Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNNS - BOCC - Memorandum to UNC-CH Planning Panel from Rosemary Waldorf dated 3-16-95 - 4-3-95 - XI -�evn XIf/! f/ Memorandum Received To: UNC-Chapel Hill Planning Panel From: Rosemary Waldorf MAR 2 0 1995 Date: March 16, 1995 Managers Office Enclosed please find the following items: • Agenda for our March 23 meeting, • Draft Interim Report stating the goals and principles of the Panel, • Meeting summary of the February 23 meeting, • Meeting summary of the March 11 meeting, • Correspondence regarding focus groups with local citizens that JJ&R will hold in April, • Memo from Ted Hoskins listing other JJ&R meetings that will occur during the April visit, • Agenda for March 30 meeting of the Carrboro and Chapel Hill Joint University Land Use Planning Advisory Committee. Would those who have copies of The New Urb na ism bring the books in so others can read them? Chris Berndt is on leave for a few weeks. If you need staff assistance, Lorie Tekiele is pinch-hitting for Chris. Her number at Town Hall is 968-2829. Thank you again for giving up a Saturday morning for this work. . II I UNC-Chapel Hill Planning Panel AGENDA March 23, 1995, 7:30 p.m. Chapel Hill Public Library Meeting Room 7:30 Comments from Public in Attendance 7:45 Review of Draft Interim Report This discussion may address several questions raised by panel members which have not yet been resolved. Panel has the op tion of not taking a position on these issues in interim report: • Location of northeast TTA rail corridor; is 15-501/Franklin Street a viable alternative to N.C. 54? • Location of golf course • Horace Williams Airport • Horace Williams home site -- should we discuss? • Other? 8:45 Procedural Issues • Presentation of report to Council. Who would like to participate? • Dissemination of interim report to public. Suggestions? • Would the panel like to make a presentation to JJ&R on April 12? 9:15 Wrap Up and Adjourn Please note: Meeting with Carrboro group: 5:00 -6:30 p.m.,March 30, Carrboro Town Hall. Meeting with JJ&R: 7:30 p.m.,April 12,Friday Center. UNC-CHAPEL HILL PLANNING PANEL FIRST INTERIM REPORT Introduction The UNC-Chapel Hill Planning Panel appreciates the opportunity to present an interim report of our work to date. The Panel has met at least once monthly since appointed and has been briefed by a number of technical experts. We have participated in three additional meetings, including a public forum with University representatives and consultants, and a joint meeting with the Carrboro Community Advisory Committee. We approached our task of developing goals and principles for the Council's consideration by assigning subgroups to address four major subject areas: 1. Land use issues, including how new development should harmonize with existing neighborhoods, 2. Transportation issues, 3. Environment and ecology issues, 4. Fiscal and legal issues. Each subgroup reviewed the Comprehensive Plan for policy guidance, and we hope you will see familiar values incorporated into our suggestions. "Constraints"was a word that came up repeatedly in our discussions, and we are coming to a better understanding of how rich that word can be. The task requires looking at physical constraints, infrastructure constraints, fiscal and legal constraints, and the biggest constraint of all: not knowing exactly what the future will bring. We tried to make our first round of suggestions a set of goals that would advance the Town's adopted values,protect valuable and irreplaceable resources, avoid creating troublesome problems,keep the door open to opportunities that would enhance the community, and encourage a mutually cooperative working relationship between the Town and UNC. We stress that this document is preliminary in both form and content. We look forward to receiving comments, suggestions and direction from the Council and citizens. Our schedule calls for a presentation to University officials and consultants on April 12th. Comments of the Council and citizens will be a part of the package of ideas we offer that evening. UNC-CHAPEL HILL PLANNING PANEL Land Use Goals and Principles Horace Williams Property Research Park • Include an emphasis on research uses which complement the academic purposes of the University. Consider placing research and development facilities on northeast quadrant, which has the most potential for a campus-like environement. Support Services • Consider an area of small business, supportive services to campus uses, centrally located within the property, and on the northern portions of the site. Limited Commercial • Consider allowing limited commercial uses centrally located within the property, near transit locations, such as small grocery, small retail, restaurants, dry cleaners, etc. Rail Line/Transit Stops • Use the rail corridor through the site to