The first official vote was actually a response to a concern raised by two speakers from the floor. Effective July 1, the city began charging a $150 monument placement fee in city cemeteries as part of an effort to reduce the amount of tax money used for the upkeep of these facilities. While this fee was not specifically highlighted during our budget preparation and review, it was approved by the city council when we passed the 2005-06 city budget. Spokesmen for the monument companies rightfully pointed out that there had been no public discussion of this new charge and that they received notification of it on July 1, the day it took effect. Council members voted to hold the fees in abeyance and consider lowering the fee to a more reasonable number.
The zoning case for the property at Pleasant Garden Road and US421 South was one of the more difficult ones we have considered lately. While I agreed with the applicant that the Comprehensive Plan's designation of this plot as "mixed use residential" was unrealistic - it's located next to a busy convenience store/gas station used by lots of 18-wheelers beside a heavily-traveled highway and across the road from a heavy industrial area - I was not comfortable with the proposed strip shopping center, despite numerous conditions proposed to make it more palatable. With recent modern, more esthetically-pleasing approaches to shopping center design, I just could not support this run-of-the-mill proposal that was opposed by all nearby residents. That's the reason for my mixed-signal vote on this one - "yes" to the change in designation on the land use map to "commercial" but "no" to the actual shopping center. Since the rezoning was approved, I can only hope the developer heard our concerns and will improve upon his plan.
Two significant transportation construction contracts were approved - placement of sidewalks and crosswalks in the Wendover/I-40/Bridford Parkway area and the Friendly Avenue improvements. I am delighted that the Wendover work will finally begin so there will be sidewalk access to those city bus stops currently perched on isolated grassy banks. The Mayor, Robbie Perkins and I have been involved in negotiations with some property owners in that corridor who wanted to locate portions of the sidewalk on top of those banks instead of cutting into their property and constructing retaining walls. Florence Gatten has spent a lot of time with citizens on the Friendly Avenue improvements which will include a landscaped median to which some residents in the area object.
A tremendous step forward was taken on the Randlemen Lake project when we approved the water allocation and payment allocations for the pumping station and distribution lines. The funding formula is based on the percentage of water from the lake that each jurisdiction will use. Since Greensboro will be using approximately 53% of the water pumped from the lake, we have agreed to pay for 53% of the costs to pump that water. Other jurisdictions in the water authority (Archdale, High Point, Jamestown, Randleman, and Randolph County) will pay their "fair share" of the costs as well. Ed Kitchen deserves accolades for his role in negotiating this common-sense solution to a thorny issue.
[As an aside, I was absolutely stunned when I drove over the US220 South bridge over the future lake area last week. The entire area has been cleared of trees and vegetation in prepartion for the filling of the lake which should begin by the end of the year. I'm eager to see it full of water!]
We took two actions in preparation for the "changing of the guard" in the city manager's position. Mitchell Johnson was appointed to be the Interim City Manager until a new manager is hired; I have confidence that he will do a great job. We also called a special meeting for 3PM on Monday, August 1 to review the applications we have received for this position and select the most suitable ones for further investigation and interviews. It is anticipated it will take at least 30-60 days to complete this process IF things go smoothly, or it could take longer.
During "Items from Council Members," I inquired about establishing a permanent city collection program for e-waste. In recent conversations with Environmental Services Director Jeryl Covington, I learned that many steps have already been taken to begin this service - a potential collection point has been identified, appropriate businesses to dispose of the items have expressed interest, and potential funding sources are being explored. With full support of the city council, staff will proceed to develop plans to start this much-needed service. I'm optimistic that we can get this program up and runnning - stay tuned!
The problem of the proliferation of illegal signs placed on city right-of-way, telephone poles, etc. was brought up by Florence Gatten in response to numerous citizen complaints about them lately (including Diane) and the likelihood of it worsening as campaign season approaches. Attorney Linda Miles updated us on her conversations with the Planning Department to find ways to identify the violators and deal with them. City staff will be more diligent in trying to remove these illegal signs. (Note: any citizen can legally remove these illegal signs as well, just be safe in doing so and don't be stopping in the middle of the street to jerk one up.]
After a closed session dealing with a number of topics I cannot discuss at this time, I was able to get home by 10:30PM. That's pretty good, considering some of the "late-nighters" we've had in the past. It was a productive meeting.
11 comments:
With respect to the rezoning: It appeared to me, when we heard this case before the Zoning Commission, that the applicant had demonstrated ZERO creativity with respect to accommodating the letter or intent of the Comprehensive Plan. If we keep approving such requests, there will be no motivation for developers to change their mindsets. The fact is, there is still a dominant view out there, shared by at least some developers and by at least some land-use attorneys, that the market should be the sole determinant of land-use. This despite the fact that the very existence of a zoning ordinance, or of a comprehensive plan, signals the public's refusal to accept the notion that the market, by itself, is capable of serving the public good.
