have the same concern. However, Pat has
pointed out that the window for commenting on this issue is very small and
does not
allow us to handle this resolution through our standard process. So we
are forced into some type of expedited process if we want to make any
comment.
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: "Debra A Hawkins" <dhawkins913311 at gmail.com>
To: "'Yahoo'" <mmr121570 at yahoo.com>, "'Pat'"
<pats1717 at hotmail.com>,
Cc: "'inc listserv'" <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
Date: 12/10/2013 01:16 AM
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] FW: [INCexecutivecommittee] Fwd: TC1200012
Sent by: inc-list-bounces at rtpnet.org
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
__._,_.___
|--------------+-----------+----------+------------+------------------|
|Reply via web |Reply to |Reply to |Start a New |Messages in this |
|post |sender |group |Topic |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
_______________________________________________
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/20131210/131ccb5a/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/20131210/131ccb5a/attachment.gif>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list