[Durham INC] Draft Minutes
Pat Carstensen
pats1717 at hotmail.com
Sun May 31 14:33:37 EDT 2015
Sorry, I missed this item of new business:
New Business
Hopewell is a neighborhood of 13 houses that would like to
join INC; however, the INC bylaws say that member neighborhoods have to have 40
dwelling units. Some members are
coalitions of smaller neighborhoods. The
issue was referred to the Membership Committee.
From: pats1717 at hotmail.com
To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
Please let me know about additions or corrections. Thanks, pat
7 at hotmail.com
To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
Please let me know about additions or corrections. Thanks, pat
May Delegate Meeting
of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham
NIS Conference
Room, Golden Belt
May 26, 2015
Attending the meeting were:
Neighborhoods
Colony Park – Don Lebkes
Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
Downing Creek – Dick Ford
Duke Park – Bill Anderson
Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
Old Farm – David Harris
Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
Trinity Park – Philip Azar
Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
Woodcroft –Scott Carter
Visitors
Will Wilson – DOST
Elizabeth Chan – EAB
Lynwood Best – NIS
Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
President Phil Azar opened the meeting. Members introduced themselves. Discussion of
the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics mean for
neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin
seconded and delegates voted to do this.
Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
accounts. Dues are still $25.
Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of maintaining
Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has significant benefits
in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics. There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets,
around parking lots in parks, and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most
are willow oaks so have the same expected life, about 20 more years. This leads to two major issues: the expense
of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace these trees. The EAB has made recommendations on the scale
of maintaining our canopy; see http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
. With 13000 trees, we would need to remove
about 750 trees a year (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of
course); we now have capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave
to volunteers. Since many locations that
now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for large trees, EAB recommends
that for every 100 trees removed, we should replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99
small trees. This would mean planting
1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant. The next steps are
do a detailed inventory of location
and condition of the trees so we can set specific targets and see what
resources will be needed (other cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
set a policy of immediate replacement
of dead and dying trees, and
possibly change the UDO’s rules about
planting on private land.
There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
full-time person just do support volunteers).
Ideally trees would be on the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also
be a bond referendum.
Reports
Zoning and Development (cell towers) – The cell tower
revisions to the UDO were passed by both the city and county. City Council, mostly led by the Mayor,
was concerned about general safety matters. We had a better hearing
with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more pertinent;
they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended to
developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and ability
to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back with or
consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
(especially around safety) and inspection protocols. Neither INC nor neighborhoods are expected
to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a constructive role, we
acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung together in this long
process. We need to follow up with letter to staff copying both
bodies and planning commission with final comments. All of the
commissioners were called with a note of thanks. Donna and Dolly were thanked for all
their efforts.
Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) – The
Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
there. In May there were 5 meetings
on specific sites to talk about boundaries to the compact area. There is concern that this was a very
complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even
realize what a complex problem they were looking at. One thing that is especially concerning
is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block to maintain
similar character on both sides of a street” while some neighborhoods have
a principle of having compatible back yards. If you go to the second round of
meetings, please comment on principles about where the lines should go
that you think are wrong. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – Pocket
neighborhoods have a small number of small houses. See http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
Membership and Outreach – The LWV has asked if INC is interested in
co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election. Given
the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
Old Business
Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who
wants to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
runoff will run into Colony Park.
Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want to talk about anything but his
wants.
There are two issues on the details of the proposed light rail system.
Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail come
through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have dangerous
at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the arterial NC54. We also have an old resolution on the eastern
end of the light rail systems. See
Resolutions A and B. The over-arching
issue is that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s an
indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings on
routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
Neighborhood Reports
Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood
reported on the re-configuration of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and
Hardy’s, taking the road from 5 lanes to 3 with bike lanes and
parking. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx TLNA, Bike Durham and others are
supporting the reconfiguration.
Council put the reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the
work session, but some businesses along the route are opposing it so folks
should tell Susan if they hear anything.
Bruce Mitchell of Morehead
Hills reported that the redesigned plans for Greystone Apartments are
nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC has invited Morehead Hill
neighborhood residents and other interested parties to attend a
presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 6 PM at the
Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
The Beaver Queen Pageant
is June 6; there are opportunities to check out the contestants and bribe
judges. More information is at http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
Appendix A: Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route
Submitted May 26, 2015
Whereas local and regional
authorities including GoTriangle (formerly Triangle Transit Authority), the
City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department
of Transportation are all presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed
Durham-Orange Light Rail line;
Whereas two routes under
consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the south side of the N.C. Route 54
right-of-way to cross the Little Creek section of that proposed rail
line;
Whereas either of those routes would
require the creation of several dangerous grade-level rail crossings that
obstruct access to and across N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and
Chapel Hill neighborhoods;
Whereas another route under
consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light rail line across Little Creek north
of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
Whereas the Town of Chapel Hill’s
1995 approval of the creation of Meadowmont was predicated on the future
routing of light rail there;
Whereas a “C1A” route through
Meadowmont would draw ridership from a population that exists in place today,
made up of people who bought or built their homes in an area posted as a future
transit corridor, while a “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a
possible future population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel
Hill and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
Whereas Downing Creek, a member
neighborhood of this council, has by vote of its community association board
resolved to oppose light rail construction along either the “C2” or “C2A”
corridor, and more than ninety percent of Downing Creek residents have
responded to a survey by saying they are “strongly opposed” to these
routes;
Whereas in the course of several
meetings, the authorities in control of this rail planning process have been
dismissive of local residents’ opinions and of their research into the relevant
traffic and safety issues, as summarized online at
Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
Be it resolved that
1.
7 at hotmail.com
To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
Please let me know about additions or corrections. Thanks, pat
May Delegate Meeting
of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham
NIS Conference
Room, Golden Belt
May 26, 2015
Attending the meeting were:
Neighborhoods
Colony Park – Don Lebkes
Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
Downing Creek – Dick Ford
Duke Park – Bill Anderson
Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
Old Farm – David Harris
Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
Trinity Park – Philip Azar
Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
Woodcroft –Scott Carter
Visitors
Will Wilson – DOST
Elizabeth Chan – EAB
Lynwood Best – NIS
Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
President Phil Azar opened the meeting. Members introduced themselves. Discussion of
the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics mean for
neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin
seconded and delegates voted to do this.
Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
accounts. Dues are still $25.
Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of maintaining
Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has significant benefits
in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics. There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets,
around parking lots in parks, and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most
are willow oaks so have the same expected life, about 20 more years. This leads to two major issues: the expense
of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace these trees. The EAB has made recommendations on the scale
of maintaining our canopy; see http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
. With 13000 trees, we would need to remove
about 750 trees a year (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of
course); we now have capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave
to volunteers. Since many locations that
now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for large trees, EAB recommends
that for every 100 trees removed, we should replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99
small trees. This would mean planting
1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant. The next steps are
do a detailed inventory of location
and condition of the trees so we can set specific targets and see what
resources will be needed (other cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
set a policy of immediate replacement
of dead and dying trees, and
possibly change the UDO’s rules about
planting on private land.
There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
full-time person just do support volunteers).
Ideally trees would be on the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also
be a bond referendum.
Reports
Zoning and Development (cell towers) – The cell tower
revisions to the UDO were passed by both the city and county. City Council, mostly led by the Mayor,
was concerned about general safety matters. We had a better hearing
with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more pertinent;
they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended to
developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and ability
to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back with or
consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
(especially around safety) and inspection protocols. Neither INC nor neighborhoods are expected
to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a constructive role, we
acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung together in this long
process. We need to follow up with letter to staff copying both
bodies and planning commission with final comments. All of the
commissioners were called with a note of thanks. Donna and Dolly were thanked for all
their efforts.
Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) – The
Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
there. In May there were 5 meetings
on specific sites to talk about boundaries to the compact area. There is concern that this was a very
complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even
realize what a complex problem they were looking at. One thing that is especially concerning
is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block to maintain
similar character on both sides of a street” while some neighborhoods have
a principle of having compatible back yards. If you go to the second round of
meetings, please comment on principles about where the lines should go
that you think are wrong. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – Pocket
neighborhoods have a small number of small houses. See http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
Membership and Outreach – The LWV has asked if INC is interested in
co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election. Given
the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
Old Business
Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who
wants to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
runoff will run into Colony Park.
Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want to talk about anything but his
wants.
There are two issues on the details of the proposed light rail system.
Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail come
through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have dangerous
at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the arterial NC54. We also have an old resolution on the eastern
end of the light rail systems. See
Resolutions A and B. The over-arching
issue is that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s an
indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings on
routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
Neighborhood Reports
Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood
reported on the re-configuration of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and
Hardy’s, taking the road from 5 lanes to 3 with bike lanes and
parking. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx TLNA, Bike Durham and others are
supporting the reconfiguration.
Council put the reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the
work session, but some businesses along the route are opposing it so folks
should tell Susan if they hear anything.
Bruce Mitchell of Morehead
Hills reported that the redesigned plans for Greystone Apartments are
nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC has invited Morehead Hill
neighborhood residents and other interested parties to attend a
presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 6 PM at the
Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
The Beaver Queen Pageant
is June 6; there are opportunities to check out the contestants and bribe
judges. More information is at http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
Appendix A: Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route
Submitted May 26, 2015
Whereas local and regional
authorities including GoTriangle (formerly Triangle Transit Authority), the
City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department
of Transportation are all presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed
Durham-Orange Light Rail line;
Whereas two routes under
consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the south side of the N.C. Route 54
right-of-way to cross the Little Creek section of that proposed rail
line;
Whereas either of those routes would
require the creation of several dangerous grade-level rail crossings that
obstruct access to and across N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and
Chapel Hill neighborhoods;
Whereas another route under
consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light rail line across Little Creek north
of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
Whereas the Town of Chapel Hill’s
1995 approval of the creation of Meadowmont was predicated on the future
routing of light rail there;
Whereas a “C1A” route through
Meadowmont would draw ridership from a population that exists in place today,
made up of people who bought or built their homes in an area posted as a future
transit corridor, while a “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a
possible future population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel
Hill and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
Whereas Downing Creek, a member
neighborhood of this council, has by vote of its community association board
resolved to oppose light rail construction along either the “C2” or “C2A”
corridor, and more than ninety percent of Downing Creek residents have
responded to a survey by saying they are “strongly opposed” to these
routes;
Whereas in the course of several
meetings, the authorities in control of this rail planning process have been
dismissive of local residents’ opinions and of their research into the relevant
traffic and safety issues, as summarized online at
Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
Be it resolved that
1.
7 at hotmail.com
To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
Please let me know about additions or corrections. Thanks, pat
May Delegate Meeting
of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham
NIS Conference
Room, Golden Belt
May 26, 2015
Attending the meeting were:
Neighborhoods
Colony Park – Don Lebkes
Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
Downing Creek – Dick Ford
Duke Park – Bill Anderson
Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
Old Farm – David Harris
Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
Trinity Park – Philip Azar
Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
Woodcroft –Scott Carter
Visitors
Will Wilson – DOST
Elizabeth Chan – EAB
Lynwood Best – NIS
Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
President Phil Azar opened the meeting. Members introduced themselves. Discussion of
the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics mean for
neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin
seconded and delegates voted to do this.
Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
accounts. Dues are still $25.
Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of maintaining
Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has significant benefits
in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics. There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets,
around parking lots in parks, and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most
are willow oaks so have the same expected life, about 20 more years. This leads to two major issues: the expense
of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace these trees. The EAB has made recommendations on the scale
of maintaining our canopy; see http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
. With 13000 trees, we would need to remove
about 750 trees a year (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of
course); we now have capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave
to volunteers. Since many locations that
now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for large trees, EAB recommends
that for every 100 trees removed, we should replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99
small trees. This would mean planting
1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant. The next steps are
do a detailed inventory of location
and condition of the trees so we can set specific targets and see what
resources will be needed (other cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
set a policy of immediate replacement
of dead and dying trees, and
possibly change the UDO’s rules about
planting on private land.
There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
full-time person just do support volunteers).
Ideally trees would be on the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also
be a bond referendum.
Reports
Zoning and Development (cell towers) – The cell tower
revisions to the UDO were passed by both the city and county. City Council, mostly led by the Mayor,
was concerned about general safety matters. We had a better hearing
with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more pertinent;
they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended to
developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and ability
to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back with or
consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
(especially around safety) and inspection protocols. Neither INC nor neighborhoods are expected
to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a constructive role, we
acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung together in this long
process. We need to follow up with letter to staff copying both
bodies and planning commission with final comments. All of the
commissioners were called with a note of thanks. Donna and Dolly were thanked for all
their efforts.
Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) – The
Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
there. In May there were 5 meetings
on specific sites to talk about boundaries to the compact area. There is concern that this was a very
complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even
realize what a complex problem they were looking at. One thing that is especially concerning
is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block to maintain
similar character on both sides of a street” while some neighborhoods have
a principle of having compatible back yards. If you go to the second round of
meetings, please comment on principles about where the lines should go
that you think are wrong. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – Pocket
neighborhoods have a small number of small houses. See http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
Membership and Outreach – The LWV has asked if INC is interested in
co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election. Given
the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
Old Business
Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who
wants to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
runoff will run into Colony Park.
Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want to talk about anything but his
wants.
There are two issues on the details of the proposed light rail system.
Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail come
through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have dangerous
at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the arterial NC54. We also have an old resolution on the eastern
end of the light rail systems. See
Resolutions A and B. The over-arching
issue is that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s an
indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings on
routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
Neighborhood Reports
Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood
reported on the re-configuration of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and
Hardy’s, taking the road from 5 lanes to 3 with bike lanes and
parking. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx TLNA, Bike Durham and others are
supporting the reconfiguration.
Council put the reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the
work session, but some businesses along the route are opposing it so folks
should tell Susan if they hear anything.
Bruce Mitchell of Morehead
Hills reported that the redesigned plans for Greystone Apartments are
nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC has invited Morehead Hill
neighborhood residents and other interested parties to attend a
presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 6 PM at the
Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
The Beaver Queen Pageant
is June 6; there are opportunities to check out the contestants and bribe
judges. More information is at http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
Appendix A: Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route
Submitted May 26, 2015
Whereas local and regional
authorities including GoTriangle (formerly Triangle Transit Authority), the
City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department
of Transportation are all presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed
Durham-Orange Light Rail line;
Whereas two routes under
consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the south side of the N.C. Route 54
right-of-way to cross the Little Creek section of that proposed rail
line;
Whereas either of those routes would
require the creation of several dangerous grade-level rail crossings that
obstruct access to and across N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and
Chapel Hill neighborhoods;
Whereas another route under
consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light rail line across Little Creek north
of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
Whereas the Town of Chapel Hill’s
1995 approval of the creation of Meadowmont was predicated on the future
routing of light rail there;
Whereas a “C1A” route through
Meadowmont would draw ridership from a population that exists in place today,
made up of people who bought or built their homes in an area posted as a future
transit corridor, while a “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a
possible future population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel
Hill and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
Whereas Downing Creek, a member
neighborhood of this council, has by vote of its community association board
resolved to oppose light rail construction along either the “C2” or “C2A”
corridor, and more than ninety percent of Downing Creek residents have
responded to a survey by saying they are “strongly opposed” to these
routes;
Whereas in the course of several
meetings, the authorities in control of this rail planning process have been
dismissive of local residents’ opinions and of their research into the relevant
traffic and safety issues, as summarized online at
Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
Be it resolved that
1.
