ATTACHMENT B

 

Summary of Citizen and Council Comments

Offered on March 26, 2001

On Proposed Statement Regarding University Development

 

Compiled and Transmitted to Town Council

April 9, 2001

 

On March 26, 2001, the Chapel Hill Town Council discussed a proposal that had been prepared by Mayor Waldorf and a Town-Gown Committee, on the subject of University development.  Eight citizens addressed the Council at the meeting, and Council members offered individual comments.  In addition, Council Member Brown presented a written statement with general comments and questions. 

 

Following is a summary of the comments made during this discussion.  A copy of Council Member Brown’s statement is attached.

 

• Timing of the Proposal:  Several speakers asked for deferral of action to allow time for review and evaluation of the proposal.

 

• Standards:  What will be the time frame for periodic review of development standards that might be put in place with a new zoning district?

 

• Perimeter of Campus:  Development of individual buildings in the proposed perimeter sub-zone of the proposed OI-4 zoning district should require approval of the Town Council, not the Planning Board.

 

• Statewide University Growth:  Why does this growth need to take place in Chapel Hill?  What are the possibilities for the University of North Carolina to choose to add facilities on other campuses?

 

• Neighborhood Buffers:  The Council should continue to insist on attention to buffers where University development is adjacent to residential neighborhoods.

 

• Traffic Analysis:  The impact of increased traffic related to University development will be experienced by residential neighborhoods, and needs to be considered.

 

• Consideration of All University Development:  As discussions continue, attention should be given to all University development, including University uses on the main campus, UNC Health Care facilities on the main campus, and development on the Horace Williams tract.

 

• Impact on Schools:  Review of the impacts of University development should include attention to impacts on local schools.

 

• Heights of Buildings:  As height limits are considered in the new OI-4 zone, consideration should be given to interior as well as perimeter areas, and attention should be given to topography and elevations surrounding a particular development site.

 

• Benefit to Town:  What benefits would the Town experience as a result of University growth?

 

• Other Areas of Town:  University growth will affect all parts of Town, not just the neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the campus.

 

• South Campus:  Implementation of the University’s Master Plan is an opportunity to correct the mistakes that were made in the development of the South Campus.

 

• Town Input:  This proposed process may result in the opportunity for the Town to have a significant input into the form of University development.

 

• Immediate Projects:  The University’s list of short-term projects includes both those funded by the recent bond referendum and those funded by other means.

 

• Implementation of New Zoning District:  Under the proposal, only after agreement is reached on quantity, location, form, and infrastructure mitigation of negative impacts would the Town be obliged to enter into the proposed OI-4 zoning agreement.

 

• Public Input:  What mechanisms would be in place for public input as this proposed process might go forward?

 

• Control Mechanisms:  What sort of mechanisms would be put into place to indicate that all of the natural systems and the public facilities are able to sustain the impacts of the University’s growth?

 

• Housing:  Will the impacts of proposed housing construction be considered, even if this type of development is removed from floor area restrictions?

 

• Development Plan:  A key difference between the current OI-3 and the proposed OI-4 zones is the requirement of a development plan that would address cumulative impacts of development.