connect it to the central campus. Around the transit stop, cluster associated support services and limited commercial uses. Mixed Use • The site is appropriate for consideration of a mix of uses, combining academic, research, support services, limited commercial, and housing. Parking • Parking for the area should be centralized near transit stops,preferably near property boundaries to keep the campus as carless as possible. Parking should be well-designed to fit in with the surroundings and be non-urban in scale. Some parking could be decentralized for service delivery,handicapped, and special needs parking. Scale • Academic buildings should be the same height and scale as the current campus. Shared Recreation • The area should include recreation opportunities that are available both to the academic community and the community at large. Edges • There should be well-defined boundaries which protect existing residential neighborhoods. UNC-CHAPEL HILL PLANNING PANEL Land Use Goals and Principles, Cont'd. Mason Farm Prop Cross-Commuting • Do not have a road system that could form a commuting path from the Bypass to Highway 54, or from the neighborhoods south of Morgan Creek. Land Use • There appears to be limited potential for additional buildings on the property, unless the golf course were to be removed. Scale • Buildings should be designed to be the same height and scale as the current campus. UNC-CHAPEL HILL PLANNING PANEL Transportation Goals and Principles Transportation issues should be evaluated comprehensively, by: • Evaluating the transportation options and impacts for different land use possibilities. • Developing, describing and proposing specific movement systems configured to best support proposed land use sets. • Employing comprehensive modeling procedures that can evaluate the impact of different land use scenarios on auto, transit, bike and pedestrian activity. Net transportation impacts should be minimized due to the effects of any proposed development. • Compact, dense development patterns(nodes and clusters) are preferable to sprawl to increase efficiencies of mass transit. • A facilities location determinant should be to minimize trip generation between separate campuses. Opportunities for effective mass transit due to development of satellite campuses should be maximized. • Town and University should establish a continuous joint transportation planning group for most efficient use of town-owned transit equipment. • Incorporate Single Occupancy Vehicle Use Reduction Recommendations. • Town and University should work together to develop an intermodal transit facility to assist and link internal and external transportation movements. • Movement on"Main Campus"should be studied to effect the most efficient integration of internal transit with future systems to satellites. This may include developing an "inner loop" system within Main Campus. • Movement systems should be developed that will encourage transit system use, discourage private vehicular use and reduce the need for valuable campus land to be used for parking and enlarged roadways. UNC-CHAPEL HILL PLANNING PANEL Transportation Goals and Principles, Cont'd. These two sites should be planned to include efficient linkage to Triangle-wide transportation systems as well as systems internal to Chapel Hill. • Planning for these two sites should incorporate the policies and plans of the Triangle Transit Authority, including: — Connections to the proposed light rail triangle transit system, and — Connections to the existing TTA bus system. • Explore using the existing heavy rail corridor for rail, bike and other movement between the Horace Williams Tract and Main Campus. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation plans need to be developed. • Plans should include dedicated travel areas for each mode. • Recommendations of the Regional Bicycle Plan, Town of Chapel Hill Bikeways Plan, Town of Chapel Hill Pedestrian Plan, and the Town of Chapel Hill Greenways Plan should be integrated into the plans for these two tracts. Existing and potential open space networks should be included as part of the overall transportation pattern. UNC-CHAPEL HILL PLANNING PANEL Environment/Ecology Goals and Principles The Natural Environment goal is to encourage development that protects the natural and built environment and provides for appropriate location of land uses. Critical Features Preserve and protect features of critical environmental concern: • Recognize the exceptional plant communities and rare plant/animal species as assets and opportunities,through the registry of these sites with the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program: — Rhododendron Bluff populations (4) along Morgan Creek(within the Hunt Arboretum), — Big Oak woods(within the Mason Farm Biological Reserve), — Southern Shagbark Hickory slopes (within the Mason Farm Biological Reserve and eastern side of"Parker Property"), — Alluvial Forest along Morgan Creek(within the Mason Farm Botanical Reserve, Hunt Arboretum, and creek corridor portions of the greater Mason Farm tract), — Hardwood Forest on the southern slopes of the North Carolina Botanical Garden nature trail area, and — Bolin Creek floodway and surrounding steep slopes(within the Town of Carrboro portion of the Horace Williams tract). • Areas of critical environmental concern, including stream floodways, the Town of Chapel Hill Resource Conservation District(RCD), and areas of steep slopes should be incorporated into an open space network. The network would provide corridors and linkages between designated"protected" areas,protect scenic views, vistas and areas, buffer other land uses from each other, provide recreational opportunities and protect vulnerable areas from development. • Protect, preserve and enhance the existing land uses (biological research, educational and neighborhood quality) by providing adequate forest, visual, noise and watershed buffers. • TTA rail corridor alignments should not cross Botanical Gardens property. UNC-CHAPEL HILL PLANNING PANEL Environment/Ecology Goals and Principles, Cont'd. Sensitive Features Conserve natural resources and energy to protect sensitive features of the natural environment. Sensitive features include shrink-swell soil, slopes greater than 15%, water quality and air quality. • Approximately 40%of the Mason Farm property lies within the 100-year flood plain (with occurrence of several soil series including shrink-swell), which means that an even greater amount is included in the Town of Chapel Hill RCD,thus restricting opportunities for development. • Exemplary populations of Catawba rhododendron(Rhododendron catawbiense) occur on steep (in excess of 10%),north-facing bluffs along Morgan Creek and deserve protection. • Consider the limits of expansion of the OWASA Treatment Plant at Mason Farm and the related impacts to neighboring land uses. • Golf course management issues relate directly to water quality ("... an average of 18 pounds of pesticides were applied per treated acre each year, contrasting to the average of 2.7 pounds applied on agricultural lands. There is the additional heavy use of fertilizers."from "How Green Are These Fairways?" -Audubon magazine, Sept-Oct 1993. "... water-between 500,000 and 800,000 gallons a day per course, according to the National Golf Foundation."from"Charting A New Course" -National Wildlife magazine,Aug-Oct 1993.) This concern can be turned into an opportunity (the U.S. Golf Association currently funds $2 million a year in environmental research, etc.). • Address the current and long-term safety of University generated, low-level radioactive waste that is temporarily stored at the: — Hazardous Materials Facility (located near the intersection of Airport Road and Estes Drive Ext.), and — CHYDARU("shad-a-rue's complex and the radioactive animal burial site (located on north side of Morgan Creek,near Friday Center). UNC-CHAPEL HILL PLANNING PANEL 1 Goals and Principles, Cont d. Environment/Ecology ogy p Sensitive Features, Cont'd, • Address the current and long-term safety(groundwater quality, etc.) of radioactive waste and/or unknown materials within: — Old University/Town Landfill (located within the east-central portion of the Horace Williams property) — Older University/Town Dump (located beneath the"P"parking lot near intersection of Airport Road and Estes Drive Ext., and — Waste Chemical Storage Area(small fenced area, located within the east-central portion of the Horace Williams property). • Coordinate the management of stormwater run-off within the context of the entire community. • Design land uses,transportation corridors, etc. that"reduce, reuse and recycle". • Location of potential "light rail"corridor through Mason Farm property should closely parallel the existing transportation corridors (54 east and Fordham Blvd.) in order to minimize negative impact on existing neighborhoods and sensitive natural areas (North Carolina Botanical Garden and Mason Farm Biological Reserve). UNC-CHAPEL HILL PLANNING PANEL Environment/Ecology Goals and Principles, Cont'd. 01 en Space Network Provide an open space network designed to protect the natural environment, establish accessible active and passive recreation sites, separate incompatible land uses, protect scenic views, and provide linkages among neighborhoods. • Coordinate the inclusion of accessible, active and passive recreational sites with the Town of Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Department. • Provide linkages among neighborhoods (a dedicated greenway connecting Glenwood Elementary School to the North Carolina Botanical Garden that would enhance their existing relationship: "Partnership in