[Durham INC] Updated March minutes

Mon Apr 22 17:16:23 EDT 2013

The sentence in italics in the report on SB 139 was added.  Regards, pat

March
Delegate Meeting of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham

NIS Conference Room, Golden Belt

March 26, 2013

Attending the meeting were:

Neighborhoods

Cleveland-Holloway – Jan Martell

Colony Park – Don Lebkes

Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen

Downing Creek – Dick Ford

Duke Park – Bill Anderson, Ian
Kipp

Eagles’ Pointe – Donna Rudolph

Falconbridge Community
Association – Rosemarie Kitchin

Long Meadow Neighborhood
Association – Pakis Bessias

Morehead Hill – Bruce Mitchell

Northgate Park – Deb Hawkins, Mike
Shiflett

Old North Durham – Peter Katz,
John Martin

Stage Stop – Dorothy Croom,
Dolly B. Fehrenbacher

Trinity Park – Philip Azar

Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom
Miller, Mike Woodard, James Umbanhower

Woodcroft – Scott Carter, Anita Daniels

Woodlake – Robbie Willmarth

Visitors 

Ben Hitchings – NC Planning
Association

Patrick Young – City/County
Planning

Lynwood D. Best – City of
Durham, NIS

John Killeen – City of Durham,
NIS

Rukea Womack – City of Durham,
Parks and Recreation

Will Wilson – DOST

Don Moffitt – City Council

John Martin called the meeting to order, and delegates and
visitors introduced themselves.  Tom Miller moved and Bill Anderson seconded
that we approve the February minutes; this was passed.

Ben Hitchings gave a
presentation on the effects of SB139/HB
150, legislation the General Assembly is now considering, which would
prohibit design standards for single-family, duplex and townhome
construction.  In particular, the
legislation would rule out design standards on color, cladding material (brick
versus wood), style and materials on roofs and porches, external non-structural
architectural ornamentations (e.g. cottage-style versus colonial), styling of
windows and doors (including jutting-out garage doors), number and type of
rooms (which would rule out using the number of kitchens to control conversion
of single-family homes to rooming houses), and interior lay-out of rooms.  There are exemptions for National
Historic neighborhoods and homeowner associations, but most older neighborhoods
would lose the ability to protect their character and property values,
communities would lose the ability to promote walkability, and suburban
neighborhoods would not be able to control what gets plopped down next to them.  Patrick Young said that in Durham, the
biggest impact would be on our Neighborhood Protection Overlays as we can still
accept voluntarily offered conditions in development plans and there aren’t
single family houses in the design districts.  This legislation is a the highest priority of the NC
Homebuilders (although not the Triangle developers), perhaps because the
national builders are fed up with twiddling their plans to match local
variation in rules and are seeing a need to build rapidly when the pent-up
demand for new housing finally breaks loose.  City Council hasn’t voted to take a position, but expressed
concern to the delegation. 
Especially concerning is that a statement in an opinion piece supporting
the legislation (http://plancharlotte.org/story/house-bill-150-deserves-our-support)
that “by the plain language of state
law, local governments do not have the authority to regulate design through
their zoning ordinances;” if this logic is accepted in NC, it would put at risk
a lot of work members of the community have put into creating design rules.  The current legislation is likely to
sail through the General Assembly, so our delegation’s work is likely to be
adding conditions that protect us better.  Philip Azar
noted a confusing aspect of the bill, namely that from a traditional
conservative perspective, design standards could be seen as a matter of local
control and autonomy whereas progressives might be concerned that local design
standards at least theoretically can be used to make affordable
housing prohibitively expensive.  Bill
Anderson moved and Philip Azar seconded to
ask the Executive Committee to vote on the resolution in Appendix A; this was
passed with one abstention and no opposition.  Note: the Executive Committee vote was 5 for, 2 absent, and
1 abstained.

Tom Miller gave a report of
the UDO Committee, which met three
times and wrote a 9-page analysis of what is wrong with TC1100007, proposed
changes in the UDO.  The problems
include updates to “guidelines” that will not be voted on by governing bodies,
remaining discretionary powers of the Planning Director (either from powers not
addressed in the text of the UDO or inadequate changes in TC1100007),
substantive rule changes (either out of the blue, such as reducing the minimum
parking in the Urban Tier, or making what we think is a bad standard where
there used to be flexibility, including allowing some front yard parking), and
generally lack of due process so residents can know, discuss and if necessary
appeal decisions they feel affect the property values and well-being.  Admittedly, we were very late in
responding to these proposed changes, and City Council ignored our request for
a delay and passed TC1100007, referring the UDO Committee report to the
Planning Department.  The Committee
will be meeting with the Planning Department and will be asking the Board of
County Commissioners for a delay. 
The Executive Committee passed the resolution in Appendix B; we need to
ratify it at the April delegate meeting.

