[Durham INC] July meeting and DRAFT June minutes

Thu Jul 23 23:28:45 EDT 2015

Just a reminder that the delegate meeting is next Tuesday.  Agenda will come out soon.  Draft minutes are below.  

Regards, pat

From: pats1717 at hotmail.com
To: inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net; rochelle.araujo54 at gmail.com; tjswasey at gmail.com
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:15:32 -0400
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] DRAFT June minutes

I am resending to see if this time hotmail can do it without messing up.

Please let me know about any additions or changes.  Regards, pat

June Delegate Meeting
of the InterNeighborhood Council of Durham

NIS Conference
Room, Golden Belt

June 23, 2015

Attending the meeting were:

Neighborhoods

Colony Park – Don Lebkes

Cross Counties – Pat Carstensen

Downing Creek – Tom and Judy Swasey

Duke Park – Bill Anderson

Golden Belt – DeDreana Freeman

Long Meadow – Pakis Bessias

Morehead Hill – Rochelle Araujo

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

Watts Hospital Hillandale – Tom Miller, Lorisa Seibel

Woodcroft –Scott Carter, Jose Sandoval

Visitors 

Will Wilson – DOST 

Lynwood Best – NIS

Jim Svara

Jim Wise 

President Phil Azar opened the meeting.  Members introduced themselves. The membership
conducted a standing ovation for Jim Wise for his many years of reporting on
Durham.  DeDreana Freeman conveyed that Edward Kwon
has passed (http://www.hallwynne.com/edward-lim-kwon/),
and the funeral services will be at First Presbyterian on Saturday
at 10am.

Bill Anderson moved to approve the May minutes, John Martin seconded and delegates voted to do this.  

Transit Resolutions 

Alston Avenue Stop (Appendix A) – Efforts to gather more
info to try to get a station east of Alston have continued.  There is more
elevation, around the water tower, than was thought when the draft plan was
done, so it looks like a stop east of Alston is technically feasible since the entire
track and station wouldn’t have to be elevated. GoTriangle has sent responses
to NE Central Durham.  GoTriangle has made some decisions after the early
June hearings, including eliminating Pettigrew site for the maintenance
facility.  The resolution passed with one abstain, no “nays.”

Downing Creek / Little Creek (Appendix B) – Downing Creek
representatives said they know that GoTriangle has decided for option C2A, and they
don’t want the route decision to be neighborhood versus neighborhood, but they
do want the constructed route to be less onerous to their neighborhood. 
C2 and C2A are unacceptable as planned to neighborhood.  Philip Azar
moved an amendment to Point 2 of the resolutions (see italics in the
resolution) and the amendment was accepted as friendly and not likely to change
any votes.  The resolution passed with one
abstain, no “nays.”

Overarching Resolution – Tom Miller moved the resolution,
and David Harris seconded.  The resolution sent out is in Appendix C;
Appendix D reflects discussion of support for light rail overall, concerns
about getting information, and the fact that the details of routes are already
covered by resolutions that have passed. Morehead Hill is in favor of enhanced
transportation options.   

Reports

 Zoning and Development (cell towers) – A final follow-up
     letter on wireless towers will go to staff, with copies to elected
     officials, laying out our understanding on the revisions that elected
     officials asked staff to work on.  Over e-mail, one neighborhood
     expressed disappointment that we didn’t get more; see Appendix E.
 Pocket neighborhoods
     – The committee has been joined by a group from the county that helps
     folks who are in the process of getting homes; their ideas fit with what
     the committee is pursuing.  The committee is talking about additions
     to the UDO that would create alternatives to large apartment complexes –
     zones that still have fairly high density (12 units / acre), but use shared
     yard and parking to get houses on small lots.  Developers are also
     interested.  There are lots of different views on how the idea might
     be used.  It could be a stimulus for infill in areas in the urban
     core with deteriorated housing stock. 
 Membership and Outreach (Candidate
     Forum) – Philip Azar announced
     that he will be running for City Council. Dick Ford talked to League
     of Women Voters about co-sponsoring a candidate forum, but they can’t
     partner with us on a forum with Philip Azar as candidate and officer. 
     It is not clear whether they will proceed without us.  We don’t make
     endorsements.  Possibly Sierra Club would do a forum with us. 
 Membership and Outreach (Membership
     Rules) – The committee has not
     had a formal meeting about the membership standard of a minimum of 40
     houses, but based on e-mail chains they think that the standard should
     stay.  Neighborhoods can still come without voting and get advice and
     support.  If we try to get more diverse neighborhoods, we may need to
     think again about the membership rules.
 Nominating – Tom Miller moved that we create a nominating committee
     of Mike Shiflett,
     Tom Miller, DeDreanna Freeman, and John Martin. Bill Anderson seconded, and
     the motion passed.
 Legislative – There are many bills of interest, but Tom Miller
     just reported on the repeal of the right to a protest petition.  The bill has some “sops” such as giving at
     least 30 days from formal notice to the vote, but it is still
     terrible.  The bill is still in the Senate Commerce Committee as
     Senate has been tied up with budget; expect alerts from Tom when the
     Senate gets back to bills when the budget is done.  There may be a
     state-wide meeting of neighborhood interests.  