Education";public greenways and bikeways that enhance the master plan of the Town of Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation and Transportation Departments). • Plan for the impacts of increased active and passive recreational development on neighboring land uses. • Protect scenic and environmentally sensitive views from visual,traffic noise, reflective and/or transparent glass and night-time lighting impacts. UNC-CHAPEL HILL PLANNING PANEL Fiscal Policy Goals and Principles Fiscal policy issues are not part of the scope of work of the University's land use planning consultants. However, addressing fiscal equity issues is clearly part of the Council's charge to the Planning Panel, and will be a critical concern for the local governments if and when development of these properties proceeds. Our early analysis suggests that many services issues cannot be resolved in advance, but will have to be negotiated at various future moments when costs and needs can be quantified. It will be very helpful to future leaders of both institutions to have a policy framework within which to operate. Proposed principles for developing policies and agreements: • Focus on fundamental principles to guide the relationship between the two institutions. • Rules for compensation to the Town for services should be as fair as possible, and mutually agreed upon by UNC and Chapel Hill. • All new UNC development at Horace Williams and Mason Farm should be revenue neutral. The Town should strive to recover capital and operating costs for municipal services needed specifically because of new development. In order to measure and assess whether or not development is revenue neutral, fiscal impact statements should be prepared as a part of each new development proposal. These statements should estimate the cost of municipal services that would be needed to support the development, and project any revenues that would accrue to the Town as a result of the development. The new zoning district that is created for these properties should include a requirement that any application for development in the zone be accompanied by a fiscal impact statement. • Any third-party development on UNC properties should be revenue neutral. Payment-in-lieu of taxes is recommended as a fair way of recovering municipal service costs incurred by third-party development of housing,research and development facilities or commercial service facilities. • Endorse the existing OWASA policies that require UNC to pay water and sewer availability fees for all new development on Horace Williams and Mason Farm tracts. UNC-CHAPEL HILL PLANNING PANEL Fiscal Policy Goals and Principles, Cont'd. Proposed Principles. Cont'd. • As means of payment for municipal services (and related facilities)provided to the University,the two institutions should explore: — Fees for services provided through contractual agreements, — Value to the Town of new facilities developed by UNC, on UNC properties, available for broad community use, e.g., recreational facilities, — Value to the Town of new facilities on UNC property that can also be used by Chapel Hill for local government functions, e.g., a fueling and vehicle service station, and — "donation"of UNC land through favorable long-term lease terms to local government (Town, county or schools). Impact Fees While the Town holds limited authority to impose impact fees, it has never done so. State properties are not specifically exempt from impact fee authority, but they also are not specifically subject to it. Legal advisors suggest that if the Town does not impose impact fees on other developers, it might have great legal difficulty imposing such fees on the state (UNC). We understand that when impact fees are imposed there must be a well documented connection between a specific impact and a specific charge. At this point,user fees or fees for service appear more flexible and workable. The Panel discussed whether Orange County's impact fee on new housing to support capital construction for schools would apply to any housing developed on the UNC properties. The Planning Panel believes that this fee should apply to such housing development,but we recognize that this is a legal issue best addressed by Orange County and UNC attorneys. Snapshot View of Current Town-Gown Relationship The Panel believes it would be useful to identify present service relationships, providers and financial terms. These include transactions that run both ways, such as fire protection, transit, and the Town's lease of land for Public Works Department facilities. We would like to develop a comprehensive list of these exchanges, and inform the public. Such a"balance of activity"log would clarify the existing relationship. We would like UNC and Town staff help in qualifying, wherever possible,the benefits to both UNC and Town and the current