[Durham INC] Density Text Amendment

Thu Feb 6 06:47:20 EST 2014

Unfortunately the other text amendment, the one that INC passed a resolution against, passed 7-0.  If you see a multi-family re-zoning with a development plan, you should get very worried as about 20 units per acre will be allowed.  Durham also apparently is too scared of fractions to have them in their development code.
If we want a different result for the county commissioners next week, we need more people to call or write  commissioners at dconc.gov to express their concerns.  THe INC resolution is below.
Thanks for all your help on this, pat
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 by1.      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; and4.     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 in non-transit-oriented areas, which will create an immense amount of impervious surface when there are 20 units per acre if that density is allowed in areas that will remain car-dependent, and Whereas the Planning Department analyzed two potential development sites along 15-501 access roads,http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Documents/JCCPC/Agendas/2013/May/Attachment6.pdf, one at Cornwallis and one at Mt. Moriah Road, which are very different in their suitability for density: the one at Mt. Moriah is within walking distance of job opportunities, already served by both TTA and DATA, and will be at a rail stop in the future and the one at Cornwallis, even though it is on the future rail line, is a long way from any future stop and will likely always be car-dependent, 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 no developer has the right to rules that optimize their profits, and Whereas developers have other choices to obtain greater density, such as variances, re-zoning and Compact Districts; in fact, the area at Mt. Moriah and 15-501 that the Planning Department analyzed is already starting the process of becoming a Compact District, and Whereas changes to rules that apply across the county for the benefit of a single development usually have many unforeseen bad consequences, and Whereas Durham is in the process of absorbing higher densities in the forms of various apartment buildings and hotels and has recently backed a number of pro-developer initiatives (for example, delisting of Liberty, partial closing of Holland Street), and prudence indicates a “pause” may be in order while the effects of those developments unfold; 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 at this time.  INC suggests that this matter be deferred until the Planning Department has completed a review of density bonuses.  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. 

> Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 08:15:06 -0500
> From: willwilsn at gmail.com
> To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
> CC: milopyne at yahoo.com; healy at duke.edu
> Subject: [Durham INC] Tree Coverage Text Amendment
> 
> FYI the city council sent the proposed text amendment that reduced tree 
> coverage on parcels with easements was back to the Planning Department 
> for more study. Bob Healy asked to see a map showing all of the affected 
> parcels, but the developer/Planning Department hadn't done that work, so 
> they had no idea how much of the county would be affected, despite 
> recommending the amendment's passage. The revelation that the change 
> wouldn't affect imperviousness calculations, only tree coverage, also 
> seemed important.
> 
> Many thanks to the City Council!
> 
> When/if it comes back, I'll let you know.
> 
> Thanks,
> Will
> -- 
> http://www.biology.duke.edu/wilson/
> http://www.constructedclimates.org/
> http://biology.duke.edu/wilson/Book/index.php
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140206/13fd69f6/attachment.html>