New Business

Neighborhood meetings are happening to show the boundaries that
Planning is proposing for compact design
districts around transit stops.  In conversations around town, Lorisa
Seibel finds people have heard of light rail and generally support it, but are fearful
of changes in their neighborhoods and don’t now what compact neighborhoods
are.  After an area becomes a design district, if the guidelines /
detailed rules are met for a proposed development, there are no more
opportunities for the community to have a say – planning just checks (this is
theory of form based code). Density will change what neighborhoods look
like; just go check out Briar Creek.  Planning
is good at explaining some things, but is not conveying what compact design
districts will really be and asking whether this is what is wanted.  She
and others will be bringing in a resolution that there needs to be more
information and dialog.   

DeDreanna Freeman announced that SpiritHouse is trying to get more
neighborhoods involved in their book study program.  The next book is Urban Alchemy: Restoring
Joy in America's Sorted-Out Cities and training for study groups is July
25.  She will send out an e-mail.

Neighborhood Reports

 Colony Park – Pulte Homes will be at the July 14th hearing to the
     Planning Commission on what they want to do next to Colony Park. What is
     planned is mass grading, clear cutting, and 200+ town homes.  It’s
     not the low impact that comprehensive plan requires.  There is no
     transition from RS-20 to PDR 7 homes /acre.  The development would
     make more traffic and create a hazard for fire trucks coming over the hill
     into this traffic.  Another major concern is the stormwater into Colony
     Park community land and some low-lying homes.  The Planning
     Department just gets the plan to fit the UDO, but Planning Commission will,
     we hope, do careful review of material (Colony Park is asking everyone to
     lobby Planning Commission members they know).  Pulte gave an easement
     in the flood plain to do a bike path but will do no improvements. 
 Come on Thursday to the
     Northgate Park to food truck rodeo.   
 There was another round of
     applause for Jim Wise, since the public doesn’t know about what is going on
     when there no reporting on it.  
 We held a moment of
     silence for 9 victims in Charleston. 
 Google fiber as started digging in Triangle, and neighborhoods
     should show interest. 
 If your neighborhood lacks
     a 4th of July celebration, come
     join the 66th annual Watts Hospital Hillandale parade at 10 AM on the
     glorious 4th. 

Appendix A: 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: 

•    
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. 

Appendix B: 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” 

2.    
and concludes in its own right that the proposed
Durham-Orange Light Rail project should
use every effort to follow the originally intended path through Meadowmont,
as represented by current option “C1A” or an alternative route with less
negative impact on our communities. 

3.    
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 

4.    
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
C: Overarching Resolution Regarding Rail Siting Process (Original)

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 neighborhoods and other groups continue to
have concerns with the proposed routes – safety of at-grade crossings, impact
on businesses, difficulties of pedestrian crossing, and
reach into the eastern part of the city – and would like to see these
concerns treated seriously;

Whereas although it is clear GoTriangle staff has
worked hard to schedule public meetings and put a large amount of expertise and
effort into the presentations made at these meetings, citizens feel they
have not been listened to when they ask about anything other than the results
of staff studies;

Whereas meetings with neighborhoods and other
groups should be part of a dialogue where GoTriangle uses its expertise to meet
groups and individuals “where they are” and not opportunities to reiterate
reasons for supporting positions already taken;

Whereas having a light rail stop east of Alston
Avenue is not merely a technical decision, but a test of Durham will and
character since Durham must keep its commitments to
neighborhoods, especially communities that it may have failed in the past
and that it has made current commitments to aid.   In particular, the
possibilities that East Durham might be served by at stop closer to Angier /
Driver in the future and the possibility that NCCU area might be served by
stops in the future along the Fayetteville St. corridor are not reasons to pass
on committing to serve at least one community;

Be it resolved that:

