ATTACHMENT 3
APRIL 11, 13, AND 18, 2000 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION
On March 27 the Council decided that the revised draft plan should be presented at three public information meetings around the community to acquaint citizens with the plan. These meetings were held April 11, 13, and 18, 2000 at Hargraves Center, Chapel Hill Fire Station #4, and the Chapel Hill Public Library. The format and presentation content of the three meetings was identical (see Attachment 3 for a full description).
Each meeting ran from 4 to 8 p.m. with two presentations, one at 4:30 and one at 6:30. Planning Department staff made identical presentations as well as question and answer periods at each of three public information meetings. The meetings were announced in the following ways:
· Mailed to approximately 1000 people from the Town’s mailing list on Friday, March 31, 2000.
· Placed two newspaper ads Sunday, April 9 and Sunday, April 16.
· Placed an announcement on the Public Access TV Channel.
· Placed on our web site at www.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us.
· Distributed to various Town departments that have regular public traffic, including the Public Library.
· Included in the Town weekly newsletter.
The content of each presentation included the following: brief history of Comprehensive Plan in Chapel Hill, the process of the 2000 Comprehensive Plan, key points in the revised draft Comprehensive Plan (March 27, 2000), key changes since the last draft (September 27, 2000), and how to make comments on the revised Plan.
Citizens were given the following options for commenting on the plan: verbal or written at public information meetings; email or letter to the Town Council, or; verbal or written comments at the May 8 Council meeting. We have received comments proposing specific changes to the Plan as well as more general comments. Comments have come to us verbally and written at the meetings (see Attachment 3), as letters, email, and in writing from a Council member (see Attachment 4 for letters, and emails received).
COMMENTS PROPOSING A CHANGE TO REVISED DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Key comments proposing specific changes to the Plan are listed below.
1. Proposal: Small lot development at corner of 86 and Weaver Dairy Rd.: designate for Community Commercial use and all in commercial developed services for the Area. Mixed-use plan is flawed and doesn’t allow small lot (under 10 AC) Development.
2. Proposal: Call for front-yard parking restrictions to be applied throughout all Residential Conservation Areas.
3. Proposal: Recommend that efforts be made to promote development of Single Room Occupancy facilities.
4. Proposal: The School District is considering a school site on Erwin Road. Show that on the Land Use Plan.
5. Proposal: In description of a possible Rental Licensing program, include recommendation that the program be designed in a way that would put information in the hands of renters about Town regulations: noise ordinance, occupancy restrictions, and front-yard parking.
6. Proposal: a) In the southern area, along Smith Level Road, move the Urban Services Boundary further east. b) Ideally, move the line all the way to the western edge of Southern Village (see Map….).
7. Proposal: Adjust Urban Services Boundary near White Rock Church Road such that White Rock Church Road neighborhood and land north of it stays within the Urban Services Area (see map submitted by P.H. Craig).
8. Proposal: In discussion of revising the Development Ordinance, be more specific about incorporating principles of “Low-impact Design” (Strategy 9F-1) and “Conservation Development” (Strategy 9B-2).
9. Proposal: Change the legend on the Land Use Plan to include residential in the two mixed-use categories (mixed use-office/commercial and mixed use-office emphasis) since these categories do in fact allow a residential component.
10. Proposal: Figure 16, Existing Sidewalks and Potential Pedestrian Zones should be modified in the following manner:
11. Proposal: Figure 17, Existing and Planned Bike Network should include the Lower Booker Creek Greenway and the Linear Park Greenway.
12. Proposal: Section 10B-4, all references to traffic impact analysis should be changed to transportation impact analysis. The proposed transportation impact analysis should include a standard identifying the types of projects that would be required to prepare the analysis.
13. Proposal: Measure of Progress: Transportation Impact Analysis – the proposed deadline for preparing this revision should be no later than 18 months after the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
14. Proposal: Page 124: a) the 25th Anniversary Report should be attached to the Comprehensive Plan, and b) should be referenced in this section.
15. Proposal: Measure of Progress: Park and Ride – this Plan should be scheduled to be completed no later than 12/31/2001 to be consistent with the development of the Local Transit Service Plan Measure of Progress.
16. Proposal: Figure 18, Existing and Proposed Transit Network – the map should be revised to remove service no longer provided and the pedestrian radius around fixed guideway stations is incorrectly labeled as ¼ mile when it should be ½ mile.
GENERAL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
General comments not requiring specific changes to the Plan are listed below. Responses are those made by staff at the public information meetings.
1. Comment: The corner of 86 and Weaver Dairy Road (Southeast Side) was zoned Community Commercial prior to 1972. The 1986 Land Use Plan designated this area as commercial, which is appropriate considering the close proximity to Timberlyne Shopping Center. The Shopping Center had one half of the light out-parcels used for Office and Institutional instead of the intended Community Commercial use.