arrangements. UNC-CHAPEL HILL PLANNING PANEL Fiscal Policy Goals and Principles, Cont'd. Payments-in-Lieu of Taxes All UNC (state)properties are specifically exempt from ad valorem taxes. We believe a third- party developer on state property should not necessarily benefit from such exemption. UNC could enter into agreement with a third-party owner and require that owner to make payments- in-lieu of taxes to the County and the Town. This could be addressed as a condition of the lease agreement. The building could be assessed for tax value like other buildings of its type and size in the jurisdiction, and payment-in-lieu could be calculated on this basis. The UNC-owned land on which such a building would sit would be tax-exempt. Again, we believe UNC could agree, as a lease condition,that payment-in-lieu could be based on a valuation figure that includes land value. The Panel believes that we should encourage some third-party development as a means of pursuing fiscal equity. We do not yet know to what extent UNC is interested in this approach. We have a recommendation before Council tonight addressing this. We believe our recommendation is timely, and a prudent policy to get on record. Potential Areas of Cooperation between UNC and Chanel Hill Below is a list of ideas for facilities and functions that might be cooperatively used by the two institutions and other local governments. It is drawn from public comment made at various meetings, suggestions by Town staff and other local officials, and Panel discussion. It is merely an idea list, but perhaps will stimulate us all in our search to make linkages between land use maps and daily activities. Recreational Facilities • Golf course • Open space • General recreational facilities • Playing fields • Skateboard park • Community recreation center UNC-CHAPEL HILL PLANNING PANEL Fiscal Policy Goals and Principles, Cont'd. Other Public Facilities • Park/ride lot • Transit corridor/station • Performing arts center(shared with high school) • School site at Horace Williams, if airport moved • Extra land for Glenwood School, if golf course reconfigured Public Works Facilities • Public Works/Physical Plant offices and storage yard • Fueling and vehicle service station • Bus/transit maintenance garage • Car/truck washing facility • Composting site • Recycling/materials handling facility Other • Subsidized/affordable housing (owner and renter) • Employee/staff housing • Staff training center • Tree/shrub farm and plant nursery • Business incubator building • Fire station • Joint emergency operations center • Indoor pistol range for Police use • Employee health, fitness and safety center • Flexibility for meeting day care and early childhood education needs on site at new housing development. MEETING SUMMARY UNC-Chapel Hill Planning Panel February 23, 1995 All members were present except Larry Reid. Citizen Comments: Bernadette Pelissier presented a proposal to hold a Community Forum on April 29, 1995, and asked that the Planning Panel appoint a liaison to work with the citizens' groups planning the conference. Flicka Bateman agreed to be the liaison if the Panel felt it was appropriate. Rosemary Waldorf stated the Panel members want to participate in the day and would appreciate having a liaison. After discussion, Rachel Willis moved that Flicka Bateman be the Panel's representative to that group, and this was seconded by John Bell. The group voted in favor of the motion, with Alice Ingram voting against. Hospital Planning: Mary Beck of UNC Hospitals presented the future building plans of the hospital. She noted that the Hospital is focusing on improvements to the existing site on Manning Drive. The Hospital has no plans for Horace Williams now. She noted an outpatient clinic could be a possibility in the future. On Mason Farm, the hospital has an administration building which may be expanded. Otherwise, there are no additional plans for this area. In response to questions, she noted that the Hospital currently has a shuttle system between the administration building and the Hospital. The number of admissions per year is about 24,000, and this is expected to grow slightly per year. The number of outpatient visits is over 500,000 per year; here, the Hospital expects a 2.5% growth rate per year. She noted that the Hospital is currently finishing its 1986 Master Plan, and that she expects the Hospital to do another master plan in the next few years. Reports from Committees: The Panel heard the report of the Land Use/Edges Subcommittees. Alan Rimer presented a summary of the Horace Williams site, and noted several neighborhoods will be impacted by any proposals. The Carrboro portion of the tract may be suitable for less intensive uses, such as residential, due to environmental constraints. The airport serves as a major constraint, and it may be desirable to put