[Durham INC] Fwd: Re: Please reject UDO Tree coverage change TC1300002

[Will Wilson]

INCers,
Regarding the message Milo Pyne, Bob Healy, and I sent a few days ago, 
I've had some clarifying discussions with Planning Director Steve 
Medlin. The developer-initiated text amendment to the UDO (unified 
development ordinances) is not good for our "Tree City".

The following represents a slightly edited exchange (to remove 
extraneous bits) with Mr. Medlin (in part facilitated by Councilor 
Catotti). In short, imperviousness and tree coverage are calculated over 
an entire parcel's area (including a large utilities easement).  This 
amendment seems to correct an unfair burden to the developer by reducing 
tree coverage requirements, but what is not stated is that it lets 
developers keep the higher imperviousness. What becomes unfair is 
reduced tree coverage for future residents of the development relative 
to other residents of similar zoning.

Please let city council know this amendment should be rejected.

Thanks,
Will

-------- Original Message --------

Thanks for your clarification, Steve. The simplest statement of this
change is that, presently, developers move both imperviousness
allowances and tree coverage requirements from the easement area to the
remainder of the parcel, but the developer-initiated proposed change
relieves the developer of the tree coverage requirement. The developer
still retains the right to have the imperviousness associated with the
easement area, and could seek a rezoning for higher density on the
remaining parcel to account for the buildable units. In this situation,
these neighborhoods with easements will have fewer trees for the same
amount of impervious surface, and fewer trees (and their benefits) per
housing unit.

I really appreciate your time,
Will


On 2/1/2014 4:19 PM, Medlin, Steve wrote:
> Good afternoon,
>
> I apologize for the delay in responding but I was out of town this
> morning and am only just getting to my emails for the day.
>
> Thanks for the clarification and elaboration on what you are asking.
> As the question has two components let me first answer the original
> question regarding how impervious surface would be calculated. The
> impervious surface would be calculated based on the entire tract
> area, including any portion that is encumbered by easements. The
> property owner would have to define the amount of pervious and
> impervious area within the easement including any improvements
> associated with the primary easement use. Typically this includes
> structures and any driveways that may be present. Depending on the
> easement conditions and limitations the property owner may get the
> benefit of having pervious area which would be used to credit toward
> the overall tract calculation. However, as long as the overall tract
> does not exceed the maximum impervious amount allowed and all
> required stormwater improvements are in place based on the
> anticipated impervious surface amount I feel confident that there
> would be little to no adverse impacts.
>
> On the second question on the ability to transfer density is a
> possibility as the UDO only limits the crediting of density for
> environmentally regulated areas (i.e. flood plains, stream buffers,
> etc.). However in order to allocate the density based on the overall
> tract size they would have to rezone the property to a district which
> would allow the higher density in the limited portion of the tract.
> Most residential districts prescribe the minimum lot size allowed so
> in order to increase the density on a portion of a site a rezoning
> would be required to allow flexibility in lot sizes, like the PDR
> district. As you are aware rezoning approval is the sole discretion
> of the appropriate elected board and all rezoning  applications are
> reviewed against adopted policies and ordinances, including making
> sure that the resultant density is appropriate for the context area.
>
> Let me know if you have any follow up questions.
>
>
> Steven L. Medlin, AICP Planning Director Durham City-County Planning
> Department 101 City Hall Plaza Durham, NC 27701 (919) 560-4137 ext.
> 28223 steve.medlin at durhamnc.gov
>
>>>
>>> Here's the question:
>>>
>>> There's an unbuildable easement making up some fraction of a
>>> parcel. There are two transfers of rights from that fraction: 1)
>>> The potential buildable units from that fraction, and 2) the tree
>>> coverage obligations. Does a developer get to transfer the
>>> buildable units from that fraction under the easement to the
>>> other portion of the lot? If the answer is no, then it's fair not
>>> to transfer the tree coverage. But if the developer gets to build
>>> additional units on the non-easement portion of the lot, then why
>>> relieve the developer of the tree coverage obligation?
>>>
>>> Thanks, Will
>>>

-- 
http://www.biology.duke.edu/wilson/
http://www.constructedclimates.org/
http://biology.duke.edu/wilson/Book/index.php