Dick Ford gave an update from
the Membership Committee.  They passed out copies of the proposed
materials; we may need to allocate funds to print copies professionally if we
want to pass out brochures at festivals. 
They are also moving forward on neighborhoods to talk to first.  Jan Martell volunteered to join the
committee. Thanks to Don and Dick.

We next took up the Resolution on West Ellerbe
Creek Trail Extension.  Deb
Hawkins moved and Robbie Willmarth seconded the resolution; this was passed
with one abstention.

John Martin passed out a
proposed assignment of INC issues to
committees; see Appendix D. 
You don’t need to be a delegate to be on a committee, so please
volunteer or help find volunteers. 
Tom Miller moved and Philip Azar seconded that we ask the Executive
Committee to appoint (or at least propose) members for the committees; this
passed. 

Announcements, reports, and miscellaneous news

·      
Pat Carstensen said John Schelp’s West Durham hike
will be April 13th this year and there will be a lawn clinic on
March 30th.  

·      
Debra Hawkins from Northgate Park invited folks to
visit their food truck rodeo, which will have 6 food trucks, on Thursday, 5 to
8 PM.  She also had questions for
neighborhoods near Northgate Park that have newsletters.

·      
Mike Woodard reminded
folks he is having a Town Meeting on April 4th, 7PM, and North
Regional Library.

·      
There has been some
push-back on the recently enacted ordinance on roadside soliciting, saying it
is “criminalizing poverty” and trying to keep poverty out of sight.  If you support the ordinance, you might
let City Council know.

·      
If you have ideas on what
to do to share information between “neighboring list-serves,” please let Don Lebkes know.  Ideas
brought up included having a few people on both lists or identifying people in
neighboring areas to which to forward select items from your list-serve.

·      
Mike Shiflett passed out
an update on transportation issues; see Appendix E.

·      
Rukea Womack had to leave
before the announcements but passed out information on Durham’s Earth Day
Festival, to be held April 21; see www.DurhamEarthDay.org.

·      
Donna Rudolph thanked
folks for support on the wireless tower issue, passed out a flyer, and asked
folks to e-mail governing bodies before April 3 to ask to protect the due
process on cell towers.  A soft
copy of the flyer will be sent to the list-serve.

Appendix A: A Resolution by the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham
Concerning House Bill 150, Zoning/Design and Aesthetic Controls, and its Senate
Companion Now Pending Before the North Carolina General Assembly

WHEREAS, modern
planning philosophy is moving to form-based zoning codes that shape how the
built environment will be experienced; and 

WHEREAS, throughout
North Carolina modern zoning ordinances have increasingly incorporated building
design controls as part of regulatory schemes intended to promote wise growth,
preserve local character, and to protect and enhance neighborhoods; and 

WHEREAS, in Durham
design regulations are used to shape development in design districts downtown
and near future transit facilities as an offset to development intensification
in those districts and design regulations are also used as a component of
neighborhood protection overlay zoning to preserve neighborhoods at risk from
insensitive in-fill development and expanding non-residential uses; and 

WHEREAS, said design
controls are created by local communities within the legislative authority long
secured to local governments; and 

WHEREAS, the people
living and working in local communities are best positioned to determine the
character and needs of the places where they live and work and are best able to
fashion regulations to shape and sustain development in those places; and 

WHEREAS, there are
now pending in the General Assembly of North Carolina House Bill 150 and a
companion bill in the Senate, S139, designed to strip from local communities
their ability to employ certain design regulations as a part of their land use
regulatory programs; and 

WHEREAS, said bills,
if passed would render ineffective the neighborhood protection scheme
contemplated in Durham’s neighborhood protection overlay zoning ordinance and
would undo the regulations already put in place by means of said
ordinance; 

THEREFORE BE IT
RESOVED by the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham through its delegates
assembled that House Bill 150 and similar measures should not become law and
that the North Carolina General Assembly should leave inviolate the authority
of local communities to decide for themselves those land use regulatory measures
best suited to shape development and protect the public health safety and
welfare. 

