Summary of the June 19, 2003 Northside Neighborhood Conservation District

Advisory Committee

Committee Members Present: Chair Delores Bailey, Vice-Chair Esphur Foster, Linda Convissor, Helen Galbreath, Sally Greene, Josh Gurlitz, Mae McLendon, Mark Patmore, Ruby Sinreich, Velma Perry, Tom Tucker.

Committee Members Absent: Jeff Caiola, Ed Caldwell, Rick Perry, Matthew Robbins, Sydalg Severe, R.D. Smith

Also present were UNC Student Liaison Michael McSwain and Planning Board Alternate Tim Dempsey

Town Staff Present: Than Austin, Loryn Barnes, Chris Berndt, JB Culpepper, Emily Dickens, Roger Waldon

The Northside Neighborhood Conservation District Committee held its second meeting on June 19, 2003 at 6:30 at the Hargraves Center.

Chair Delores Bailey called the meeting to order and informed the Committee of the Council’s recent appointments to the Committee (Matthew Robbins and Rick Perry). Ms. Bailey also reported that the Council voted to extend the current duplex prohibitions in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zoning districts until February 29, 2004. Ms. Bailey also stated that the Committee would like future meetings recorded to ensure accuracy of the Committee’s actions.

The Committee approved the minutes from the May 15, 2003 meeting with two changes: 1) Mayoral Aide Emily Dickens was present at the meeting; 2) the spelling of Helen Galbreath’s last name was corrected.

The Committee reviewed the charge from the Council (adopted April 14).

The Committee discussed the boundaries of the study area approved by the Council on April 14, 2003. Committee Member Patmore suggested including the Pritchard Park Public Housing community in the study area. Committee Member Mabry stated that in the past, the Town and the residents of Northside have had different opinions of the neighborhood boundary. She stated that in the past, the voting precinct was considered to be the ‘neighborhood’.

Committee Member Gurlitz commented that during the process of developing the Conservation District, the Committee may determine that the boundary needs to change to address specific problems. He suggested that the Committee make this recommendation in its final report to the Council.

Committee Member Tucker stated that the boundary was adopted by the Council and cannot be modified by the Committee, but the Committee could make suggestions for modification. Committee Member Greene stated that the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) is not problem oriented, but addresses land use patterns and architectural issues.

Committee Chair Bailey mentioned that the boundary was developed by the Sykes Street Steering Committee and presented to the community for comment at a Neighborhood Watch / Northside Community Association meeting on March 11, 2003.

Committee Member McLendon stated that the boundaries should be accepted by the residents.

The Committee agreed to review the boundaries as part of the process of developing the Neighborhood Conservation District, and that the final recommendation from the Committee may include a suggestion to modify the boundaries.

Than Austin, Current Development Planner with the Planning Department reviewed the zoning districts found in the study area.

The Committee discussed parking in the community and the following issues were raised:

• The roads are not designed for the current traffic.
• There should be limited on street parking.
• The 40% front yard parking restriction is not being enforced.
• Any new parking provision must be enforceable and enforced.
• Consider on-street parking by residents only – distribute stickers.
• The proposed Neighborhood Conservation District could state that there are no exceptions to the 40% front-yard parking ordinance.
• Parking on McDade and Cotton Street is a problem.
• Parking is a public safety issue.
• Front-yard parking impacts the physical character of the neighborhood.
• Is 40% enough or too much for front yard parking?
• On street parking is a bigger issue than front-yard parking.
• Off street parking is not an issue for a lot of properties.
• Front-yard parking is an aesthetic problem and is just as much of a concern as on street parking.
• Density is the real problem because there are more people with cars than the infrastructure can handle.

Planning Board liaison Tim Dempsy stated that the Committee needs to define the issues and prioritize these issues to move forward. He also suggested that the Committee consider developing subcommittees to complete its work. Committee Member Tucker suggested developing a schedule to address specific issues.

The Committee decided to discuss parking and occupancy at its next meeting.

Loryn Barnes, Community Development Coordinator, reviewed a proposed schedule for completing the Committee’s work. Two scenarios were presented – one scheduled the Committee to present its work to the Council on September 22, 2003, review by the Planning Board on October 21, and a Public Forum on October 27, a Public Hearing on a Zoning Atlas Amendment on January 19, and consideration of adoption of the Zoning Atlas Amendment in February 2004; a second more ambitious schedule added additional meetings to the Committee’s current schedule of one meeting per month, presenting work to the Council on September 22, Planning Board review on October 7, Public Hearing on October 20, and consideration of adoption of the Zoning Atlas Amendment in November, 2003. Recognizing that there were many issues still to discuss, the Committee agreed to meet the first and third Thursday of each month at 6:30.

Loryn Barnes also distributed disposable cameras to the Committee members. Each member was asked to take pictures of what’s good about the neighborhood, and what they believe needs to be improved. Members were asked to return the cameras to the Planning Department by Friday, June 27. The Planning Department would have the pictures developed by the next meeting on July 3 for the Committee to review.

- prepared by L. Barnes