7 at hotmail.com
To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
Please let me know about additions or corrections. Thanks, pat
May Delegate Meeting
of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham
NIS Conference
Room, Golden Belt
May 26, 2015
Attending the meeting were:
Neighborhoods
Colony Park – Don Lebkes
Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
Downing Creek – Dick Ford
Duke Park – Bill Anderson
Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
Old Farm – David Harris
Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
Trinity Park – Philip Azar
Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
Woodcroft –Scott Carter
Visitors
Will Wilson – DOST
Elizabeth Chan – EAB
Lynwood Best – NIS
Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
President Phil Azar opened the meeting. Members introduced themselves. Discussion of
the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics mean for
neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin
seconded and delegates voted to do this.
Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
accounts. Dues are still $25.
Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of maintaining
Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has significant benefits
in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics. There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets,
around parking lots in parks, and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most
are willow oaks so have the same expected life, about 20 more years. This leads to two major issues: the expense
of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace these trees. The EAB has made recommendations on the scale
of maintaining our canopy; see http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
. With 13000 trees, we would need to remove
about 750 trees a year (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of
course); we now have capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave
to volunteers. Since many locations that
now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for large trees, EAB recommends
that for every 100 trees removed, we should replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99
small trees. This would mean planting
1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant. The next steps are
do a detailed inventory of location
and condition of the trees so we can set specific targets and see what
resources will be needed (other cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
set a policy of immediate replacement
of dead and dying trees, and
possibly change the UDO’s rules about
planting on private land.
There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
full-time person just do support volunteers).
Ideally trees would be on the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also
be a bond referendum.
Reports
Zoning and Development (cell towers) – The cell tower
revisions to the UDO were passed by both the city and county. City Council, mostly led by the Mayor,
was concerned about general safety matters. We had a better hearing
with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more pertinent;
they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended to
developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and ability
to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back with or
consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
(especially around safety) and inspection protocols. Neither INC nor neighborhoods are expected
to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a constructive role, we
acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung together in this long
process. We need to follow up with letter to staff copying both
bodies and planning commission with final comments. All of the
commissioners were called with a note of thanks. Donna and Dolly were thanked for all
their efforts.
Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) – The
Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
there. In May there were 5 meetings
on specific sites to talk about boundaries to the compact area. There is concern that this was a very
complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even
realize what a complex problem they were looking at. One thing that is especially concerning
is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block to maintain
similar character on both sides of a street” while some neighborhoods have
a principle of having compatible back yards. If you go to the second round of
meetings, please comment on principles about where the lines should go
that you think are wrong. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – Pocket
neighborhoods have a small number of small houses. See http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
Membership and Outreach – The LWV has asked if INC is interested in
co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election. Given
the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
Old Business
Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who
wants to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
runoff will run into Colony Park.
Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want to talk about anything but his
wants.
There are two issues on the details of the proposed light rail system.
Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail come
through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have dangerous
at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the arterial NC54. We also have an old resolution on the eastern
end of the light rail systems. See
Resolutions A and B. The over-arching
issue is that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s an
indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings on
routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
Neighborhood Reports
Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood
reported on the re-configuration of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and
Hardy’s, taking the road from 5 lanes to 3 with bike lanes and
parking. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx TLNA, Bike Durham and others are
supporting the reconfiguration.
Council put the reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the
work session, but some businesses along the route are opposing it so folks
should tell Susan if they hear anything.
Bruce Mitchell of Morehead
Hills reported that the redesigned plans for Greystone Apartments are
nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC has invited Morehead Hill
neighborhood residents and other interested parties to attend a
presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 6 PM at the
Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
The Beaver Queen Pageant
is June 6; there are opportunities to check out the contestants and bribe
judges. More information is at http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
Appendix A: Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route
Submitted May 26, 2015
Whereas local and regional
authorities including GoTriangle (formerly Triangle Transit Authority), the
City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department
of Transportation are all presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed
Durham-Orange Light Rail line;
Whereas two routes under
consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the south side of the N.C. Route 54
right-of-way to cross the Little Creek section of that proposed rail
line;
Whereas either of those routes would
require the creation of several dangerous grade-level rail crossings that
obstruct access to and across N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and
Chapel Hill neighborhoods;
Whereas another route under
consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light rail line across Little Creek north
of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
Whereas the Town of Chapel Hill’s
1995 approval of the creation of Meadowmont was predicated on the future
routing of light rail there;
Whereas a “C1A” route through
Meadowmont would draw ridership from a population that exists in place today,
made up of people who bought or built their homes in an area posted as a future
transit corridor, while a “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a
possible future population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel
Hill and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
Whereas Downing Creek, a member
neighborhood of this council, has by vote of its community association board
resolved to oppose light rail construction along either the “C2” or “C2A”
corridor, and more than ninety percent of Downing Creek residents have
responded to a survey by saying they are “strongly opposed” to these
routes;
Whereas in the course of several
meetings, the authorities in control of this rail planning process have been
dismissive of local residents’ opinions and of their research into the relevant
traffic and safety issues, as summarized online at
Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
Be it resolved that
1.
May Delegate Meeting
of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham
NIS Conference
Room, Golden Belt
May 26, 2015
Attending the meeting were:
Neighborhoods
Colony Park – Don Lebkes
Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
Downing Creek – Dick Ford
Duke Park – Bill Anderson
Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
Old Farm – David Harris
Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
Trinity Park – Philip Azar
Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
Woodcroft –Scott Carter
Visitors
Will Wilson – DOST
Elizabeth Chan – EAB
Lynwood Best – NIS
Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
President Phil Azar opened the meeting. Members introduced themselves. Discussion of
the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics mean for
neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin
seconded and delegates voted to do this.
Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
accounts. Dues are still $25.
Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of maintaining
Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has significant benefits
in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics. There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets,
around parking lots in parks, and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most
are willow oaks so have the same expected life, about 20 more years. This leads to two major issues: the expense
of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace these trees. The EAB has made recommendations on the scale
of maintaining our canopy; see http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
. With 13000 trees, we would need to remove
about 750 trees a year (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of
course); we now have capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave
to volunteers. Since many locations that
now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for large trees, EAB recommends
that for every 100 trees removed, we should replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99
small trees. This would mean planting
1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant. The next steps are
do a detailed inventory of location
and condition of the trees so we can set specific targets and see what
resources will be needed (other cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
set a policy of immediate replacement
of dead and dying trees, and
possibly change the UDO’s rules about
planting on private land.
There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
full-time person just do support volunteers).
Ideally trees would be on the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also
be a bond referendum.
Reports
Zoning and Development (cell towers) – The cell tower
revisions to the UDO were passed by both the city and county. City Council, mostly led by the Mayor,
was concerned about general safety matters. We had a better hearing
with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more pertinent;
they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended to
developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and ability
to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back with or
consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
(especially around safety) and inspection protocols. Neither INC nor neighborhoods are expected
to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a constructive role, we
acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung together in this long
process. We need to follow up with letter to staff copying both
bodies and planning commission with final comments. All of the
commissioners were called with a note of thanks. Donna and Dolly were thanked for all
their efforts.
Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) – The
Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
there. In May there were 5 meetings
on specific sites to talk about boundaries to the compact area. There is concern that this was a very
complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even
realize what a complex problem they were looking at. One thing that is especially concerning
is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block to maintain
similar character on both sides of a street” while some neighborhoods have
a principle of having compatible back yards. If you go to the second round of
meetings, please comment on principles about where the lines should go
that you think are wrong. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – Pocket
neighborhoods have a small number of small houses. See http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
Membership and Outreach – The LWV has asked if INC is interested in
co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election. Given
the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
Old Business
Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who
wants to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
runoff will run into Colony Park.
Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want to talk about anything but his
wants.
There are two issues on the details of the proposed light rail system.
Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail come
through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have dangerous
at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the arterial NC54. We also have an old resolution on the eastern
end of the light rail systems. See
Resolutions A and B. The over-arching
issue is that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s an
indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings on
routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
Neighborhood Reports
Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood
reported on the re-configuration of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and
Hardy’s, taking the road from 5 lanes to 3 with bike lanes and
parking. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx TLNA, Bike Durham and others are
supporting the reconfiguration.
Council put the reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the
work session, but some businesses along the route are opposing it so folks
should tell Susan if they hear anything.
Bruce Mitchell of Morehead
Hills reported that the redesigned plans for Greystone Apartments are
nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC has invited Morehead Hill
neighborhood residents and other interested parties to attend a
presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 6 PM at the
Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
The Beaver Queen Pageant
is June 6; there are opportunities to check out the contestants and bribe
judges. More information is at http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
Appendix A: Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route
Submitted May 26, 2015
Whereas local and regional
authorities including GoTriangle (formerly Triangle Transit Authority), the
City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department
of Transportation are all presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed
Durham-Orange Light Rail line;
Whereas two routes under
consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the south side of the N.C. Route 54
right-of-way to cross the Little Creek section of that proposed rail
line;
Whereas either of those routes would
require the creation of several dangerous grade-level rail crossings that
obstruct access to and across N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and
Chapel Hill neighborhoods;
Whereas another route under
consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light rail line across Little Creek north
of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
Whereas the Town of Chapel Hill’s
1995 approval of the creation of Meadowmont was predicated on the future
routing of light rail there;
Whereas a “C1A” route through
Meadowmont would draw ridership from a population that exists in place today,
made up of people who bought or built their homes in an area posted as a future
transit corridor, while a “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a
possible future population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel
Hill and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
Whereas Downing Creek, a member
neighborhood of this council, has by vote of its community association board
resolved to oppose light rail construction along either the “C2” or “C2A”
corridor, and more than ninety percent of Downing Creek residents have
responded to a survey by saying they are “strongly opposed” to these
routes;
Whereas in the course of several
meetings, the authorities in control of this rail planning process have been
dismissive of local residents’ opinions and of their research into the relevant
traffic and safety issues, as summarized online at
Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
Be it resolved that
7 at hotmail.com
To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
Please let me know about additions or corrections. Thanks, pat
May Delegate Meeting
of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham
NIS Conference
Room, Golden Belt
May 26, 2015
Attending the meeting were:
Neighborhoods
Colony Park – Don Lebkes
Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
Downing Creek – Dick Ford
Duke Park – Bill Anderson
Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
Old Farm – David Harris
Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
Trinity Park – Philip Azar
Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
Woodcroft –Scott Carter
Visitors
Will Wilson – DOST
Elizabeth Chan – EAB
Lynwood Best – NIS
Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
President Phil Azar opened the meeting. Members introduced themselves. Discussion of
the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics mean for
neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin
seconded and delegates voted to do this.
Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
accounts. Dues are still $25.
Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of maintaining
Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has significant benefits
in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics. There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets,
around parking lots in parks, and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most
are willow oaks so have the same expected life, about 20 more years. This leads to two major issues: the expense
of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace these trees. The EAB has made recommendations on the scale
of maintaining our canopy; see http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
. With 13000 trees, we would need to remove
about 750 trees a year (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of
course); we now have capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave
to volunteers. Since many locations that
now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for large trees, EAB recommends
that for every 100 trees removed, we should replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99
small trees. This would mean planting
1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant. The next steps are
do a detailed inventory of location
and condition of the trees so we can set specific targets and see what
resources will be needed (other cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
set a policy of immediate replacement
of dead and dying trees, and
possibly change the UDO’s rules about
planting on private land.
There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
full-time person just do support volunteers).
Ideally trees would be on the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also
be a bond referendum.
Reports
Zoning and Development (cell towers) – The cell tower
revisions to the UDO were passed by both the city and county. City Council, mostly led by the Mayor,
was concerned about general safety matters. We had a better hearing
with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more pertinent;
they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended to
developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and ability
to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back with or
consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
(especially around safety) and inspection protocols. Neither INC nor neighborhoods are expected
to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a constructive role, we
acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung together in this long
process. We need to follow up with letter to staff copying both
bodies and planning commission with final comments. All of the
commissioners were called with a note of thanks. Donna and Dolly were thanked for all
their efforts.
Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) – The
Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
there. In May there were 5 meetings
on specific sites to talk about boundaries to the compact area. There is concern that this was a very
complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even
realize what a complex problem they were looking at. One thing that is especially concerning
is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block to maintain
similar character on both sides of a street” while some neighborhoods have
a principle of having compatible back yards. If you go to the second round of
meetings, please comment on principles about where the lines should go
that you think are wrong. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – Pocket
neighborhoods have a small number of small houses. See http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
Membership and Outreach – The LWV has asked if INC is interested in
co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election. Given
the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
Old Business
Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who
wants to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
runoff will run into Colony Park.
Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want to talk about anything but his
wants.
There are two issues on the details of the proposed light rail system.
Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail come
through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have dangerous
at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the arterial NC54. We also have an old resolution on the eastern
end of the light rail systems. See
Resolutions A and B. The over-arching
issue is that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s an
indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings on
routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
Neighborhood Reports
Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood
reported on the re-configuration of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and
Hardy’s, taking the road from 5 lanes to 3 with bike lanes and
parking. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx TLNA, Bike Durham and others are
supporting the reconfiguration.
Council put the reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the
work session, but some businesses along the route are opposing it so folks
should tell Susan if they hear anything.
Bruce Mitchell of Morehead
Hills reported that the redesigned plans for Greystone Apartments are
nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC has invited Morehead Hill
neighborhood residents and other interested parties to attend a
presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 6 PM at the
Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
The Beaver Queen Pageant
is June 6; there are opportunities to check out the contestants and bribe
judges. More information is at http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
Appendix A: Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route
Submitted May 26, 2015
Whereas local and regional
authorities including GoTriangle (formerly Triangle Transit Authority), the
City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department
of Transportation are all presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed
Durham-Orange Light Rail line;
Whereas two routes under
consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the south side of the N.C. Route 54
right-of-way to cross the Little Creek section of that proposed rail
line;
Whereas either of those routes would
require the creation of several dangerous grade-level rail crossings that
obstruct access to and across N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and
Chapel Hill neighborhoods;
Whereas another route under
consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light rail line across Little Creek north
of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
Whereas the Town of Chapel Hill’s
1995 approval of the creation of Meadowmont was predicated on the future
routing of light rail there;
Whereas a “C1A” route through
Meadowmont would draw ridership from a population that exists in place today,
made up of people who bought or built their homes in an area posted as a future
transit corridor, while a “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a
possible future population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel
Hill and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
Whereas Downing Creek, a member
neighborhood of this council, has by vote of its community association board
resolved to oppose light rail construction along either the “C2” or “C2A”
corridor, and more than ninety percent of Downing Creek residents have
responded to a survey by saying they are “strongly opposed” to these
routes;
Whereas in the course of several
meetings, the authorities in control of this rail planning process have been
dismissive of local residents’ opinions and of their research into the relevant
traffic and safety issues, as summarized online at
Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
Be it resolved that
1.
The Interneighborhood Council of Durham
recognizes that the several neighborhoods south of N.C. Route 54 in the
affected area, including member community Downing Creek,strongly objected to
any light rail construction along proposed routes “C2” or “C2A”
7 at hotmail.com
To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
Please let me know about additions or corrections. Thanks, pat
May Delegate Meeting
of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham
NIS Conference
Room, Golden Belt
May 26, 2015
Attending the meeting were:
Neighborhoods
Colony Park – Don Lebkes
Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
Downing Creek – Dick Ford
Duke Park – Bill Anderson
Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
Old Farm – David Harris
Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
Trinity Park – Philip Azar
Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
Woodcroft –Scott Carter
Visitors
Will Wilson – DOST
Elizabeth Chan – EAB
Lynwood Best – NIS
Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
President Phil Azar opened the meeting. Members introduced themselves. Discussion of
the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics mean for
neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin
seconded and delegates voted to do this.
Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
accounts. Dues are still $25.
Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of maintaining
Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has significant benefits
in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics. There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets,
around parking lots in parks, and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most
are willow oaks so have the same expected life, about 20 more years. This leads to two major issues: the expense
of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace these trees. The EAB has made recommendations on the scale
of maintaining our canopy; see http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
. With 13000 trees, we would need to remove
about 750 trees a year (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of
course); we now have capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave
to volunteers. Since many locations that
now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for large trees, EAB recommends
that for every 100 trees removed, we should replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99
small trees. This would mean planting
1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant. The next steps are
do a detailed inventory of location
and condition of the trees so we can set specific targets and see what
resources will be needed (other cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
set a policy of immediate replacement
of dead and dying trees, and
possibly change the UDO’s rules about
planting on private land.
There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
full-time person just do support volunteers).
Ideally trees would be on the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also
be a bond referendum.
Reports
Zoning and Development (cell towers) – The cell tower
revisions to the UDO were passed by both the city and county. City Council, mostly led by the Mayor,
was concerned about general safety matters. We had a better hearing
with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more pertinent;
they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended to
developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and ability
to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back with or
consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
(especially around safety) and inspection protocols. Neither INC nor neighborhoods are expected
to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a constructive role, we
acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung together in this long
process. We need to follow up with letter to staff copying both
bodies and planning commission with final comments. All of the
commissioners were called with a note of thanks. Donna and Dolly were thanked for all
their efforts.
Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) – The
Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
there. In May there were 5 meetings
on specific sites to talk about boundaries to the compact area. There is concern that this was a very
complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even
realize what a complex problem they were looking at. One thing that is especially concerning
is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block to maintain
similar character on both sides of a street” while some neighborhoods have
a principle of having compatible back yards. If you go to the second round of
meetings, please comment on principles about where the lines should go
that you think are wrong. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – Pocket
neighborhoods have a small number of small houses. See http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
Membership and Outreach – The LWV has asked if INC is interested in
co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election. Given
the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
Old Business
Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who
wants to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
runoff will run into Colony Park.
Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want to talk about anything but his
wants.
There are two issues on the details of the proposed light rail system.
Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail come
through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have dangerous
at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the arterial NC54. We also have an old resolution on the eastern
end of the light rail systems. See
Resolutions A and B. The over-arching
issue is that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s an
indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings on
routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
Neighborhood Reports
Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood
reported on the re-configuration of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and
Hardy’s, taking the road from 5 lanes to 3 with bike lanes and
parking. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx TLNA, Bike Durham and others are
supporting the reconfiguration.
Council put the reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the
work session, but some businesses along the route are opposing it so folks
should tell Susan if they hear anything.
Bruce Mitchell of Morehead
Hills reported that the redesigned plans for Greystone Apartments are
nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC has invited Morehead Hill
neighborhood residents and other interested parties to attend a
presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 6 PM at the
Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
The Beaver Queen Pageant
is June 6; there are opportunities to check out the contestants and bribe
judges. More information is at http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
Appendix A: Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route
Submitted May 26, 2015
Whereas local and regional
authorities including GoTriangle (formerly Triangle Transit Authority), the
City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department
of Transportation are all presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed
Durham-Orange Light Rail line;
Whereas two routes under
consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the south side of the N.C. Route 54
right-of-way to cross the Little Creek section of that proposed rail
line;
Whereas either of those routes would
require the creation of several dangerous grade-level rail crossings that
obstruct access to and across N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and
Chapel Hill neighborhoods;
Whereas another route under
consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light rail line across Little Creek north
of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
Whereas the Town of Chapel Hill’s
1995 approval of the creation of Meadowmont was predicated on the future
routing of light rail there;
Whereas a “C1A” route through
Meadowmont would draw ridership from a population that exists in place today,
made up of people who bought or built their homes in an area posted as a future
transit corridor, while a “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a
possible future population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel
Hill and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
Whereas Downing Creek, a member
neighborhood of this council, has by vote of its community association board
resolved to oppose light rail construction along either the “C2” or “C2A”
corridor, and more than ninety percent of Downing Creek residents have
responded to a survey by saying they are “strongly opposed” to these
routes;
Whereas in the course of several
meetings, the authorities in control of this rail planning process have been
dismissive of local residents’ opinions and of their research into the relevant
traffic and safety issues, as summarized online at
Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
Be it resolved that
1.
and concludes in its own right that the proposed
Durham-Orange Light Rail project, if constructed, should follow the originally
intended path through Meadowmont, as represented by current option “C1A” or an
alternative route with less negative impact on our communities.
7 at hotmail.com
To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
Please let me know about additions or corrections. Thanks, pat
May Delegate Meeting
of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham
NIS Conference
Room, Golden Belt
May 26, 2015
Attending the meeting were:
Neighborhoods
Colony Park – Don Lebkes
Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
Downing Creek – Dick Ford
Duke Park – Bill Anderson
Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
Old Farm – David Harris
Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
Trinity Park – Philip Azar
Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
Woodcroft –Scott Carter
Visitors
Will Wilson – DOST
Elizabeth Chan – EAB
Lynwood Best – NIS
Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
President Phil Azar opened the meeting. Members introduced themselves. Discussion of
the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics mean for
neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin
seconded and delegates voted to do this.
Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
accounts. Dues are still $25.
Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of maintaining
Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has significant benefits
in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics. There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets,
around parking lots in parks, and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most
are willow oaks so have the same expected life, about 20 more years. This leads to two major issues: the expense
of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace these trees. The EAB has made recommendations on the scale
of maintaining our canopy; see http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
. With 13000 trees, we would need to remove
about 750 trees a year (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of
course); we now have capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave
to volunteers. Since many locations that
now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for large trees, EAB recommends
that for every 100 trees removed, we should replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99
small trees. This would mean planting
1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant. The next steps are
do a detailed inventory of location
and condition of the trees so we can set specific targets and see what
resources will be needed (other cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
set a policy of immediate replacement
of dead and dying trees, and
possibly change the UDO’s rules about
planting on private land.
There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
full-time person just do support volunteers).
Ideally trees would be on the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also
be a bond referendum.
Reports
Zoning and Development (cell towers) – The cell tower
revisions to the UDO were passed by both the city and county. City Council, mostly led by the Mayor,
was concerned about general safety matters. We had a better hearing
with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more pertinent;
they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended to
developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and ability
to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back with or
consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
(especially around safety) and inspection protocols. Neither INC nor neighborhoods are expected
to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a constructive role, we
acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung together in this long
process. We need to follow up with letter to staff copying both
bodies and planning commission with final comments. All of the
commissioners were called with a note of thanks. Donna and Dolly were thanked for all
their efforts.
Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) – The
Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
there. In May there were 5 meetings
on specific sites to talk about boundaries to the compact area. There is concern that this was a very
complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even
realize what a complex problem they were looking at. One thing that is especially concerning
is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block to maintain
similar character on both sides of a street” while some neighborhoods have
a principle of having compatible back yards. If you go to the second round of
meetings, please comment on principles about where the lines should go
that you think are wrong. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – Pocket
neighborhoods have a small number of small houses. See http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
Membership and Outreach – The LWV has asked if INC is interested in
co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election. Given
the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
Old Business
Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who
wants to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
runoff will run into Colony Park.
Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want to talk about anything but his
wants.
There are two issues on the details of the proposed light rail system.
Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail come
through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have dangerous
at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the arterial NC54. We also have an old resolution on the eastern
end of the light rail systems. See
Resolutions A and B. The over-arching
issue is that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s an
indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings on
routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
Neighborhood Reports
Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood
reported on the re-configuration of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and
Hardy’s, taking the road from 5 lanes to 3 with bike lanes and
parking. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx TLNA, Bike Durham and others are
supporting the reconfiguration.
Council put the reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the
work session, but some businesses along the route are opposing it so folks
should tell Susan if they hear anything.
Bruce Mitchell of Morehead
Hills reported that the redesigned plans for Greystone Apartments are
nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC has invited Morehead Hill
neighborhood residents and other interested parties to attend a
presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 6 PM at the
Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
The Beaver Queen Pageant
is June 6; there are opportunities to check out the contestants and bribe
judges. More information is at http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
Appendix A: Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route
Submitted May 26, 2015
Whereas local and regional
authorities including GoTriangle (formerly Triangle Transit Authority), the
City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department
of Transportation are all presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed
Durham-Orange Light Rail line;
Whereas two routes under
consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the south side of the N.C. Route 54
right-of-way to cross the Little Creek section of that proposed rail
line;
Whereas either of those routes would
require the creation of several dangerous grade-level rail crossings that
obstruct access to and across N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and
Chapel Hill neighborhoods;
Whereas another route under
consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light rail line across Little Creek north
of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
Whereas the Town of Chapel Hill’s
1995 approval of the creation of Meadowmont was predicated on the future
routing of light rail there;
Whereas a “C1A” route through
Meadowmont would draw ridership from a population that exists in place today,
made up of people who bought or built their homes in an area posted as a future
transit corridor, while a “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a
possible future population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel
Hill and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
Whereas Downing Creek, a member
neighborhood of this council, has by vote of its community association board
resolved to oppose light rail construction along either the “C2” or “C2A”
corridor, and more than ninety percent of Downing Creek residents have
responded to a survey by saying they are “strongly opposed” to these
routes;
Whereas in the course of several
meetings, the authorities in control of this rail planning process have been
dismissive of local residents’ opinions and of their research into the relevant
traffic and safety issues, as summarized online at
Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
Be it resolved that
1.
and calls upon all elected and appointed
officials whose jurisdiction includes the light rail planning project to take
heed of these community resolutions and to work constructively with Downing
Creek and other neighborhood leaders in finding appropriate alternatives
7 at hotmail.com
To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
Please let me know about additions or corrections. Thanks, pat
May Delegate Meeting
of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham
NIS Conference
Room, Golden Belt
May 26, 2015
Attending the meeting were:
Neighborhoods
Colony Park – Don Lebkes
Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
Downing Creek – Dick Ford
Duke Park – Bill Anderson
Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
Old Farm – David Harris
Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
Trinity Park – Philip Azar
Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
Woodcroft –Scott Carter
Visitors
Will Wilson – DOST
Elizabeth Chan – EAB
Lynwood Best – NIS
Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
President Phil Azar opened the meeting. Members introduced themselves. Discussion of
the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics mean for
neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin
seconded and delegates voted to do this.
Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
accounts. Dues are still $25.
Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of maintaining
Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has significant benefits
in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics. There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets,
around parking lots in parks, and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most
are willow oaks so have the same expected life, about 20 more years. This leads to two major issues: the expense
of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace these trees. The EAB has made recommendations on the scale
of maintaining our canopy; see http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
. With 13000 trees, we would need to remove
about 750 trees a year (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of
course); we now have capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave
to volunteers. Since many locations that
now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for large trees, EAB recommends
that for every 100 trees removed, we should replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99
small trees. This would mean planting
1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant. The next steps are
do a detailed inventory of location
and condition of the trees so we can set specific targets and see what
resources will be needed (other cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
set a policy of immediate replacement
of dead and dying trees, and
possibly change the UDO’s rules about
planting on private land.
There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
full-time person just do support volunteers).
Ideally trees would be on the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also
be a bond referendum.
Reports
Zoning and Development (cell towers) – The cell tower
revisions to the UDO were passed by both the city and county. City Council, mostly led by the Mayor,
was concerned about general safety matters. We had a better hearing
with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more pertinent;
they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended to
developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and ability
to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back with or
consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
(especially around safety) and inspection protocols. Neither INC nor neighborhoods are expected
to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a constructive role, we
acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung together in this long
process. We need to follow up with letter to staff copying both
bodies and planning commission with final comments. All of the
commissioners were called with a note of thanks. Donna and Dolly were thanked for all
their efforts.
Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) – The
Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
there. In May there were 5 meetings
on specific sites to talk about boundaries to the compact area. There is concern that this was a very
complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even
realize what a complex problem they were looking at. One thing that is especially concerning
is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block to maintain
similar character on both sides of a street” while some neighborhoods have
a principle of having compatible back yards. If you go to the second round of
meetings, please comment on principles about where the lines should go
that you think are wrong. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – Pocket
neighborhoods have a small number of small houses. See http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
Membership and Outreach – The LWV has asked if INC is interested in
co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election. Given
the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
Old Business
Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who
wants to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
runoff will run into Colony Park.
Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want to talk about anything but his
wants.
There are two issues on the details of the proposed light rail system.
Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail come
through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have dangerous
at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the arterial NC54. We also have an old resolution on the eastern
end of the light rail systems. See
Resolutions A and B. The over-arching
issue is that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s an
indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings on
routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
Neighborhood Reports
Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood
reported on the re-configuration of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and
Hardy’s, taking the road from 5 lanes to 3 with bike lanes and
parking. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx TLNA, Bike Durham and others are
supporting the reconfiguration.
Council put the reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the
work session, but some businesses along the route are opposing it so folks
should tell Susan if they hear anything.
Bruce Mitchell of Morehead
Hills reported that the redesigned plans for Greystone Apartments are
nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC has invited Morehead Hill
neighborhood residents and other interested parties to attend a
presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 6 PM at the
Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
The Beaver Queen Pageant
is June 6; there are opportunities to check out the contestants and bribe
judges. More information is at http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
Appendix A: Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route
Submitted May 26, 2015
Whereas local and regional
authorities including GoTriangle (formerly Triangle Transit Authority), the
City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department
of Transportation are all presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed
Durham-Orange Light Rail line;
Whereas two routes under
consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the south side of the N.C. Route 54
right-of-way to cross the Little Creek section of that proposed rail
line;
Whereas either of those routes would
require the creation of several dangerous grade-level rail crossings that
obstruct access to and across N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and
Chapel Hill neighborhoods;
Whereas another route under
consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light rail line across Little Creek north
of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
Whereas the Town of Chapel Hill’s
1995 approval of the creation of Meadowmont was predicated on the future
routing of light rail there;
Whereas a “C1A” route through
Meadowmont would draw ridership from a population that exists in place today,
made up of people who bought or built their homes in an area posted as a future
transit corridor, while a “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a
possible future population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel
Hill and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
Whereas Downing Creek, a member
neighborhood of this council, has by vote of its community association board
resolved to oppose light rail construction along either the “C2” or “C2A”
corridor, and more than ninety percent of Downing Creek residents have
responded to a survey by saying they are “strongly opposed” to these
routes;
Whereas in the course of several
meetings, the authorities in control of this rail planning process have been
dismissive of local residents’ opinions and of their research into the relevant
traffic and safety issues, as summarized online at
Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
Be it resolved that
1.
and hereby directs its President to publish this
resolution and directly to the Durham City Council, the Durham County Board of
Commissioners, and the members of the state legislative delegation who
represent the affected area.
Appendix B: Resolution
Regarding the Alston Street Light Rail Station Site
The Northeast Central
Durham Leadership Council has given careful attention to the recent
announcement by the Triangle Transit Authority to move the Alston transit
station one quarter mile west on Pettigrew to a location near Grant Street. East Durham is not
well served by this change, and we call for TTA to identify a site east of
Alston Avenue.
