AGENDA #7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Consideration of the Draft 2000 Comprehensive Plan
DATE: May 8, 2000
Attached for your consideration is a resolution that would adopt the 2000 Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Plan. Adoption of this resolution would approve the March 27 draft Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Plan and additional recommended changes since March 27.
INTRODUCTION
On March 27 we transmitted a revised draft of the 2000 Comprehensive Plan for Chapel Hill, incorporating changes in response to citizen and Council comments over the last seven months since the last version was put before the Council. Tonight we provide a report on comments received during the three public information meetings held April 11, 13, and 18 at the Council’s request (Attachment 4). The draft Comprehensive Plan under consideration is the March 27 version with strikeouts for deletions and underlining for additions.
We start with a brief overview of the process to date, and then review key substantive ideas contained in the Plan. We respond to citizen comments during the April public information meetings and close with a recommended set of Next Steps.
A copy of the March 27 draft 2000 Comprehensive Plan is available at Town Hall (in the Town Clerk’s office and in the Planning Department), and also available for review at the Chapel Hill Public Library. The plan is also posted on the Town’s website at www.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us.
BACKGROUND AND PROCESS TO DATE
In July 1998, the Council initiated a revision of the Town’s 1989 Comprehensive Plan and 1986 Land Use Plan. A Work Group was appointed in the fall of 1998 with a charge to develop a draft plan to present to the Town Council in September 1999. The preliminary target was to have a new Comprehensive Plan adopted by the end of November 1999. A consultant was selected to help with the project.
The 31-member Work Group conducted its work through a combination of public symposiums, public meetings, direction to staff and consultant, review, discussion, and editing of materials prepared by staff and consultant, and a final vote to send the draft plan on to the Town Council for consideration. The time schedule was met.
The Council received the report at the end of September 1999. The Council has held two Public Hearings and conducted three work sessions at which it discussed the draft materials and heard public comment. The Council also discussed a revised timeline for consideration of the draft plans at its January 14, 2000 Planning Session. At that time, the Council set target goals of adopting the Downtown Small Area Plan by April 1, 2000, and adopting the full Comprehensive Plan (which includes a new Land Use Plan) by May 1, 2000.
At the end of the Council’s February 7, 2000 work session the Council directed the staff and consultant to make adjustments to the draft plan in response to the public comments and Council statements. The Council asked that this revised plan come to the Council at its March 27, 2000 meeting for possible adoption. On March 27 the Council decided to hold three additional public information meetings at locations around Chapel Hill on the draft Plan in response to a citizen petition.
The Plan is organized around twelve major themes, each growing out of the community values that have been identified and which, taken together, form a strategy for Chapel Hill’s future. These themes are:
· Maintain the Urban Services Area / Rural Buffer Concept
· Participate in the regional planning process
· Conserve and protect existing neighborhoods
· Conserve and protect the natural setting of Chapel Hill
· Identify areas where there are creative development opportunities
· Encourage desirable forms of non-residential development
· Create and preserve affordable housing opportunities
· Cooperatively work with the University of North Carolina
· Work toward a balanced transportation system
· Complete the bikeway/greenway/sidewalk systems
· Provide quality community facilities and services
· Develop strategies to address fiscal issues
There are some significant new ideas being proposed in the Plan, along with re-affirmation of ongoing values. Examples of some of these ideas:
Growth Management Protocol: The Plan proposes that the Town initiate a process or “protocol” to manage the growth of the community in tandem with provision of adequate public facilities. A key component of this protocol will be an annual Growth Management Report submitted to the Town Council in the spring of every year.
Downtown: The Plan envisions Downtown Chapel Hill as remaining to be the heart of the community, and suggests strategies to maintain/enhance the viability of downtown. The separate but integral Downtown Small Area Plan was adopted by the Council at its March 27 meeting.
Funding for Bikeways, Greenways, and Sidewalks: This Plan concludes that the efforts to date have not fully addressed the need for completion of these networks, and suggests a shift in the community’s transportation focus.
The Plan emphasizes specific actions to implement the strategies. The full set of recommendations in the Plan is summarized in an Action Plan that appears in the back of the March 27 draft (after p. 164). The Action Plan sets specific tasks and goals for the short-term, mid-term and long-term.