2. Comment: I am concerned about the Urban Services Boundary being moved in the Southern Area on the on the revised draft Land Use Plan. The development potential of my property would be reduced without access to utilities.
3. Comment: I question the term “mixed use” being used in Figure 12, “Existing and Potential Mixed Use Centers.” I find the term being applied to many different types of development, such as, Starpoint, Airport Rd. and Meadowmont misleading. Some of the sites are nothing more than strip malls.
Response: This comment was just about the map and its legend. The accompanying text in Strategy 8A-2 (p. 79) helps to clarify the designations.
4. Comment: Sell parking lot 2 & 5 convert to hi-rise development on those lots. Move parking to Granville Towers Build as deed.
5. Comment: Complete sidewalk network throughout Town
6. Comment: Keep mobile homes in Town, they’re ok
7. Comment: Do the Downtown Hotel on bus station lot
8. Comment: Intensify development of Greene Tract except headwaters of Booker Creek & Bolin Creek tributaries
9. Comment: Develop Solid Waste facilities in Eubanks Drive Area (Teer).
10. Comment: What has changed since the September 27 draft Comprehensive Plan to trigger designating the new potential Public Works site in the Northwest Area on the revised draft Land Use Plan?
Response: The Town Council declared they were interested in the site.
11. Comment: Why does Public Works require such a large area for its facilities?
Response: Public works is simply interested in acquiring a site in the general area north of Eubanks Road. The actual space they will need has not yet been decided.
12. Comment: Is the old landfill site a potential future site for the Public Works building?
Response: No, the old landfill wouldn’t be appropriate to build on for many years, if at all.
13. Comment: How long will it be until the current landfill site is re-used.
Response: At least 20 years.
14. Comment: My family owns property around the landfill. Is there a danger from being near the landfill?
Response: From a public health standpoint there are no existing or foreseeable public health issues related to the landfill that could be considered a danger.
15. Comment: What kind of compensation is there if the value of someone’s property is reduced because of the landfill?
Response: Remedies are available where legitimate harms have been done.
16. Comment: Why can a landfill be sited next to you but you can’t have water and sewer?
Response: The location of landfills and public utilities are sited using different criteria. For example, whereas a landfill may be sited where there is lower density development; utilities are typically extended to areas with higher density development.
17. Comment: It is a waste to use the expensive land in Chapel Hill when there is more isolated land available out in the County.
Response: The current landfill site was considered isolated when the landfill was first built. Furthermore, a new site was not found for the Orange County Landfill after more than a decade of searching.
18. Comment: Where will the solid waste go when the landfill is full?
Response: Since a local site has not been agreed upon for a new landfill, solid waste will be trucked outside of our region.
19. Comment: Something needs to be done about the landfill. I know meetings have been going on for years but it is time to close it! It is too close to people’s homes in regards to toxicity, to smells & it’s a shame that in a town that prides itself on being progressive that we have tolerated it. It is not too dissimilar to the hog farms is it?
20. Comment: Think about reconsidering siting the landfill in northern Orange County on a large enough piece of land to make a large buffer from people’s homes.
21. Comment: We need to get serious about compensation to the people who have suffered from all our garbage for 30 years.
22. Comment: My major concerns regard the existing neighborhoods in the Northwest Area (Eubanks Rd., Millhouse Rd., Rogers Rd., Northwood). With the movement of public works facility site again, it would be placed close to residential areas. There has been no consideration for green space for an area that has a high percentage of senior citizens and young children. Family property has been cited for mixed-use purposes! With 2 huge landfills nearby. Its time to give back a huge debt to the citizens of this community and for future of Chapel Hill.
23. Comment: You said that the Town currently leases land from the University for its current Public Works Facility and that the Town can’t depend on that lease indefinitely. When did the University notify the Town of a change in the relationship?
Response: In the last several years we have had informal discussions with the University regarding a lease extension on the Horace Williams tract but the University has not provided any clear indication of their intent. (Note: Council adopted a resolution January 24, 2000 to do suitability analysis of sites north of Eubanks Road for the Public Works facility).
24. Comment: Who owns the Greene Tract now?
Response: Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County jointly own 120 acres. Orange County owns an additional 60 acres.
25. Comment: What is the strategy for extending utilities north of Eubanks Road to the creek?
Response: Once a large enough development is proposed the cost of building a pump station will be borne by the developer.
26. Comment: I can’t build a house on my property (person who wants to build a second house on a land-locked parcel).
Response: You can, however you will have to submit a Special Use Permit because of some unusual limitations of your property.