TTA made
presentations to our organization and other organizations and groups in
Northeast Durham about the plans for station locations in the light rail
system, and we are distressed that TTA did not request our input or inform us
of the possible change in the station site before making this new
recommendation to a meeting of the Durham City Council and County Commission on
January 13, 2015. To be true to the statements from TTA about how light
rail would serve East Durham, we think it is essential that they continue to
look for ways to place the station in a location east of Alston Avenue.
The NECD Leadership
Council opposes the Grant Street location for the following reasons:
7 at hotmail.com
To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
Please let me know about additions or corrections. Thanks, pat
May Delegate Meeting
of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham
NIS Conference
Room, Golden Belt
May 26, 2015
Attending the meeting were:
Neighborhoods
Colony Park – Don Lebkes
Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
Downing Creek – Dick Ford
Duke Park – Bill Anderson
Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
Old Farm – David Harris
Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
Trinity Park – Philip Azar
Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
Woodcroft –Scott Carter
Visitors
Will Wilson – DOST
Elizabeth Chan – EAB
Lynwood Best – NIS
Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
President Phil Azar opened the meeting. Members introduced themselves. Discussion of
the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics mean for
neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin
seconded and delegates voted to do this.
Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
accounts. Dues are still $25.
Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of maintaining
Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has significant benefits
in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics. There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets,
around parking lots in parks, and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most
are willow oaks so have the same expected life, about 20 more years. This leads to two major issues: the expense
of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace these trees. The EAB has made recommendations on the scale
of maintaining our canopy; see http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
. With 13000 trees, we would need to remove
about 750 trees a year (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of
course); we now have capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave
to volunteers. Since many locations that
now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for large trees, EAB recommends
that for every 100 trees removed, we should replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99
small trees. This would mean planting
1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant. The next steps are
do a detailed inventory of location
and condition of the trees so we can set specific targets and see what
resources will be needed (other cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
set a policy of immediate replacement
of dead and dying trees, and
possibly change the UDO’s rules about
planting on private land.
There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
full-time person just do support volunteers).
Ideally trees would be on the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also
be a bond referendum.
Reports
Zoning and Development (cell towers) – The cell tower
revisions to the UDO were passed by both the city and county. City Council, mostly led by the Mayor,
was concerned about general safety matters. We had a better hearing
with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more pertinent;
they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended to
developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and ability
to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back with or
consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
(especially around safety) and inspection protocols. Neither INC nor neighborhoods are expected
to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a constructive role, we
acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung together in this long
process. We need to follow up with letter to staff copying both
bodies and planning commission with final comments. All of the
commissioners were called with a note of thanks. Donna and Dolly were thanked for all
their efforts.
Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) – The
Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
there. In May there were 5 meetings
on specific sites to talk about boundaries to the compact area. There is concern that this was a very
complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even
realize what a complex problem they were looking at. One thing that is especially concerning
is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block to maintain
similar character on both sides of a street” while some neighborhoods have
a principle of having compatible back yards. If you go to the second round of
meetings, please comment on principles about where the lines should go
that you think are wrong. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – Pocket
neighborhoods have a small number of small houses. See http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
Membership and Outreach – The LWV has asked if INC is interested in
co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election. Given
the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
Old Business
Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who
wants to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
runoff will run into Colony Park.
Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want to talk about anything but his
wants.
There are two issues on the details of the proposed light rail system.
Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail come
through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have dangerous
at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the arterial NC54. We also have an old resolution on the eastern
end of the light rail systems. See
Resolutions A and B. The over-arching
issue is that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s an
indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings on
routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
Neighborhood Reports
Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood
reported on the re-configuration of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and
Hardy’s, taking the road from 5 lanes to 3 with bike lanes and
parking. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx TLNA, Bike Durham and others are
supporting the reconfiguration.
Council put the reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the
work session, but some businesses along the route are opposing it so folks
should tell Susan if they hear anything.
Bruce Mitchell of Morehead
Hills reported that the redesigned plans for Greystone Apartments are
nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC has invited Morehead Hill
neighborhood residents and other interested parties to attend a
presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 6 PM at the
Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
The Beaver Queen Pageant
is June 6; there are opportunities to check out the contestants and bribe
judges. More information is at http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
Appendix A: Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route
Submitted May 26, 2015
Whereas local and regional
authorities including GoTriangle (formerly Triangle Transit Authority), the
City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department
of Transportation are all presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed
Durham-Orange Light Rail line;
Whereas two routes under
consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the south side of the N.C. Route 54
right-of-way to cross the Little Creek section of that proposed rail
line;
Whereas either of those routes would
require the creation of several dangerous grade-level rail crossings that
obstruct access to and across N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and
Chapel Hill neighborhoods;
Whereas another route under
consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light rail line across Little Creek north
of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
Whereas the Town of Chapel Hill’s
1995 approval of the creation of Meadowmont was predicated on the future
routing of light rail there;
Whereas a “C1A” route through
Meadowmont would draw ridership from a population that exists in place today,
made up of people who bought or built their homes in an area posted as a future
transit corridor, while a “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a
possible future population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel
Hill and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
Whereas Downing Creek, a member
neighborhood of this council, has by vote of its community association board
resolved to oppose light rail construction along either the “C2” or “C2A”
corridor, and more than ninety percent of Downing Creek residents have
responded to a survey by saying they are “strongly opposed” to these
routes;
Whereas in the course of several
meetings, the authorities in control of this rail planning process have been
dismissive of local residents’ opinions and of their research into the relevant
traffic and safety issues, as summarized online at
Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
Be it resolved that
1.
The Grant
Street location will not serve the heart of northeast Durham as well as a site
east of Alston Avenue.
7 at hotmail.com
To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 10:49:04 -0400
Subject: [Durham INC] Draft Minutes
Please let me know about additions or corrections. Thanks, pat
May Delegate Meeting
of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham
NIS Conference
Room, Golden Belt
May 26, 2015
Attending the meeting were:
Neighborhoods
Colony Park – Don Lebkes
Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen
Downing Creek – Dick Ford
Duke Park – Bill Anderson
Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman
Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias
Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell
Northgate Park – Debra Hawkins, Mike Shiflett
Old Farm – David Harris
Old North Durham – Peter Katz, John Martin
Stage Stop – Dolly Fehrenbacher
Trinity Park – Philip Azar
Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell
Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller
Woodcroft –Scott Carter
Visitors
Will Wilson – DOST
Elizabeth Chan – EAB
Lynwood Best – NIS
Alex Johnson – Urban Forestry, City of Durham
Katie Rose Levin – Duke University
President Phil Azar opened the meeting. Members introduced themselves. Discussion of
the Hispanic community and what the changing demographics mean for
neighborhoods was deferred until next month.
Bill Anderson moved to approve the March minutes, John Martin
seconded and delegates voted to do this.
Treasurer Susan Sewell reported that there has been no change in the
accounts. Dues are still $25.
Elizabeth Chan of the Environmental Affairs Board led a discussion of maintaining
Durham’s tree canopy, which now gives 40% coverage and has significant benefits
in terms of health, property values, and aesthetics. There are 13000 “public” trees – on streets,
around parking lots in parks, and so on – that were planted in the 1930’s; most
are willow oaks so have the same expected life, about 20 more years. This leads to two major issues: the expense
of removing dead or dying trees and the need to replace these trees. The EAB has made recommendations on the scale
of maintaining our canopy; see http://www.durhamnc.gov/agendas_new/2015/cws20150518/10409_REPORT_ATTACHMENT_2_-_HEALTHY_UR_369703_639685.pdf
. With 13000 trees, we would need to remove
about 750 trees a year (fewer in good years, more in stressful years, of
course); we now have capacity to remove about 300, not something we would leave
to volunteers. Since many locations that
now have willow oaks are no longer suitable for large trees, EAB recommends
that for every 100 trees removed, we should replant 33 large, 66 medium and 99
small trees. This would mean planting
1680 trees per year, in contrast to the 500 we now plant. The next steps are
do a detailed inventory of location
and condition of the trees so we can set specific targets and see what
resources will be needed (other cities have Urban Forest Management Plans),
set a policy of immediate replacement
of dead and dying trees, and
possibly change the UDO’s rules about
planting on private land.