 GoTriange is encouraged to have more
     meaningful direct discussions with neighborhoods to address their
     concerns, using real world light rail examples and offering Youtube
     examples and specific examples from other transit systems, especially
     Charlotte.
 The city and county should yet more
     seriously look at having a light rail stop east of Alston Avenue.
 Durham City and County
     elected officials, especially those active in the MPO, should meet with
     neighborhoods located in Durham City and/or County whose light rail stops
     are being planned by Chapel Hill to evaluate those
     decisions and their supporting processes, and to support those
     neighborhoods in securing appropriate accommodation/redress/relief,
     including honoring the  long-standing  commitment to route the
     line through Meadowmont, which was planned as a TOD, just as we must honor
     our commitment to East Durham.

 The city and county and other
     elected representatives, local and federal, should seek to intervene with
     the Army Corps of Engineers to stress the importance of the original
     Meadowmont route.

 Durham should proceed
     with plans to link the new Amtrak and bus stations with a pedestrian
     crosswalk as a downpayment against promises that transit expenditures will
     also benefit low-income residents that do not live in or immediately adjacent
     to downtown, and who rely on bus service linkage to rail.  Failing
     that, other plans to serve low-income residents in meaningful manners
     should be accelerated so that the benefits of transit are shared more
     equitably.

Appendix
D: Overarching Resolution Regarding Rail Siting Process (Revised)

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 neighborhoods and other groups continue to
have concerns with the proposed routes – safety of at-grade crossings, impact
on businesses, difficulties of pedestrian crossing, and
reach into the eastern part of the city – and would like to see these
concerns treated seriously;

Whereas there have been concerns about sharing of
working maps and other materials;

Whereas although it is clear GoTriangle staff has
worked hard to schedule public meetings and put a large amount of expertise and
effort into the presentations made at these meetings, citizens feel they
have not been listened to when they ask about anything other than the results
of staff studies;

Whereas meetings with neighborhoods and other
groups should be part of a dialogue where GoTriangle uses its expertise to meet
groups and individuals “where they are” and not opportunities to reiterate
reasons for supporting positions already taken;

Whereas INC has passed resolutions about a stop
east of Alston Avenue and the alignment near Little Creek; 

Whereas INC has passed resolutions in support of light
rail;

Be it resolved that:

 INC continues to endorse such
     improvements in our transportation system.
 GoTriange is encouraged to have more
     meaningful direct discussions with neighborhoods to address their
     concerns, using real world light rail examples and offering Youtube
     examples and specific examples from other transit systems, especially
     Charlotte.
 GoTriangle is encouraged to explore
     new ways to promote citizen involvement.
 Durham should proceed
     with plans to link the new Amtrak and bus stations with a pedestrian
     crosswalk as a downpayment against promises that transit expenditures will
     also benefit low-income residents that do not live in or immediately
     adjacent to downtown, and who rely on bus service linkage to rail.
      Failing that, other plans to serve low-income residents in
     meaningful manners should be accelerated so that the benefits of transit
     are shared more equitably.

Appendix E: Statement from Eagles’
Pointe on wireless towers

Residents of Eagles’ Pointe, one of the neighborhoods
that originally sought revision of the Durham City-County Wireless section of
the Unified Development Ordinance, wants to be on record that they do not hold
their representative to INC responsible for failing to achieve their
expectations for a truly transparent and neighborhood-friendly cell tower
ordinance.  They acknowledge that some apparent benefits for residential
areas were achieved by the efforts of INC  –like lower tower height limits
and safety setbacks between cell towers and homes and between towers and high
pressure gas lines.   However they believe these gains are undermined
by the fact that the  approval and placement of towers in residential
areas is still administrative and administratively those towers will
grow.   In the new ordinance the towers presumed unobtrusive since
they are “petite” (55ft) and defined as “concealed” (whether or not they are
compatible with existing uses at a site),  can thereafter be substantially
heightened and widened by a simple administrative site plan—no public hearing
required.   The new wireless rules say  substantial changes
to tower infrastructure are subject to applicable ordinance
requirements.  The ordinance does not specify  which requirements
apply (such as safety standards), rather it  leaves that up to the discretion
and interpretation of administrators and legal counsel.   The
efforts and time spent by  neighborhoods, officials, and staff
 deserved a better outcome for the cell tower revision’s most numerous and
most affected stakeholders—the residents of Durham County. 

_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
inc-list at lists.deltaforce.net
http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list 		 	   		  

_______________________________________________
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/20150723/8f0cd528/attachment-0001.html>