This ____ day of
_______________, 2013 

THE INTERNEIGHBORHOOD
COUNCIL OF DURHAM 

By:
________________________________________ 

John Martin, 

President 

Appendix
B: A
Resolution on the UDO

Whereas the Durham City and County governments have under
consideration an ordinance to amend the Unified Development Ordinance to
correct procedural deficiencies in the approval of certain forms of
development; and

Whereas the proposed amendments in many places either fail to
correct the deficiencies or the corrections proposed create ambiguities that
should be resolved; and

Whereas the InterNeighborhood Council’s committee on the
Unified Development Ordinance has reviewed the proposed amendments and has made
comments and raised questions concerning the proposed amendments, which
comments and questions are hereto attached; and

Whereas in the committee’s comments generally point out places
in the Unified Development Ordinance as it is proposed to be amended where:

1.    Impermissible
discretionary decision-making continues to be vested in persons or agencies not
authorized to make such decisions,

2.    The
standards governing decision-making are either absent or overbroad,

3.    The
legislative authority of the city and county is impermissibly delegated to
government departments by reference to publications, manuals, and guidelines
which are not themselves adopted by ordinance,

4.    Important
substantive regulations safeguarding neighborhoods and persons living in
proximity to proposed development currently reposed in the code (however
imperfectly) are eliminated or reduced, and

5.    The
rights of citizens to be heard on matters relating to the regulation of
development and land use have been curtailed;

Therefore be it resolved that the InterNeighborhood Council
shall present the comments and questions of the Unified development Committee
to the Durham City and County governments with the request that the proposed
amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance be changed to address the
concerns raised in said comments and questions.

By authority of the Executive Committee, this 18 day of March,
2013,

______________________________

John Martin, President

Appendix C: Resolution on West Ellerbe Creek Trail Extension

WHEREAS the long-desired
West Ellerbee Creek Trail Extension (also known as West Ellerbee Creek Trail,
Phase II, or WEC2) has its approved site plan and is ready to move into the
construction process;

AND WHEREAS this is an
important piece in the creation of a full and interlinked Durham greenway
system, connecting the now-isolated but very popular existing section of the
West Ellerbe Creek Trail to the entire Durham trail system by bringing the
trail along the creek from Maryland Avenue at Westover Park (where the West
Ellerbee Creek Trail now ends), across Guess Road (with a powerful
pedestrian-activated HAWK signal to stop the traffic on Guess), under I-85
(there is already a tunnel in place), through North Pointe (between Costco and
Home Depot, with another HAWK signal to get people across North Pointe Drive),
and then along a pretty stretch of the creek all the way to the intersection of
Broad Street and Stadium Drive, where it will meet the North-South Greenway and
link into the existing trail network;

AND WHEREAS adding this
piece of trail will encourage walking and riding bikes in Durham, and will
contribute to citizens more frequently choosing these alternate forms of
transportation versus driving in their cars;

AND WHEREAS the City staff
in the Department of Parks and Recreation and in General Services have
advocated that the trail construction be funded this year, saying “This project
has high citizen interest and when ranked by citizens, greenway trail
connections (i.e., off-road bicycle and pedestrian transportation routes) are
consistently ranked as their highest priority in desired
recreation/transportation facilities (56% selected it as the most important in
our 2012 survey, and 55% said they used trails regularly)”;

AND WHEREAS matching funds
of well over $1 million are being offered immediately for this project by the
federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program, provided that the City
Council can appropriate $700,000 as its share of the construction budget;

AND WHEREAS, if the City
funds are not appropriated in the 13/14 budget, the construction will be
delayed until some later year, and then the opportunity for federal matching
funds may eventually be lost;

NOW, THEREFORE, the
InterNeighborhood Council of Durham strongly urges the City Council to include
the full $700,000 of needed funding in the City’s 13/14 capital improvements
(CIP) budget.

Appendix D: INC Priorities and Committees

In doing the minutes, I rearranged John’s hand-out to put
the committee name at the top, leaving the high-priority items in bold.  I also added the two previously
identified activities (a party and a candidate forum) under the outreach
committee, but there may be a special sub-committee for these activities.

