[Durham INC] updated August mintues (corrections in italics)

[Pat Carstensen]

August Delegate
Meeting

First Presbyterian Church

August 24, 2010

 

Attending the meeting
were:

Delegates and Alternates

Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen 

Downing Creek – Rebecca Board

Duke Park – Bill Anderson

Fairfield – Melissa Rooney

Lochaven Hills – Josie McNeil 

Morehead Hill – Christina Fish

Northgate Park – Mike Shiflett

Old Farm – David Harris, Fred Foster, Jr. 

Old North Durham – Peter Katz 

Old West Durham – Brett Walters 

Trinity Park – Kevin Davis (also representing Bull City
Rising)

Tuscaloosa-Lakewood – Susan Sewell 

Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller, Mike Woodard

Woodcroft – Scott Carter, Heidi Carter

 

Visitors

Lorisa Seibel – Durham Affordable Housing Coalition

Stan Bukowski

H. Fischer

Darius Little – Organizing Chadsford subdivision

Jim Wise – News and Observer

Ray Gronberg – The Herald Sun

Steve Medlin – Durham Planning Department

John Compton – Preservation Durham

April Johnson – Preservation Durham

 

 

Tom Miller opened the meeting.  Delegates and visitors introduced themselves.  

 

Planning and the UDO

Steve Medlin, Planning Director (contacts: 560-4137x28223 or
steve.medlin at durhmnc.gov), started with a brief history of planning in
Durham.  We were the first
community in NC to have zoning in 1941. 
>From 1941-2006 we were using the traditional “Euclidean” use-based form
of zoning that tries to keep incompatible uses separated but doesn’t do well at
recognizing different needs among suburban, urban and rural patterns.  In 2004, recognizing that we had
outgrown our zoning code and were patching patches, we began work on the UDO,
which sets more precise and scientific standards, appropriate to different
areas, and uses a hybrid form-based philosophy; the UDO was passed in 2006.

 

We are continuing to deal with unforeseen consequences.  For example, 

In reducing the number of zoning district types,
some sites lost protections, as we discovered with the Morreene Road warehouse.  One adjustment has been to involve
neighbors by adding cases where a special use permit is required when the
district abuts residential properties. Some of the changes aren’t really policy
questions; Planning is now working on Tech Change 6 to clean up language and to
clearly define appropriate performance standards that were intended with the
adoption of the intent statements for the individual zoning districts. The definition of “nightclub” isn’t that clear,
so owners get permission for a restaurant and their business “evolves” and
suddenly it is inappropriate for the neighborhood.   The CN district is supposed to promote diverse
neighborhood businesses, but we sometimes get regional-scale establishments.





 

There was quite a bit of discussion how to make it easier
and more effective for neighborhoods to be involved in planning.  Often neighbors don’t understand that
whatever insight they bring, there’s no formal role for them at the site
planning stage.  Would it make
sense to broaden the notification requirements or to have a lower threshold for
having neighborhood meetings? 
Planning is working with IT on displaying what has been submitted as well as looking at other opportunities to make notice of
new applications easier.  
It was suggested that the Planning Department might send a list of all
zoning applications to the INC list-serve.

 

Housing Issues

There may be a year delay in the proposed
rental development in Rolling Hills, because the developer didn’t get state tax
credits, so the City has time to look for ways to finance this redevelopment.
 The City is moving forward with homeowner repairs in the Southside
neighborhood.  The following resolution passed on a voice vote, with no “nay’s”
but at least one abstention.

 

Whereas historically the City and County have used federal
HOME and Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) to house the homeless, feed
the hungry, and improve the quality of neighborhoods, and

 

Whereas the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham (INC)
supports continued funding for affordable housing and for community services
needed by families, youth, disabled, homeless, and residents of working class
neighborhoods, and

 

Whereas the INC believes in honoring plans developed by
citizen committees, and

 

Whereas the City has proposed to redirect most of the
federal HOME and CDBG funds to the redevelopment of Rolling Hills/Southside,

 

Therefore, the INC asks that before committing more funds to
the Rolling Hills / Southside redevelopment, City Council and County
Commissioners commit to continued funding of affordable housing and community
services across Durham.

 

Billboards

City Council voted (7-0) to keep the current billboard
ordinance.  Board of County
Commissioners will vote on September 13. 
Thanks to Kelly Jarrett and John Schelp for work on this issue.  Fairway is said to be working on a
“compromise.”

 

751 Assemblage
Rezoning Report

There was a brief report on the BOCC vote.  Tom now has a conflict so cannot speak
on this issue.

 

Other business and neighborhood reports:

 We need to look at INC’s legislative agenda. Bill Anderson will be rounding up a committee to
work on a proposal for an awards event. We voted to spend $100 to be in Durham CAN’s
directory. We need a new treasurer.NAACP will be having a march on Washington for
jobs, justice, education and generally healing the country on October 2.There’s a bunch of transportation issues out
there: traffic calming as part of road resurfacing in Old North Durham, the
East End Connector (which has moved up in the priorities for a change), the
54/40 corridor study, widening of Hillendale, and traffic patters to support
bikes.  We may want to invite Leta
Huntsinger to come to a future meeting.











 

The meeting was adjourned.

 

 

 

 




 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20100902/dcaf7883/attachment-0001.html>