There was a discussion of what INC and neighborhoods could do, between
more volunteering and supporting professional resources (Charlotte has a
full-time person just do support volunteers).
Ideally trees would be on the Capital Improvement Plan; there could also
be a bond referendum.
Reports
Zoning and Development (cell towers) – The cell tower
revisions to the UDO were passed by both the city and county. City Council, mostly led by the Mayor,
was concerned about general safety matters. We had a better hearing
with the county, where the issue of Residential Rural was more pertinent;
they accorded INC the types of courtesies usually only extended to
developers – multiple opportunities to speak, flexible timing and ability
to answer questions. The BOCC also instructed staff to come back with or
consider revisions on Residential Rural, more explicit standards
(especially around safety) and inspection protocols. Neither INC nor neighborhoods are expected
to pay for/initiate amendments. We played a constructive role, we
acknowledged progress, we thanked staff, we hung together in this long
process. We need to follow up with letter to staff copying both
bodies and planning commission with final comments. All of the
commissioners were called with a note of thanks. Donna and Dolly were thanked for all
their efforts.
Zoning and Development (compact zones around rail stations) – The
Durham-City County Planning Department is working over the next few months
with communities near planned stations along the Durham-Orange Light Rail
Transit (D-O LRT) system to look at compact, transit-oriented development
there. In May there were 5 meetings
on specific sites to talk about boundaries to the compact area. There is concern that this was a very
complex task for a 2-hour meeting, so many people there didn’t even
realize what a complex problem they were looking at. One thing that is especially concerning
is the boundary recommendation to “locate boundaries mid-block to maintain
similar character on both sides of a street” while some neighborhoods have
a principle of having compatible back yards. If you go to the second round of
meetings, please comment on principles about where the lines should go
that you think are wrong. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/cb/ccpd/Pages/Current_Topics/Compact-Neighborhood-Planning.aspx
Minilots (now known as pocket neighborhoods) – Pocket
neighborhoods have a small number of small houses. See http://www.pocket-neighborhoods.net/whatisaPN.html.
Membership and Outreach – The LWV has asked if INC is interested in
co-sponsoring a candidate forum for the upcoming municipal election. Given
the election schedule, the forum would probably be in September.
Old Business
Don Lebkes reported that Colony Park is talking to a developer who
wants to put 200 townhouses on about 20 acres, some on areas on which the rain
runoff will run into Colony Park.
Unfortunately the developer doesn’t want to talk about anything but his
wants.
There are two issues on the details of the proposed light rail system.
Although Meadowmont was originally designed and “sold” as being around a
transit stop, current residents are vehemently against having light rail come
through the development, pushing rail down NC54, where it will have dangerous
at-grade crossings where several neighborhoods get onto the arterial NC54. We also have an old resolution on the eastern
end of the light rail systems. See
Resolutions A and B. The over-arching
issue is that residents are being told they get to weigh in on making important
decisions while so many details of the actual impacts are so unclear; it’s an
indication of the confusion that people keep mixing up the TTA meetings on
routes with the Planning meetings on compact development.
Neighborhood Reports
Susan Sewell of Tuscaloosa-Lakewood
reported on the re-configuration of Business 15-501 between Thai Café and
Hardy’s, taking the road from 5 lanes to 3 with bike lanes and
parking. http://durhamnc.gov/ich/op/dot/Pages/15-501_reconfig.aspx TLNA, Bike Durham and others are
supporting the reconfiguration.
Council put the reconfiguration on the June 1 consent agenda at the
work session, but some businesses along the route are opposing it so folks
should tell Susan if they hear anything.
Bruce Mitchell of Morehead
Hills reported that the redesigned plans for Greystone Apartments are
nearing completion and Lomax Properties LLC has invited Morehead Hill
neighborhood residents and other interested parties to attend a
presentation about the plans on Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 6 PM at the
Greystone Inn & Conference Center.
The Beaver Queen Pageant
is June 6; there are opportunities to check out the contestants and bribe
judges. More information is at http://beaverlodgelocal1504.org.
Appendix A: Resolution on Little Creek Light Rail Route
Submitted May 26, 2015
Whereas local and regional
authorities including GoTriangle (formerly Triangle Transit Authority), the
City of Durham, the Town of Chapel Hill, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHMPO), and the North Carolina Department
of Transportation are all presently engaged in forming plans for a proposed
Durham-Orange Light Rail line;
Whereas two routes under
consideration, “C2” and “C2A,” would use the south side of the N.C. Route 54
right-of-way to cross the Little Creek section of that proposed rail
line;
Whereas either of those routes would
require the creation of several dangerous grade-level rail crossings that
obstruct access to and across N.C. Route 54 for residents of several Durham and
Chapel Hill neighborhoods;
Whereas another route under
consideration, “C1A,” would carry the light rail line across Little Creek north
of N.C. Route 54 and through Chapel Hill’s “Meadowmont” subdivision;
Whereas the Town of Chapel Hill’s
1995 approval of the creation of Meadowmont was predicated on the future
routing of light rail there;
Whereas a “C1A” route through
Meadowmont would draw ridership from a population that exists in place today,
made up of people who bought or built their homes in an area posted as a future
transit corridor, while a “C2” or “C2A” route would draw ridership only from a
possible future population based on apparent plans shared by the Town of Chapel
Hill and the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
Whereas Downing Creek, a member
neighborhood of this council, has by vote of its community association board
resolved to oppose light rail construction along either the “C2” or “C2A”
corridor, and more than ninety percent of Downing Creek residents have
responded to a survey by saying they are “strongly opposed” to these
routes;
Whereas in the course of several
meetings, the authorities in control of this rail planning process have been
dismissive of local residents’ opinions and of their research into the relevant
traffic and safety issues, as summarized online at
Transit.DowningCreek.Org;
Be it resolved that
1.
The Grant station site would
be three-quarter miles rather than one-half mile from Driver Street which is a
focus of economic revitalization efforts by the neighborhood and the
city.
•
The Grant
station is less convenient for pedestrians using the Bryant Bridge who would have to walk an additional quarter
mile to reach the Grant Street location.
•
The Grant station site would
be three-quarter mile rather than one-half mile from MacDougald
Terrace.
•
The Grant station is
would be
less than a half mile from the Dillard/Fayetteville Station and that station
would serve many of the same residential areas that would be served by the
Grant Street location.
•
The new location would reduce the likelihood of placing the light rail Operations and
Maintenance Facility in East Durham and eliminate the possibility that light
rail could ever be extended to a new station that would directly service Driver
Street, Briggs Avenue, and Durham Technical Community College.1 The light rail system
should be planned now in a way that keeps open the possibility of extension in
the future.
Fundamentally, the level of
light rail service promised to East Durham would not be provided and possible
future enhancements would be eliminated by the using the Grant Street station
site.
TTA has announced that the
Alston station cannot be at its exact original site north of the water tower on
Pettigrew, but that does not mean that pulling the line farther back from East
Durham is the only or best option. TTA has realigned the light rail with
only slight shifts in the location of other stations in the latest version of
the plan. They should make the same effort to keep the station east of Alston
by moving the line outside the railroad right of way. The light rail line
could be moved closer to NC147 with its own bridge over Alston Street at Gann
Street and a station placed close to the Bryant Street bridge. We call
for a balanced assessment of the pros and cons of this and other potentially
feasible alternative sites east of Alston for the current eastern terminal
station in the light rail system.
_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20150531/29b38c8f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list