ATTACHMENT 5

 

 

Summary of Citizen Comment at September 19 Public Hearing

 

 

During the September 19 Public Hearing on the UNC Development Plan application, 36 citizens spoke to the Town Council.  This attachment offers a summary of the issues that were raised.  Following the general summary, we list specific points that were made or questions that were asked for which a staff response was requested.

 

Comments supporting approval

 

·        Several speakers noted the need for the facilities that are proposed:  laboratories, health facilities, academic space, cultural facilities, housing.

 

·        The proposed development will contribute to the economic vigor of downtown, and to economic activity in the Town generally.

 

·        There is a need for proximity of facilities, such that related university functions can be physically close to each other.

 

·        This proposal represents Smart Growth, the first phase of implementation of a well-conceived long range plan.

 

·        This proposal is consistent with the historical growth of the community.

 

·        This proposal is a good approach to managing parking demands.

 

 

Comments opposing approval

 

·        The proposed growth would be accompanied by increased traffic, especially in neighborhoods immediately surrounding the University.

 

·        There is not enough housing proposed to accommodate the probable increase in demand for housing.

 

·        This is not Smart Growth.  Statewide growth in University capacity should occur on campuses other than UNC-Chapel Hill.

 

·        The proposed building at the corner of Pittsboro/McCauley is too tall, out of scale with the neighborhood it abuts.

 

·        This proposal does not accommodate parking demands.

 

·        This proposal will result in environmental damage.

 

·        The proposed new access road from Fordham Boulevard will damage the existing residential neighborhood around Mason Farm Road.

 

·        There has not been enough dialogue between the University and its residential neighbors.

 

·        Design of new dormitories is “prison-like.”

 

·        The proposal suggests building on land that the Smith Center Special Use Permit designated for screening, through the use of vegetation, land that the University promised never to build upon.

 

·        There is not enough land between Mason Farm Road and the Smith Center for the new housing, new street, and transit corridor that are all shown on the Master Plan in this area.

 

·        The new parking deck (P-7) that is proposed between Mason Farm Road and Skipper Bowles Drive will result in high volumes of traffic on Mason Farm Road.

 

·        There is too much paper to go through to read the University application documents.

 

·        There is a need for more detail, especially with respect to site designs at the perimeter, to what will happen in utility corridors, with respect to increased traffic.

 

·        The proposed Ambulatory Care Center building will have too great a visual impact.

 

·        There is more detail needed about how buffering will be accomplished south of the proposed Ambulatory Care Center facility.

 

·        Stipulations about not applying noise and light standards with respect to impact on properties owned by the University should be removed.

 

·        The University never provided supplemental planting along Mason Farm Road as it as required to by the 1980 Smith Center Special Use Permit.

 

·        Projections of additional employees and students in the application materials are too low. 

 

·        The University’s proposed utility corridor through Jones Park should be rejected.

 

·        The new housing that is proposed along Mason Farm Road does not have to be along Mason Farm Road.

 

·        The proposed housing along Mason Farm Road is too close to the road.

 

·        The proposed housing along Mason Farm Road will remove a 200-foot wide strip of existing vegetation.

 

·        Odum Village should not be demolished.

 

·        The findings that need to be met (regarding maintenance of health, safety, and general welfare, and maintenance of property values) cannot be met with this proposal.

 

·        There has not been enough citizen input.

 

·        It is bad policy for UNC to be buying private properties in order to pursue development as called for on the UNC Master Plan.

 

Questions

 

·        Can there be a stipulation prohibiting any disruptive utility corridor on private property south of the Ambulatory Care Center facility?

 

Staff Comment:  There is no such condition in the recommended resolution of approval at present.  We do not believe it would be reasonable to prohibit the possibility that the University could, at a future date, purchase an easement from a private property owner for the purpose of utility extensions.

 

·        Can there be a stipulation requiring attention to pedestrian movements during construction of new facilities?

 

Staff Comment:  We note that Condition #22 in both the Manager’s and Planning Board’s recommendations calls for preparation of a “Construction Management Plan” to be submitted with each application for a Site Development Permit.  One of the required components of this plan is a Pedestrian Management Plan, “indicating how pedestrian movements on or adjacent to public rights-of-way will be safely maintained” during construction. 

 

·        Who will receive notification of Site Development Permit applications, as suggested by the Town Manager?  The Manager suggests property owners within 500 feet; can that be changed to 1,000 feet?

 

 

Staff Comment:  The Town Manager’s September 19 memorandum stated intent to mail notices to property owners within 500 feet of a new facility that is proposed within any Perimeter Transition Area, at the time that a Site Development Permit application for such a facility is submitted.  We believe that 500 feet is reasonable, but that a reasonable argument could be made for 1,000 feet as well.   We attach a map for a typical Perimeter Transition Area (showing the proposed new building at Pittsboro/McCauley Streets), showing the approximate configuration of a 500 foot and 1,000 foot radius around the proposed building.  In this case, the 500-foot radius line stays south of Cameron Avenue.  The 1,000-foot line goes north of Cameron Avenue, and goes west just past Ransom Street.  If the Town Council concludes that 1,000 feet is a more appropriate distance to use, it can so instruct the Town Manager.  We also intend to post signs on sites where Site Development Permit applications are submitted for Perimeter Transition Areas.

 

·        What will be the process for the meetings called for in Resolution D?

 

Staff Comment:  With adoption of Resolution D, the Council would be asking the University to conduct design workshops with neighbors prior to submitting Site Development Permit applications in Perimeter Transition Areas.  There is no pre-established process for how this might be accomplished.  We believe that it would be useful for University representatives to invite neighbors to view conceptual plans for new facilities, in order to allow consideration of neighborhood comments in production of specific site and building designs.

 

·        Will future Council discussions about the potential new access road in the Mason Farm Road area be conducted in a quasi-judicial context?

 

Staff Comment:  Following Council action on this Development Plan application, we expect that, at some undetermined time in the future, the University would begin preparing specific plans for the new access road.  In the typical process for new roads, funding for design and construction either comes from a private developer or from the NC Department of Transportation.  In either case, the typical process involves Town Council review and approval of those plans prior to construction of the road.  Those considerations typically are not conducted in a quasi-judicial context.

 

·        Are facilities proposed in this application subject to the Town’s new noise ordinance?

 

Staff Comment:  The Town Council adopted a new Noise Ordinance on September 24.  The OI-4 zoning district, which establishes the rules and standards for development as proposed in this Development Plan application, states that development proposed in a Site Development Permit application will be subject to compliance with the Town’s Noise Ordinance, as the Ordinance exists at the time of final Town action on that Site Development Permit application.  It may be several weeks before the first Site Development Permit is submitted and ready for approval.  Facilities proposed in each Site Development Permit application must comply with whatever Noise Ordinance is in place at the time of final action on that application.  If the Town Council makes no additional changes to the Noise Ordinance by the time the first Site Development Permit application is ready for approval, then the revisions adopted on September 24 would apply.   If the Town Council were to make additional revisions to the Noise Ordinance prior to the time of Site Development Permit approval, those new revisions would be the standards that would apply.