2010-10-11

General Business

• Call to order at 7:08 by James Judd
• Treasurer's Report (by email): no activity, balance $ 5,954.06

Introductions

* 2010 member representative

• Debbie Applewhite* [Beverly Hills]
• Clark Mackey [Kenilworth]
• Mike Lewis* [Grace]
• Ann Campbell* [Crowfields]
• Robert Zieber [Biltmore Park]
• Bruce & Eunice Kennedy [East End]
• Grace Curry* [Grove Park/Sunset Mountain]
• Jim Crawford [Grove Park]
• Ann Marie Doherty [Grove Park]
• Barber Melton* [Haw Creek]
• Alan Escovitz  [Grove Park]
• James Judd [Chunns Cove]
• Steve Hudzek* [Kenilworth]
• Joe Minicozzi
• Carolyn Tingle [Kenilworth]
• Jeff Scoltock [Kenilworth]
• Katherine Jowers [Kenilworth]
• Marsha Stickford, Neighborhood Coordinator, City of Asheville
• Representing ATT: Lavoy Spooner, Regional Director, External Affairs; and Francois Figuro, Susan Rolfsen, and Jenny Stamey
• Representing Progress Energy: Gary Hamrick, Western Region Resource Manager

Utility Equipment Placement

Barber Melton began with an introduction of how this issue came to the attention of CAN and our decision to hold a meeting with utility service providers.  Grace Curry described some of the installations in member neighborhoods.  The majority of concerns were regarding AT&T VRad boxes and Progress Energy triple transformer installations.  General concerns about the placement of large utility structures in neighborhoods include sensitivity in placement location, adequate notification, and uncertainty about process and rights.  This issue is being tracked on the CAN wiki site at www.wiki.ashevillecan.org/Research_and_Information/Utility_Structures.

The City of Asheville has been researching the issue per Marsha Stickford but the city has not provided any details.  While the process may involves city permits it is not clear whether the city has any input into placement of the utilities or whether the city is using the opportunity to review and offer suggestions. 

Clark Mackey, a Kenilworth homeowner, was armed with four pages of color pictures showing a new AT&T VRad box installation which was placed in poorly chosen location in terms of sensitivity to property value, utility access, sidewalk proximity.  Mr. Mackey noted that a better location would be further to the right near a wooded spot and closer to the service pole which is also good for AT&T.  Mr. Mackey and others in the room expressed frustration with the general AT&T inquiry / complaint process due to lack of response.  Lavoy Spooner from AT&T provided his contact information and encouraged people to contact him.  While AT&T's standard process per Lavoy Spooner is to send notices to neighbors, neither Mr. Mackey nor any neighbors from the other VRad examples were aware of being notified.  Note: With the help of Lavoy Spooner and the continued persistance of Mr. Mackey, the VRAD box was moved to another location a few weeks after the CAN meeting...click here for the full story and lessons learned.  Sweet Success!

Mr. Spooner from ATT explained most of the equipment is used to provide internet and video programming to customers.  The boxes shown are VRADs (Video Ready Access Devices) containing fiber optic cables, copper cables, and electronic components to control and distribute signals to nearby ATT subscribers.   From a technical perspective, a primary consideration is the distance to existing equipment and the customers property.  Generally, permits are not required from COA and there is no legal requirement for ATT to even notify COA or homeowners of proposed installations that will occur in a right-of-way.  Mr. Spooner advised that in some cases letters are sent to local property owners announcing the equipment installations, but he didn’t know if that happened at 42 Forest Hill Drive.  Note: Concerning this property, a neighbor assisted the property owner in researching the deed, but couldn’t find any record of a recorded easement.  Further research is needed to see if some roads in older neighborhoods may have been overlooked with respect to obtaining and recording a legal right-of-way when the streets were taken over by the city. 

Frances Figuro, an ATT engineer, advised that the boxes and equipment were expensive, they would not be placed unless ATT felt they had an easement and the right to place the equipment.  In response to another question, he informed “the service life of this installation is indefinite” as in forever or until ATT decides to remove the equipment.   Another consideration in placement of equipment is the location of underground water, sewer, and power lines.

Mr. Gary Hamrick, Progress Energy engineer, informed that utility poles are placed approx 200 feet apart, and they should be in line to keep tension along the line of poles so they don’t pull themselves over in high winds.  In some locations, sidewalks are installed around existing utility poles that then become obstructions in the new sidewalk.  The process to remove poles from a sidewalk is considered on a case by case basis, the engineering staff would survey the location and decide if it was technically feasible to move the pole(s) and who would be billed for the relocation.  It is the utilities opinion that replacement of old power poles is “grandfathered”, new poles are placed in the same location/hole, even if that continues to cause a sidewalk obstruction.

The question of why ADA requirements are not always met was not answered; particularly in older installations, the equipment may have been installed before there were legal requirements.  The utilities feel they are not required to follow the ADA except in new work.

Economic Value of Asheville’s Downtown  

Joe Minicozzi, Executive Director of the Asheville Downtown Association (ADA), presented the "Economic Value of Asheville's Downtown".  This intriguing and data rich presentation compares Asheville to other downtowns across the state and provides a picture of downtown's extraordinary value in terms of sales and property taxes, how that income is redistributed, reinvested, and managed.  The presentation also discusses a variety of topics such as daily influx of commuters, the role of planning for the future, etc. 

Joe's powerpoint presentation can be viewed or downloaded here, Downtown Comparison (10 MB powerpoint).  

A video of a Joe's 2010 presentation at the annual State of the Downtown Luncheon can be viewed here.

The ADA which was created in 1987 was originally organized as the Asheville Revitalization Commission Association in 1979.  The ADA's mission is to “be a voice of the downtown community and to promote and support quality economic, cultural and residential development of downtown Asheville”.

Sustainable and Affordable Housing Density Bonus 

Continued discussion of the recent proposal to change the UDO  to include a density bonus for sustainable and affordable housing features while limiting public input and eliminating city council approval.  The recent City Council vote to deny approval of the Caledonia Apartments project in Kenilworth was discussed, especially the fact that staff support of the project would have resulted in approval if not for City Council involvement.  Note: Shannon Tuch in an email reply to James Judd noted that the Caledonia Apartments project would not have qualified for the new ordinance for a variety of reasons.  Barber advised of previous activity to limit public participation, in a City Council position paper from 1994, and the 2004 development task force that wanted to limit CC review. 

A motion was made an passed against removing public notification from the process and to require that a public hearing be a part of the approval process for any density bonus program.

This issue is being tracked and documented at: Density Bonus

Adjourned at 8:55