27. Comment: Will utilities be extended beyond the Urban Services Boundary in the Northwest Area? Some of my neighbors have problems with their well water.
Response: Utilities can be extended beyond the boundary only if there are public health problems.
28. Comment: In order to have more affordable housing rented & owned – some boundaries may need to be relaxed to have more density in housing (water & sewer) doing this would be more humane – would not lead to a Cary – if it was done wisely. These iron-clad boundaries make housing more & more expensive and scarce.
29. Comment: Housing for the poor? Promote rental units, single resident occupancy units.
30. Comment: What is being done in the Plan in terms of housing for folks with disabilities or on SSI?
Response: There are several strategies in the plan to enhance the availability of affordable housing. There are not strategies that specifically deal with housing for disabled persons. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Plan are mostly focused on land use and the physical environment.
31. Comment: Will land be set aside for low-income housing?
Response: There are sites being considered for low-income housing in the Southern Area.
32. Comment: Housing that costs $140,000 is considered affordable in Chapel Hill, which is way out of reach for most poor people. What is being done in the plan to alleviate this problem?
Response: There are strategies in the housing section that specifically deal with enhancing affordable housing. Furthermore, the Town owns 336 public affordable housing units. The Town is working with the 1st Baptist Church to build housing for the elderly, with Orange Community Housing Corporation, EmPOWERment Inc., and Orange County.
33. Comment: How will rezoning be done to bring zoning into compliance with the Land Use Plan?
Response: The Land Use Plan indicates desired future land use; Town Council may choose to rezone according to the Land Use Plan as they see fit.
34. Comment: What exactly does “Residential Conservation Area” mean?
Response: “These neighborhoods are rich in history and tradition, are highly valued by residents, and are among the areas of Town that are most susceptible to change.” It means that policy choices in these areas, that have greater stresses due to the proximity of the University, should be geared towards protection and preservation.
35. Comment: I’m concerned about the University buying up and requesting rezonings around UNC.
Response: The Town Council is in a position to say yes or no rezoning requests.
36. Comment: Can the University use eminent domain or legislative action to override Town zoning?
Response: Yes, it is possible for the University to do this and it has been done on at least one occasion. However, Town/Gown relations are important to both parties and we believe the University would be reluctant to use these mechanisms.
37. Comment: Does the revised draft Land Use Plan preserve the compensatory downzoning to offset the high density rezoning of Southern Village?
Response: Yes. This draft Land Use Plan has no density increases over the 1986 Land Use Plan. The revised draft also calls for a northward shift of the Urban Services Boundary from its present location. This will result in limiting utility extensions in this area, helping to maintain the low-density pattern called for by the Southern Small Area Plan.
38. Comment: The new plan shows a school site and affordable housing site – aren’t these contradictory to the S. Village peripheral downzoning?
Response: No they aren’t contradictory. There are few sites left in Chapel Hill suitable for schools and a site in the Southern Area is a possible future school site. Additionally, affordable housing is an important issue to the community, and the Council has requested that sites be shown in the Southern Area.
39. Comment: Do the indicated potential affordable housing sites for the Southern Area mean an increase in zoning intensity as well?
Response: The Town Council requested that potential affordable housing sites be indicated on the Land Use Plan. The intention was that if a developer were willing to site affordable housing there the Town would consider granting a greater zoning intensity.
40. Comment: The protection of University Lake Watershed by maintaining Smith Level Rd. a Rural Buffer/Watershed/entrance way is extremely important.
41. Comment: Dear Chapel Hill Council Members, I completely support the Rural Buffer south of Dogwood Acres. I am a 30 year resident & property owner.
42. Comment: Please do not allow the “Southern Village” to extend a cut through road on to Smith Level and into University Lake Watershed.
43. Comment: Please move the sewer line in from Smith Level & out of the watershed.
44. Comment: Please maintain the low density peripheral to Southern Village.
45. Comment: I notice on the draft comprehensive plan that a couple of areas near campus are “residential conservation areas.” The area I live in, Kings Mill/Morgan Creek, is not, but it seems to me that it has reason to want to be. I see that we are zoned “low residential 1-4 units/acre,” yet we have restrictive covenants that are still valid—we have enforced them and will continue to—that maintain the lots at their current sizes of about an acre per house. We think it is very important to maintain that standard in our beautifully wooded neighborhood that adjoins the botanical garden and Morgan Creek. How can we begin the process of trying to become a residential conservation area, and what all does it entail?
46. Comment: There are concerns about the impact of students on housing markets near the University; but not all renters are students.