forth two concepts with and without the airport. The central portion of the site east of Seawell School Road is most suitable for development. Parking should be kept to the edges, with traffic off the campus. The group suggests transit hubs at the center of the site and in the northwest comer, with a focus as a commercial hub. One issue is how to deal with the railroad line ending in downtown Carrboro. Also, is a cross-connection between Airport Road and Seawell School Road desirable? Without the airport, the amount of flat land for development is increased greatly. The existing landfill on the Horace Williams site could become a park. Scott Radway noted the tie-in to the proposed Northwest Area Plan, which proposes a transit stop at a village center on the Greene tract, and emphasized the importance of Carrboro's cooperation. Mike Nelson, Carrboro's liaision, said the Carrboro committee supports transit, but needs to think through how it affects downtown Carrboro. Bob Woodruff emphasized the idea of grouping larger facilities that are enclosed together, with support services included within. Rachel Willis suggested not putting parking at the transit terminals. Scott Radway suggested clarifying what the edges will look like to the community. Alan Rimer agreed the next steps were to put the concepts on a map, and to codify the constraints. Alan Rimer noted the Mason Farm property has very little land to develop, mainly the Parker property and a small area off N.C. 54. If UNC decides to change the golf course, then the group may need to reassess the situation. John Bell noted the Mason Farm property may be served by the Triangle Transit Authority, and is therefore more valuable. Next Steps: The Panel agreed to hold a meeting on Saturday, March 11, 1995 from 8:30 am to noon to finish the Committee reports, and to define Goals and Principles. The Panel will then review a draft of the Goals and Principles at its March 23rd meeting. The Panel will also meet with the Carrboro Advisory Committee on March 30th from 5:00 to 6:30, at the Town Hall in Carrboro. MEETING SUMMARY UNC-Chapel Hill Planning Panel March 11, 1995 All members were present except Lee Pavao,Larry Reid, Don Weisenstein and Bob Woodruff. Transportation Report: Rachel Willis presented a map of transportation concepts. The map identified school sites, recreational facilities, and governmental facilities as potential destinations for future transportation systems. The map also contained an overlay of major road arterials and future patterns. She suggested ideas such as: connecting the TTA route to the Southern National Railroad; connecting the TTA corridor to the 15-501 intersection; including stops at the Friday Center, Dean Smith Center and the Hospital;a transit loop around campus; etc. She also suggested a modeling of the transportation system, which the sub-committee agreed with. Discussion took place regarding the cost of a transportation model and possible future transportation system. Scott Radway noted that Chapel Hill's portion of a link with a regional transportation system would be the most expensive in the region. Because of this,he noted that we should do a great deal of long-range planning with regard to transportation issues. Alan Rimer suggested that a future transportation system involve only one modal shift(possibly from bus to rail), and a link with neighborhoods. Environmental Report: Jim Ward presented a revised draft of the sub-committee's goals. The Comprehensive Plan goals were used as a framework for the environmental goals. Within the Critical Features section,the Bolin Creek floodway was added as a site to be registered with the N.C.Natural Heritage Program. He would like the committee to endorse the protection of the Parker property,especially its eastern portion. Under Sensitive Features,Jim Ward added the concern about hazardous waste sites. He also noted that the TTA corridor alignment should be pulled toward N.C. 54 as much as possible, away from the Botanical Gardens. Joe Capowski suggested that UNC dispose of all types of waste by contemporary means. Josh Gurlitz suggested that an open space network be included in the transportation pattern. Fiscal Report: Rosemary Waldorf noted that it is unlikely that we could impose impact fees on the University when it has not been done with other property owners. She also suggested that new development in these areas be revenue-neutral(this has been listed as a goal of the fiscal sub-committee),and that the Town look into opportunities for cooperative uses with the University. The group agreed that UNC should consider entering into agreements with third parties to develop the land,so as to allow for payments-in-lieu. The University should put their willingness to consider this possibility in writing. For the March 23 meeting,the group would like the Manager