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 most recent changes to the plan. These meetings were held April 11, 13, and 18, 2000 at Hargraves Center, Fire Station #4 on Weaver Dairy Road, and the Chapel Hill Public Library. The format and presentation content of the three meetings were identical (see Attachment 4 for a full description).
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.
We have received comments proposing specific changes to the March 27 draft Comprehensive Plan as well as more general comments. Comments have come to us orally and written at the meetings, and as letters/email since the meetings (see Attachment 5 for letters, and emails received).
We offer staff comments on two items to the Council first: 1) a clarification of annexation as it pertains to the urban services area and utility extension in the southern area, and 2) the May 2 letter we received from the University of North Carolina.
On March 27, we presented a proposal to revise the Town’s urban services area, and to establish a sewer-free area, as requested by the Council in work sessions on the Comprehensive Plan. We have continued to receive comments on this issue. In addition, the Council asked for clarification of the relationship of these changes to annexation.
Staff Comment: On March 27, in response to Council questions, we noted, “The revision of the Town’s urban services boundary would preclude future annexation by the Town of these areas. Urban services required for annexation would not be provided outside the urban services boundary.” We would like to offer further clarification.
In general, the policy of the Town as embodied in the Comprehensive Plan is to annex within the Town’s urban services area. The Land Use Plan designation in itself does not preclude annexation; but the designation does establish a policy prohibiting water and sewer extensions, and the lack of water and sewer means, in practice, that the Town would not be in a position to unilaterally annex the area.
State annexation law includes requirements for considering the provision of water and sewer services to areas being annexed. Each year the Town identifies areas under consideration for future annexation based upon the urban services area as contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
Changing the Town’s urban services area in practice will mean that areas outside the boundary will no longer qualify for unilateral annexation by the Town because water and sewer services are not being provided. However, the Council could consider annexation by petition of such areas should a particular area desire to be annexed by the Town.
Other agreements also limit the Town’s ability to annex. For example, the Town has agreed in the Joint Planning Agreement not to annex into the Rural Buffer. In addition, the Town has a boundary agreement with Carrboro defining the limits of annexation.
On May 2 we received a set of comments from UNC (please see letter in Attachment 5). Some of the comments are general, and we recommend that the Council consider these in the context of ongoing Town-gown initiatives: comments about transit and transportation, student enrollment, status of UNC’s Master Plan efforts, fiscal conditions, and Town-Gown collaboration. Other comments specifically suggest possible changes to the draft Comprehensive Plan under consideration tonight; we summarize those specific suggestions below and offer recommended responses:
Designation of UNC Properties on the Land Use Plan: The letter states, accurately, 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.
Staff Comment: Not all UNC-owned land in Chapel Hill is used for University or institutional purposes. The Land Use Plan designations are intended to represent use, not ownership. However, we believe that a discussion about designations of UNC land with University representatives would be desirable. We note (see below) that UNC is nearing completion of its own planning initiatives for the central campus and for the Horace Williams property. We believe it would be appropriate to discuss the Land Use Plan designations for University property at the time that the Council has an opportunity to discuss the full range of long-range land use issues with the University at the completion of these projects. We expect that this could happen toward the end of this calendar year. We recommend adoption of the draft Land Use Plan tonight without changes to UNC-owned properties, and also recommend that the Council plan on engaging in discussions about these and other land use issues with University representatives later this year. If, at the end of those discussions, the Council wishes to make changes to the Town’s Land Use Plan, it can be done at that time.
Residential Conservation Areas: The letter suggests that the areas surrounding the University not be designated as Residential Conservation Areas, suggesting instead that Small Area Plans for these areas be prepared.
Staff Comment: We believe that both the Residential Conservation Area designations and Small Area Plans are good ideas. Small Area Plan initiatives are not immediately scheduled, and take time to complete. We believe that it is reasonable to make policy statements now about the Town’s vision for these residential areas. We note that such designation is non-binding, but does offer a measure of extra protection and extra scrutiny when significant changes are proposed in these residential areas. We believe that is reasonable and desirable.
Park and Ride: The 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 (0-4 yrs.).
Staff Comment: We note that actions to replace and develop new park/ride facilities are and have been ongoing. We are currently working to replace the facility that was lost at Carrboro Plaza, and are seeking to build an additional lot along NC Highway 54 West. We are continually looking for opportunities to expand park/ride obligations, and welcome the University’s interest and participation. We believe that moving this item up in the Action Plan would reflect the level of ongoing work, recommend that the Council do so.
