ATTACHMENT 4

APRIL 11, 13, AND 18, 2000 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISION

COMMENTS SINCE MARCH 27 COUNCIL MEETING

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.

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 followed by question and answer periods at each of three public information meetings. The meetings were announced in the following ways:

·         Notice 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 the 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 offered the following options for commenting on the plan: oral or written comments at public information meetings; email or letter to the Town Council, or; oral 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 orally and written at the meetings and as letters/email, since the meeting (see Attachment 5 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 NC 86 and Weaver Dairy Road: designate for Community Commercial use. 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 southwest of the intersection of Erwin Road and I-40. 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 and Northside Drive, move the Urban Services Boundary further east, b) ideally, move the line all the way to the western edge of Southern Village from its current position along Smith Level Road.

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 so that the area can receive water (see Attachment 2).

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:

• The legend should be reduced to show the Mason Farm area
• Meadowmont’s commercial area should be shown on the map
• A pedestrian zone should be shown around Meadowmont, Southern Village, Bolin Creek Greenway and the Hamilton/NC 54 area (p. 113-114 and Figure 16).
• A pedestrian zone should be included around the southern area of the campus, extending south of Fordham Boulevard and including the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek neighborhoods.

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 25^th 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.

17.  Proposal: Change the land use classification on the Land Use Plan, of the area on north of Old Durham Road bounded by I-40 and U.S.15-501 to Mixed Use Office/Commercial from Mixed Use Office Emphasis.

18.  Proposal: The May 2^nd letter from the University states that different types of UNC land holdings are designated in different ways on the Land Use Plan - - some as “university,” some as “open space,” some as “residential.”  The letter asks for a review of these designations to achieve greater consistency.

19.  Proposal:  The May 2^nd letter suggests that the areas surrounding the University not be designated as Residential Conservation Areas, and suggests that Small Area Plans for these areas be prepared.

20.  Proposal:  The May 2^nd letter asks that implementation of an improved park and ride system be moved up in the Action Plan from Mid-term Action (2-5 yrs.) to Short-term Action (0-2 yrs.).

21.  Proposal:  The May 2^nd letter suggests that designation of an alignment for a possible future regional fixed-guideway is premature, and that the University is studying possible alignments that would serve the south campus area as part of the UNC Master Plan.

22.  Proposal:  The May 2^nd letter notes that the draft Comprehensive Plan estimates that UNC student enrollment will increase by approximately 2,200 students.  The letter states that while no specific plan has been approved by the Board of Governors, the most recent proposal suggests an increase of 2,500 students.

23.  Proposal:  Please include a reference to the “1998 Outlying Parcels Land Use Plans Report” in second bullet under Institutional/University Uses on page 76; change Rizzo Convention Center on Figure 4 to Rizzo Conference Center.

GENERAL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

General comments not requiring specific changes to the Plan are listed below. Responses were 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 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.

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.

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?

11.  Comment: Why does Public Works require such a large area for its facilities?

12.  Comment: Is the old landfill site a potential future site for the Public Works building?

13.  Comment: How long will it be until the current landfill site is re-used.

14.  Comment: My family owns property around the landfill. Is there a danger from being near the landfill?

15.  Comment: What kind of compensation is there if the value of someone’s property is reduced because of the landfill?

16.  Comment: Why can a landfill be sited next to you but you can’t have water and sewer?

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.

18.  Comment: Where will the solid waste go when the landfill is full?

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?

24.  Comment: Who owns the Greene Tract now?

25.  Comment: What is the strategy for extending utilities north of Eubanks Road to the creek?

26.  Comment: I can’t build a house on my property (person who wants to build a second house on a land-locked parcel).

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.

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?

31.  Comment: Will land be set aside for low-income housing?

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?

33.  Comment: How will rezoning be done to bring zoning into compliance with the Land Use Plan?

34.  Comment: What exactly does “Residential Conservation Area” mean?

35.  Comment: I’m concerned about the University buying up and requesting rezonings around UNC.

36.  Comment: Can the University use eminent domain or legislative action to override Town zoning?

37.  Comment: Does the revised draft Land Use Plan preserve the compensatory downzoning to offset the high density rezoning of Southern Village?

38.  Comment:  The new plan shows a school site and affordable housing site – aren’t these contradictory to the S. Village peripheral downzoning?

39.  Comment:  Do the indicated potential affordable housing sites for the Southern Area mean an increase in zoning intensity as well?

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?

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?

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?

65.  Comment: Is it contemplated that all areas within the urban area will eventually have sewer?

66.  Comment: What would it take for people in Dogwood acres to get sewer?

67.  Comment: How much undeveloped land is there?

68.  Comment: Why was it suggested to extend the mixed-use area along Eubanks Road west?

69.  Comment: What can be done with a landfill once it is closed?

70.  Comment: What are the possibilities for transit?

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 27^th 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.

77.  Comment: The May 2^nd letter form the University notes that UNC’s Master Plan, for both central campus and the Horace Williams property, is ongoing and nearing completion.  The letter suggests that coordination between the UNC Master Plan and the Town’s Comprehensive Plan is both desirable and necessary.

Following is a list of people who signed in at the public information meetings. There may have been other attendees who did not sign in.

Public Information Meeting Attendees (April 11, 13, and 18)

2000 Comprehensive Plan Revision