to develop key questions on this issue. Rosemary noted that the school system would like a site at the Horace Williams tract away from the flight path. If there is a housing component, it should include flexibility to meet day care and early childhood education needs on site. There was discussion about where a golf course may be located and its impacts, but more discussion was needed to develop conclusions. Discussion will take place at the next meeting. Rosemary suggested that the group come to a consensus on a written report on fiscal goals and that maps should be provided showing constraints. Jim Ward later noted the need to add environmental constraints to the maps. Joe Capowski noted that the railroad track should be the dividing line between Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He noted later that the alignment of a TTA transportation system needs more study. John Bell suggested that the group adjust the revenue-neutral goal to say"provide" rather than "consider" revenue-neutral development. He would also like to emphasize the need for affordable housing. Rosemary suggested that the group come to a consensus about the need for a balance sheet of accounting for fiscal impacts. Next Steps: The Panel will hold another meeting on Thursday, March 23, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. at the Chapel Hill Public Library. The Panel will then review a draft of the Goals and Principles of each sub-committee. Unresolved issues which may be discussed are: the Horace Williams Airport, golf course, and TTA transportation system.alignment through Mason Farm. The Panel will meet with the Carrboro Advisory Committee on March 30, from 5:00 to 6:30 p.m.,at the Carrboro Town Hall. MEMORANDUM TO: Paul Hardin, Chancellor, University of North Carolina FROM: Rosemary Waldorf, Chair, UNC-Chapel Hill Planning Panel 15,4^� SUBJECT: Focus Groups for UNC Planning Process DATE: March 11, 1995 Attached is a list of potential participants in the focus groups to be organized by the University of North Carolina as part of the process to develop a long-range plan for the Horace Williams and Mason Farm properties. Jay Bryan, Carrboro alderman and chair of Carrboro's advisory committee in the UNC planning process, suggested that Johnson, Johnson and Roy, the University's consultants, hold focus groups with a variety of citizens to garner ideas, priorities and concerns. Our Chapel Hill panel strongly supports this idea, and through this memorandum we are suggesting citizens who may wish to participate. This is merely a suggested list, drawn from our files of neighborhood associations, citizens' groups and individuals who have stated an interest in this process. The people on this list may wish to consider participating, or may recruit someone from the group they represent to join the focus groups. I understand that Ted Hoskins of your staff will be responsible for contacting these groups and individuals and setting up the focus groups. Thank you for this effort to extend the community's involvement in the planning process and to incorporate comments, concerns and ideas from the public as this process proceeds. cc: List of Potential Participants Ted Hoskins, UNC Facilities Planning Office Bob Reda Bernadette Pelissier Dan Coleman Orange County Greens Alliance of Neighborhoods Sierra Club 3833 Sweeten Creek Road 421 Ironwoods Drive 133 Windsor Circle Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 P g Callie Warner Margaret Brown Joe Hakan Citizens for Livable Comm. Shaping Orange Cty's Future Public/Private Partnership 24 Mount Bolus Road 1509 Smith Level Road 121 South Estes Drive P Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Mark and Kim Nicholas Patrick Davis Dominica Alioto Somerset-Huntington Neighbr_^_c Severin Street Neighborhood Ironwoods Neighborhood 203 Somerset Drive 305 Severin Street 121 Oldham Place Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Morris Schaeffer Judson Van Wyk, M.D. Betty Caldwell, President Caswell-Surry Neighborhood Highland Woods Neighborhood CH Preservation Society 717 Caswell Road 1020 Highland Woods 610 E. Rosemary Street P Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Habitat for Humanity Joel Harper Robert Burns CH Chamber of Commerce h l Hill,Oaks II Homeowners' Assoc. P. O. Box , NC 27515 p 0. Box 2897 808 Pinehurst Drive Cape C Chapel Hill, NC 27515 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Robert Foley Robert Humphreys Patricia Krebs The Oaks Association CH-Carr. Downtown Commission Coker Hills Neighbad Assoc. 