With respect to e-recycling: Hooray! (Well, maybe I should wait until it really is operational.) Please keep us informed as to progress, and definitely let us know if (and where) we should be applying pressure.
Thanks for your insight, Peter. That was my quandry with this vote - at this point, the city does not have design standards for the appearance of developments. But if we continue to approve these lesser quality strip centers, there is no pressure on developers to do any better. I was trying to send a message with my "no" vote to encourage them step it up a bit.
Thanks for the offer to apply "pressure" for an e-waste recycling program - I think the recently expressed public interest has already been successful in moving this forward. Staff got firm "marching orders" last night to make it happen. But it never hurts for citizens to communicate their support for something so "press away."
Hey Sandy,
I don't live near the Friendly Avenue "improvement" area, but it seems to me that putting utility poles underground would have been a better use of the money than just moving them and adding a median and turn lanes.
I suggested this to several City Council members several years ago (I don't think that you were not one of them). My answer was that it was too expensive.
I know that it would be an expensive project, but surely Greensboro has enough clout and money (or the ability to get it from the state or feds) to help Duke Power bury these poles. It is a safety factor as well as an aesthetic one.
The utility poles are dangerously close to the street and this area is famous for losing power when wind and rain falls heavily on the beauiful trees that (used to) line the street.
I have heard many complaints about the tree butchering in the areas served by these lines. The maintenance costs would be much lower if the lines were underground and we could keep more of our beautiful tree shaded streets.
What a shame that so much money is spent on medians. We could do many better things to improve the safety and beauty of our streets.
Diane,
I agree that putting electric lines underground would be much more visually appealing as well as avoiding outages during ice and wind storms. It is something the council has explored on a number of occasions, and it is prohitively expense due to the need to avoid conflicts with water/sewer lines, getting under streets and driveways, etc.
For example, if I remember correctly, the price we were quoted by Duke Power for putting the lines underground in the short stretch of East Market Streetscape project was around $18 MILLION. I shudder to think what the price tag would be for this long stretch of Friendly. The construction contract for the Friendly Ave. improvements contract was $6 million - paying to bury the electric lines would probably quadruple that amount, or more.
I would love to have the lines buried all over town, but I don't think our taxpayers can afford it.
It's good to know of elected officials that understand the distinction between a Comprehensive (Land Use) Plan and individual zoning districts. Your reasons for voting the way you did with this case are right on the money. Just because a use is allowed, either by policy or by right, doesn't mean that the ultimate development can't be held to higher standards. I can't understand why some developers are not willing to invest a little extra time and money to create a better product, as ultimately a more unique and aesthetically pleasing development is more valuable both to the individual property owner(s) as well as the broader community.
Not one word about the scariest topic...ASBESTOS and Illegal dumping...I find that odd....???
Ben,
Tom Phillips did inquire about the demolition of the South Gate Inn and the presence of asbestos. City staff shared detailed information about the asbestos (a very small amount, mainly in some bathroom floor tiles) and the state-mandated remediation and clean-up that is being done. The offending contractor must pay for the extra work to be done by a state-certified asbestos removal company that will dispose of it properly. The regular contractor is prohibited from further work until the asbestos remediation has been completed. No materials from the South Gate Inn demolition have been dumped into the city landfill or any of the other sites this contractor normally uses. It appears that the situation is under control.
Under control thanks to who? A small amount? According to the e mail I recieved..then forwarded to Tom..no details of anything were reported...just the fact that the test came back positive...what detailed report tells you it is small amounts in the bathroom?
Ben,
I was quoting from the oral report that Butch Simmons gave to the city council on this subject. I suggest you review the tape of that council meeting (this information was shared near the end of the meeting) or get a copy of the report itself - I assume it is public record.
I saw the meeting...Just wanted you to know that nobody has seen a report with details. It is unknown how dangerous this could have been. At the time of the council meeting Butch had No IDEA how much asbesots was found. He also has no idea where the hazardous materials have been dumped. Just trying to keep the facts out there.
Ben,
I can only speak for what I know or do not know and would not dream of speculating about what another person - in this particular case, Butch - knows or thinks.
With this South Gate-asbestos issue under intense scrutiny by the city council and other folks (including you), I would think that Butch/city staff would make sure that their information was correct before publicly stating it to the council in a televised meeting. I have not seen or heard anything that says Butch's information was not accurate - if you have facts to the contrary, please share it with us.
Post a Comment