Land Use and Transportation: The letter notes that 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.
Staff Comment: We agree that this coordination is necessary, and note that both UNC and Town planning efforts have involved representatives across institutional lines. We believe it would be desirable for policy-level discussions between Town and University representatives to occur following completion of the UNC Master Plan, to examine areas of interface. We anticipate that the UNC plan will be completed later this year, and that such discussions might productively take place late in 2000 or early 2001. At that time, following such discussions, the Town Council may find that adjustments to the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and/or Land Use Plan are appropriate. If so, those adjustments could be made at that time.
Regional Transit: The 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.
Staff Comment: The Triangle Transit Authority Regional Fixed Guideway Transit Plan included designation of the corridor shown on the Land Use Plan. The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee included this alignment in the Regional Transportation Plan and the U.S. 15-501 Major Investment Study. Phase II will be evaluating four different fixed guideway transit technologies along this alignment.
The U.S. 15-501 Major Investment Study will determine the feasibility of proceeding with the development of a fixed guideway corridor along this alignment. We believe that it is desirable to show this alignment on the Land Use Plan. If a new or different alignment emerges after further study, the Plan can be adjusted at that time.
Enrollment: The 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.
Staff Comment: We recommend using the 2,500 figure instead of the 2,200 figure in the Comprehensive Plan.
Since March 27 we have received general comments and specific proposals. Most of the comments we received were general, and are listed in Attachment 4. Comments proposing specific changes to the Plan are listed below, along with our comments and recommendation. We believe these are the key comments to be addressed. These proposals are only those made since the March 27 Council meeting and are in reference to the March 27 revised draft Plan. Additionally, the University proposals that propose changes to the Plan, from the preceding section, are included 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.
Manager’s Recommendation: We do not recommend a community commercial classification at the site. We note that one of the implementation actions that are recommended in the plan is revising the Town’s Mixed Use regulations.
2. Proposal: Call for front-yard parking restrictions to be applied throughout all Residential Conservation Areas.
Manager’s Recommendation: Make change as suggested. Strategy 3A-5 on page 18 states that “extension of these restrictions to other neighborhoods or even town-wide should be pursued.” The following sentence should be added to more specifically address the concern for protection of Residential Conservation Areas: “Residential Conservation Areas are especially high priorities for the application of such restrictions.”
3. Proposal: Recommend that efforts be made to promote development of Single Room Occupancy facilities.
Manager’s Recommendation: Make change as suggested. Add to Housing section 7A-1. Single room occupancy facilities are a form of affordable housing that meets the needs of certain segments of the population. A sentence should be added after the first sentence on the last paragraph on page 63 as follows: “Efforts should also be made to promote the development of single room occupancy (SRO) facilities. Because of their small size compared to apartments, SRO units often serve as the only affordable housing option for low-income individuals.”
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.
Manager’s Recommendation: Make change as suggested (see Attachment 1). The Chapel Hill/Carrboro School district has actively studied potential school sites and has found this location to be desirable.
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.
Manager’s Recommendation: Make change as suggested to Community Character, strategy 3A-5. Disseminating information to renters is a good idea that is touched on in the third bullet on page 18. A third paragraph should be added under the first paragraph on this page to more specifically address this concept.
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.
Manager’s Recommendation: a) Make change as suggested to remove an area currently classified as Low Residential (1 unit/5 acres) from the Urban Services Area (see Attachment 2). b) No change recommended to move the Urban Services Boundary all the way to the western boundary of Southern Village; the Land Use Plan proposes Low Residential (1-4 units/acre) for this area, and we believe it is an area that should be served by water and sewer lines.
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).
Manager’s Recommendation: Make change as suggested. It is reasonable to retain this area within the urban services area so that water and sewer services can be provided in the future to lots that may experience septic system failures.
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).
Manager’s Recommendation: Make change as suggested. The discussion under Strategies 9F-1 and 9B-2 does not specifically recommend that low-impact development principles and conservation development be addressed in the Development Ordinance Revision. The following changes will be made to respond to this comment:
· Add the following sentence to Strategy 9F-1, at the end of the last full paragraph on page 103: “Low impact development principles should also be taken into consideration in revising the Development Ordinance.”
