|
ATTACHMENT 1
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM MARCH 1, 2004 PUBLIC FORUM ON PRINCIPLES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE HORACE WILLIAMS PROPERTY (CAROLINA NORTH)
Citizen Comments
1. Need to address traffic, environment, air and water quality
2. What is the status of the dump?
3. Need to consider infrastructure and school impacts
4. Support the permanent protection of undeveloped areas.
5. Comments on threat of global warning; the Town needs to use all regulatory power to slow process down and evaluate the impacts
6. General need in area for parks
7. Ability of Town and UNC to work in partnership
8. “Build up, not out” to decrease impervious surface
9. Area by Seawell School Road should be removed from plan
10. Remove road-crossing of creek (Town of Carrboro proposed no crossings)
11. Park and preserve for Bolin Creek
12. Carolina North can set standard for sustainable development
13. The report is unclear on what the Committee wants to see happen
14. Need for more jobs in Orange County; insufficient tax base now
15. Partner with private enterprise for retail and services
16. Regressive auto-orientation of plan
17. Inadequate housing
18. Schools are lacking
19. Location puts pressure on North Haven – development is 94 feet at one point from the neighborhood edge
20. Concern about the north-south road to Homestead Road from the Horace Williams tract
21. Impact on environment – road bisects open space, traverses creek
22. Runs counter to effort to preserve two-lane Weaver Dairy Road Ext.
23. Public safety issue – connection / wider street not safe for kids
24. Lack of vision – need transit and/or park/ride on town periphery
25. Traffic flows to Interstate 40 via Airport Road
26. Need to house workers on the site and therefore provide affordable housing
27. Need to add recycling to the report
28. School requires recreational facilities
29. Don’t short-change recreational requirements
30. Unclear as to which zoning approach is best; possibly a new mixed-use zone is best
31. The Horace Williams Citizens Committee took a neutral position as to the choice of the transit corridor
32. Need to strictly limit parking
33. Plan needs radical transportation improvements
34. Tract should remain or be rezoned to Office Institutional-2
35. Should comply with Comprehensive Plan
36. 75% of tract should be preserved in perpetuity
37. The University has not made case for this development, especially considering the costs
38. Rerouting of traffic on Estes Drive Extension won’t work; need to think carefully about the reorientation
39. Make Carolina North “car-free”; there are examples of this being done elsewhere
40. New University construction on Mason Farm Road is the first example of edge development in Office Institutional-4 zoning that abuts a residential area
41. Do not apply Office Institutional-4 zoning to this tract
42. The 90-day review process in Office Institutional-4 zoning is insufficient for adequate review by the Town
43. Collaboration on the 1997 JJR plan was a good process. However, this time citizens have had no access to those making decisions on UNC committees
44. How the site is zoned is paramount; Office Institutional-2 zoning does not preclude creating a new zone
45. Could do “master plan” approach with Office Institutional-2 zoning
46. Carolina North proposal is bigger than the largest mall in the state
47. 2023 is the earliest funding source regionally – need to harness new money
48. Suggest join with Carrboro and Orange County to fund rail to site and build consensus
49. Chapel Hill Transit model may be a good model to extend regionally
50. Electric power and light rail – could provide benefits to Carrboro and Chapel Hill
Council Comments
51. Make sure the Town explores a mechanism to keep housing affordable over time, such as the Land Trust
52. General Principle #3 was highlighted.
53. What are other campuses doing to create “car-free” campuses?
54. What is the status of moving the rail corridor funding source ahead? What else can the Town do to work collaboratively with other partners on a funding source?