47. Comment: What is the Town doing to promote affordable housing?
Response: The Town is pursuing the following initiatives: Working with organizations (Habitat, Land Trust, Orange Community Housing Corporation, EmPOWERment, 1st Baptist Church, Orange County, NC Housing Finance Agency, US Department of Housing and Urban Development); owning and operating public housing; financing housing; providing infrastructure for affordable housing projects; using zoning to encourage development of affordable housing opportunities
48. Comment: There are fences in or near the right-of-way in Northside that would be desirable to remove.
49. Comment: There needs to be ability, flexibility to amend the Plan once adopted.
50. Comment: Minimum acreage requirements should be eliminated from the Mixed Use zoning district provisions.
51. Comment: There should be procedural incentives in development regulations to encourage developers to do what the Town wants (e.g., build affordable housing).
52. Comment: There should be design standards to help shape the form of development.
53. Comment: The Town should encourage use of Conditional Use Zoning for the “Development Opportunity Sites” along NC 86.
54. Comment: There are not enough commercial areas designated on the Land Use Map.
55. Comment: There is not very much land left to develop if Urban Service Area boundaries hold.
56. Comment: The Town has little control over how the University will decide to use the Horace Williams property.
57. Comment: The Town doesn’t have grocery stores you can walk to; there are no grocery stores within walking distance to downtown.
58. Comment: The Northside neighborhood wants to meet with Town Council members to discuss a proposed Single Family Overlay Zone.
59. Comment: There should be regulations to make residents clean up front porches.
60. Comment: Certain types of development, e.g. grocery stores, should be encouraged downtown.
61. Comment: What is the current status of Lot #5?
Response: SUP for Hudson-McDade approved, but house unlikely to be reconstructed.
62. Comment: How does the Land Trust operate? Do families own houses? Land?
63. Comment: OWASA fees can increase development costs.
64. Comment: Is it contemplated that I-40 will always be the northern boundary of the urban area?
Response: Yes.
65. Comment: Is it contemplated that all areas within the urban area will eventually have sewer?
Response: Yes.
66. Comment: What would it take for people in Dogwood acres to get sewer?
Response: At some point, if there is widespread septic system failure, a joint venture may be needed that would involve OWASA, the Town of Chapel Hill and/or Orange County, and property owners (through assessments and granting of easements) to pay for and install sewer lines.
67. Comment: How much undeveloped land is there?
Response: Less than 10% of land in the Urban Services Area remains undeveloped.
68. Comment: Why was it suggested to extend the mixed-use area along Eubanks Road west?
Response: With this land bounded by the old landfill and the railroad tracks, it seemed best used for non-residential purposes.
69. Comment: What can be done with a landfill once it is closed?
Response: Uses are severely limited for many years. For now, it remains covered as is.
70. Comment: What are the possibilities for transit?
Response: Two transit proposals are under discussion. The main proposal is to bring a fixed guideway system from Durham, down 15-501 Boulevard, and to the UNC South Campus and Hospital area. The second idea under consideration is to run transit in or along the railroad right-of-way from Eubanks Road south to Cameron Avenue.
71. Comment: Consider using the American Legion property for affordable housing.
72. Comment: The commercial focus of Chapel Hill is going to shift to Chapel Hill Boulevard when the new Southpointe Mall is built.
73. Comment: Like the revised draft plan.
74. Comment: Protect the watershed (boundary, ridge line along Smith Level, maybe even a bit to the east in some places.)
75. Comment: Please push the urban services line further east, to literally the edge of Southern Village.
76. Comment: I like the March 27th proposed revisions except I would like to see the urban services boundary line go east from Smith Level Road on to Culbreth down along side Southern Village to Dogwood Acres. This would keep the services away form the watershed area and since we property owners are on minimum 5 acres lots, we do not need the urban services.
The following list represents people who signed in at the public information meetings. There may have been other attendees who did not sign in.
|
Mary Beck |
Julie Coleman |
Livy Ludington |
Andrea Rohbacher |
|
Gene Bell |
Patricia Connolly |
Estelle Mabry |
Ruby Sinreich |
|
Robert Brown |
P.H. Craig |
Joseph A. MacDonald |
Markno Splitzer |
|
Margaret Brown |
Gary Dwyer |
C.A. Mellott |
Don Sweezy |
|
Ed Caldwell, Jr. |
Vivian Foushee |
Curtis Mellott |
Sue Sweezy |
|
Linda Cann |
Ed Harrison |
Johnny Morris |
Tom Tucker |
|
James Carnahan |
Dennis H. Howell |
Gertrude Nunn |
Mike Waldroup |
|
Pat & Ray Carpenter |
Lorraine H. Hoyt |
Judy Nunn-Snipes |
Chuck Wrye |
|
Yonni Chapman |
Jeff Kaola |
Patrick Oglesby |
Dee Jay Zerman |
|
Michael D. Clayton |
Shirley & Paul Lally |
Velma Perry |