· Change the fourth sentence under Strategy 9B-2 on page 98 to read: “Implementation of conservation development in Chapel Hill through revisions to the Development Ordinance could result in preservation of sensitive environmental resource areas or key linkages in the greenway network at limited cost to the Town.”
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.
Manager’s Recommendation: We do not recommend this change. The two categories in question are defined on page 80 as emphasizing office/commercial and office, respectively, with residential use as a potential component. However, for consistency with the text, it is recommended that the legend be changed to “Mixed Use, Office/Commercial” and Mixed Use, Office Emphasis to “Mixed Use, Office/Commercial Emphasis” and “Mixed Use, Office Emphasis,” respectively.
10. Proposal: Figure 16, Existing Sidewalks and Potential Pedestrian Zones should be modified in the following manner:
Manager’s Recommendation: Make change as suggested. The change as requested by the Transportation Board improves the accuracy of the map.
11. Proposal: Figure 17, Existing and Planned Bike Network should include the Lower Booker Creek Greenway and the Linear Park Greenway.
Manager’s Recommendation: Make change as suggested. The change as requested by the Transportation Board improves the accuracy of the map.
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.
Manager’s Recommendation: Make change as suggested. “Traffic” impact analysis should be changed to “transportation” impact analysis in three locations on page 123. This was an oversight in the March 27 Revised Draft. A standard identifying the types of projects that would be required to prepare the analysis will need to be included in the revised guidelines. A bullet can be added under Strategy 10B-4 specifically identifying this an element to be addressed.
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.
Manager’s Recommendation: Make change as suggested. (The target date for this Measure of Progress [Section 10B-4, p. 123] should have been changed from 12/31/2004 to 12/31/2001 when the action Plan was revised, which would fulfill this proposal).
14. Proposal: Page 124: a) the 25th Anniversary Report should be attached to the Comprehensive Plan, and b) should be referenced in this section.
Manager’s Recommendation: a) We do not recommend attaching the report, however we believe the report should be referenced.
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.
Manager’s Recommendation: We do not recommend changing the current completion schedule of 12/31/2004. We believe the implementation schedule is aggressive; we do not believe something can be moved forward without something else back.
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.
Manager’s Recommendation: Make changes as suggested. The pedestrian radius measures at ½ mile but is labeled ¼ mile in the legend. Thus the change should be made as suggested.
17. Proposal:
17
Manager’s Recommendation: No change recommended. The Council has indicated previously its intent to consider office-oriented mixed use in this area.
18. Proposal: The May 2nd 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.
Manager’s Recommendation: We do not recommend making this change because university land has various uses, not all being for institutional purposes. For more detail see preceding detailed discussion of University comments.
19. Proposal: The May 2nd 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.
Manager’s Recommendation: We do not recommend making this change. We believe that it is reasonable to make policy statements now about the Town’s vision for these residential areas. See detailed discussion in preceding section.
20. Proposal: The May 2nd 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.).
Manager’s Recommendation: We recommend that we move this item up in the Action Plan. See detailed discussion in preceding section.
21. Proposal: The May 2nd 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.
Manager’s Recommendation: We do not recommend making this change. We believe it is desirable to show this transit alignment on the Land Use Plan. See detailed discussion in preceding section.
22. Proposal: The May 2nd 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.
Manager’s Recommendation: We recommend using the 2,500 figure instead of the 2,200 figure in the Comprehensive Plan.
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.
Manager’s Recommendation: Make changes as noted for clarification purposes.
We suggest changing the September 27, 1999 draft Comprehensive Plan in the following ways:
· Accept all changes proposed in the March 27, 2000 revised draft Comprehensive Plan.
· In addition, make the changes recommended above in this memorandum.
NEXT STEPS
After the Council adopts the Comprehensive Plan, key next steps include:
Adopt the 2000 Comprehensive Plan with theses changes by adopting the attached resolution.
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND USE PLAN (2000-05-08/R-9)
WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to update its long-range plans for the future development and preservation of Chapel Hill;
WHEREAS, the Council authorized the revision of the Town’s 1989 Comprehensive Plan;
WHEREAS, the Council established a Comprehensive Plan Work Group, held public hearings and information meetings to hear citizen comments, and conducted work sessions on a draft Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the 2000 Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Plan as contained in the March 27, 2000 draft submitted to the Town Council, with the following changes:
· Front Yard Parking Restrictions: Strategy 3A-5 on page 18 states that “extension of these restrictions to other neighborhoods or even town-wide should be pursued.” The following sentence should be added to more specifically address the concern for protection of Residential Conservation Areas: “Residential Conservation Areas are especially high priorities for the application of such restrictions.”