Proposed
Committee:  Development and Zoning

·      
Update review of UDO (9) 

·      
Citizen education on planning (5)

·      
Sticking with Comprehensive Plan (1)

·      
Neighborhood unique identity (1)

·      
Increase diversity of affordable housing within
neighborhoods (2)

Proposed
Committee:  Outreach

·      
Partner with local orgs / liaison (9)

·      
Candidate forum (Previously identified activity)

·      
Neighborhood block party (Previously identified activity)

·      
Membership and neighborhood formation (3)

·      
Information collection (for youth, new residents,
etc.) (1)

·      
Association / board member training (4)

·      
Interconnect with /among neighborhoods – awareness,
not re-inventing wheels, etc.  (1)

·      
Local business promotion / Sustainabull (2)

Proposed
Committee:  Public Spaces

·      
Park and public space maintenance / appearance (8) 

·      
Bond for trails (5) 

·      
Trash in waterways (5)

·      
Integrate waterways into neighborhoods (3)

Proposed
Committee:  Nuisance Abatement

·      
Nuisance (ABC stores, barking dogs, bad rentals) abatement (8)

·      
Unlicensed group homes (2)

·      
Illegal parking, enforcement on (1)

Proposed
Committee:  Streets, Sidewalks and
Transportation

·      
Speed enforcement on streets (6)

·      
More sidewalks, sidewalk repair (6)

·      
Quality of street paving / pavenator report (1)

·      
Improve bus routes (2)

·      
Monitor mass transit and issues (separation study,
development around rail) (4)

Appendix E: General
Transportation Issue(s) update,  InterNeighborhood
Council meeting, March 26th, 2013 

The
following updates are not meant to be comprehensive or complete but
informational only.   For more information you can contact either Dedreanna
Freedman, Mike Shiflett or Mark Ahrendsen 

-East
End Connector (also known as Triangle Connector)   147 to 70 

Currently in Right of Way acquisition with an outside firm working with
property owners, 

Projected construction start in Spring of 2014 

-Alston
Ave:  147 to Holloway 

Slightly delayed at this time due to planning issues 

Right of Way beginning in Spring of 2013 with construction projected Spring of
2015  

-Roxboro
Road at Latta and Infinity 

funded $2 million by NCDOT and $2 million by City (impact fees) 

construction scheduled for 2014 (more likely will be 2015) 

-Main
St. bridge replacement at Campus Drive 

Main will close on May 13 (day after commencement) for no more than 130
days 

Closure from Buchanan to Broad Street, official detour will be Swift/NC
147/Chapel Hill St/Duke and Gregson;  unofficial detour will likely be
Buchanan, Markham, Broad/9th
and others streets 

Work being scheduled to have completion by mid September 

-American
Tobacco Trail 

Bridge superstructure over I-40 projected to be installed next month (delayed
for now due to some issues with the bridge support structure) 

Project projected to completed in July of this year 

Trail currently completed from Chatham County line and Stagecoach Rd to Massey
Chapel with further extension to Renaissance almost done.  Last segment will be
from Renaissance to NC 54 (including the bridge over I-40). 

-Old
Durham Chapel Hill Road bike/ped project 

Garrett Road to US 15-501 (near BC/BS) in Chapel Hill  

Right of Way/utility relocation currently scheduled to begin this spring for
the Durham segment with projected construction in April 2014 

-NCDOT
Feasibility Studies 

Northern Durham Parkway: 70 to Mineral Springs then north to 98 up to 85 then
Glenn School, Old                                Oxford Hwy, Snow Hill and on
to Roxboro 

NC147 widening: Anticipating more congestion from opening of EEC (see above) in
3-5 yrs 

NC 751:  NC 54 south to Chatham County (US 64) -  congestion relief 

-1/2
cent sales tax increase for Transit begins April 1st 

-Traffic
Separation Study coming back for public input on 18 railroad crossings,
completion this Fall 

-Downtown/9th St. parking study
announced, public comment starting next month 

-Public
Works/Transportation/Engineering working on 4 bike/ped improvements 

Cornwallis Road, Morreene Road, Hillandale Road and Carpenter Fletcher
Road 

Public meetings on projects in April:  Cornwallis and Carpenter Fletcher –
April 9 at 6:30 pm at Rogers Herr School and Hillandale and Morreene – April 17
at 6:30 pm at Durham Public Schools Staff Development Center at the corner of
Hillandale and Carver 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20130422/549b2951/attachment.html>