· Single-Room Occupancy: Add to Housing section 7A-1. Single room occupancy facilities are a form of affordable housing that meets the needs of certain segments of the population. A sentence should be added after the first sentence on the last paragraph on page 63 as follows: “Efforts should also be made to promote the development of single room occupancy (SRO) facilities. Because of their small size compared to apartments, SRO units often serve as the only affordable housing option for low-income individuals.”
· Rental Licensing: Make change as suggested to Community Character, strategy 3A-5. Disseminating information to renters is a good idea that is touched on in the third bullet on page 18. A third paragraph should be added under the first paragraph on this page to more specifically address this concept.
· Low-Impact Design: Add the following sentence to Strategy 9F-1, at the end of the last full paragraph on page 103: “Low impact development principles should also be taken into consideration in revising the Development Ordinance.”
· Conservation Development: Change the fourth sentence under Strategy 9B-2 on page 98 to read: “Implementation of conservation development in Chapel Hill through revisions to the Development Ordinance could result in preservation of sensitive environmental resource areas or key linkages in the greenway network at limited cost to the Town.”
· Transportation Impact Analysis: “Traffic” impact analysis should be changed to “transportation” impact analysis in three locations on page 123. Add bullet under Strategy 10B-4 specifically identifying the types of projects that would be required to prepare transportation impact analyses.
· Transportation Impact Analysis: Change action date for Measure of Progress (Transportation Impact Analysis) from Mid-term Action (12/31/2004) to Short-term Action (12/31/2001) to reflect Action Plan schedule.
· Park and Ride Improvements: Move the schedule up to develop a plan and funding source for an expanded Park and Ride system in the Action Plan (after p. 164) from Mid-term Action (2-5 yrs.) to Short-term Action (0-2 yrs.).
· University Enrollment Projection: Change the projected increase in University enrollment between 2002 and 2008 to 2,500 from 2,200 (Section 4.1, p.28).
· University: Include a reference to the “1998 Outlying Parcels Land Use Plans Report” in second bullet under Institutional/University Uses on page 76.
· Figure 5, Lands Owned by the University of North Carolina: Change Rizzo Convention Center to Rizzo Conference Center.
· Figure 11, The Land Use Plan, March 27 Draft:
· In the Southern Area north of Dogwood Acres, move the Urban Services Boundary to the east from Smith Level Road to remove an area currently classified as Low Residential (1 unit/5 acres) from the Urban Services Area.
· Adjust Urban Services Boundary near White Rock Church Road so that the White Rock Church Road neighborhood and land north of it stays within the Urban Services Area.
· Add the additional Potential School Site on Erwin Road (see Attachment 1).
· In the legend, change “Mixed Use, Office/Commercial” and Mixed Use, office Emphasis to “Mixed Use, Office/Commercial Emphasis” and “Mixed Use, Office Emphasis,” respectively.
· Figure 14, Greenways Master Plan: Remove the 3 subsidiary Future Greenways that cross the Horace Williams Property. These trails are not a part of the adopted Greenways Master Plan. The Future Greenway that follows the railroad right-of-way though the Horace Williams Property is on the adopted plan and is not to be removed.
· Figure 16, Existing Sidewalks and Potential Pedestrian Zones:
· Reduce the legend to show the Mason Farm area.
· Add Meadowmont’s commercial area to the map.
· Show pedestrian zones around Meadowmont, the Southern Village, the Bolin Creek Greenway and the Hamilton/NC 54 area.
· 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.
· Figure 17, Existing and Planned Bike Network: Include the Lower Bolin Creek Greenway and the Linear Park Greenway as bike paths.
· Figure 18, Existing and Proposed Transit Network: Remove eliminated bus routes and in the legend change the pedestrian radius distance to ½ mile.
· Figure 19, Existing and Planned Community Facilities: Add the following to the map:
· The Potential Public Works Facility Site on Millhouse Rd.,
· The two Potential Affordable Housing Sites on US 15-501 South
· The additional Potential School Site on Erwin Road (see Attachment 1).
· Revise all the figures to show the new extent of the Urban Services Boundary.
This the 8th day of May, 2000