113 West Franklin Street 309 Elliott Road 1055 Burning Tree Drive el Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Chapel Barry Margolin Biruta Neilsen, President Orange County Housing Corp. P. O. Box 307 Kings Mill Rd Neighbad Assoc. InChuCo Carrboro, NC 27510 908 Kings Mill Road 416 Ridgecrest Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 New Hope Audubon Society Tedd Parrish John Sanders 1712 Willow Drive Pine Knolls Comm. Association Morgan Creek Valley Assoc. Chapel Hill, NC 27514 741 South Merritt Mill Road 1107 Sourwood Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Jim Sou A. G. Tolley, President Philip Sullivan Laurel Hill Association Oak Villas Homeowners' Assoc. Inter-Faith Council au Laurel Hill Road 101 Dundalk Drive 207 Wilson Court P Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Julie Andresen W. Scott Blackwood Diane Bloom OWASA Board 610 Mount Carmel Church Road 114 Mendel Drive P 614 Beechtree Court Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Jan Boxill Mark Broadwell Bill Christian 178 Ridge Trail 16 Rogerson Drive 109 Cameron Glen Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27516 June Dunnick Tom Gunn Gerald Kelley 2556 Booker Creek Road 722 North Columbia Street 208 Windhover Drive Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Phillip Manning Stephen Manton Howard F. Morris 315 East Rosemary Street 2024 Markham Drive 14 Bolin Heights Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Julian Raney Mary Reeb Martin Rody 84 Dogwood Acres Drive 608 Laurel Hill Road #1 The Glen Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Chapel Hill, NC 27514 THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Edward A.Hosidns,AIA.Consulting Architect Facilities Planning&Design Telephone(919)%2-9049 The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Fax(919)962-1102 CB#1090,Giles F.Homey Building Email TED.FAC @'NM-TJ•NC.EDU Chapel Hill,North Carolina 27599-1090 March 9, 1995 MEMO f TO: Jay Bryan -Chair, Carrboro Community Advisory Committee A. Tom Clegg- Chair, Faculty Advisory Committee David Godschalk-Chair, Buildings &Grounds Committee Wayne Jones - Chair, Facilities Planning Committee ~ Bruce Runberg - Chair,Technical Committee ' Rosemary Waldorf- Chair, UNC--CCH Planning Panel FROM: Ted Hoskinsar'4 SUBJECT: LAND USE PLANNING FOR THE OUTLYING PROPERTIES APRIL JJR VISIT C: Chancellor Paul Hardin Mike McFarland - Director, UNC-CH News Services 1 Clifton Metcalf- Associate Vice Chancellor for University Relations ' Gordon Rutherford- Director of Facilities Planning & Design Roger Waldon - Staff Contact, Chapel Hill Community Advisory Committee 1 Roy Williford - Staff Contact, Carrboro Community Advisory Committee Connie Dimond, Dick Rigterink-JJR MW\F\.SAT\V IS IT3\MEM0_AGP] Enclosed you will find a schedule of the principal group meetings that will take place during JJR's next visit in April. The arrangement of meetings generally follows the pattern that has been established on previous visits, but has been slightly adjusted to allow for Good Friday. Please let me know if this schedule causes any problems with your committee, and I will adjust it if I can. I hope to have advance information packets available sometime during the week of April 3. I will rely on the committee chairs to advise their membership of these up-coming meetings. Thanks. rity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill roperties Land Use Plans 95 JJR VISIT#3--FRAME WORK RE VIEW SCHED ULE OF PRINCIPAL MEETINGS—APRIL 11, 12,AND 13, 1995 Purposes of the visit: 1. Review the University's preliminary use list, identification of issues and opportunities. 2. Review JJR's identification of developable and non-developable sites. 3. Begin process of matching potential uses to developable zone conditions. 4. Begin discussion of alternative framework plans. TUESDAY—APRIL 11, 1995 Travel to Chapel Hill in afternoon 11:00 AM -,1:00 PM University Preview Meeting (Conf. Rm.A;Giles Homey Building) TClegg, MMcFarfand, DGodschalk, THoskins, WJones, CMetcalf, BRunberg, GRutherford. 2:30 -3:15 PM Media Briefing (Cont. Rm.A, Giles Homey Building) _ THoskins, MMcFarland, BRunberg. 3:30 -5:30 PM Buildings&Grounds Committee Meeting (Cont. Rm.A,Giles Homey Building) WEDNESDAY—APRIL 12, 1995 10:00 - 12:00 NOON Facilities Planning Committee Review Meeting (Conf. Rm.A Giles Homey Building) 1:30 -3:30 PM Technical Committee (Conf. Rm.A, Giles Homey Building) 4:00 -6.00 PM Faculty Committee (277 Phillips Halo 7:30 -9:30 PM Community Advisory Committees Meeting (Redbud A&B Friday Center) THURSDAY—APRIL 13, 1995 10:00- 12:00 NOON Facilities Planning Committee Direction Meeting (Conf. Rm.A,Giles Homey Building) 1:15-2:00 PM Media Wrap-up Briefing (Conf. Rm. C, Giles Homey Building) THoskins MMcFarland, BRunberg. Afternoon Departure FUTURE MEETING DATES VISIT#4 Long Range Plan Review 19120121122 September 1995 VISIT#5 Final Land Use Plan Review 28129130 November 11 December 1995 VISIT#6 Final Documentation 23124125126 January 1996 4CuflL3FtIt384M3E;tO L gZZ.L 4740INT' UNIVERSITY LAND USE PLANNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE �ETZI�TG TBI USDA X, AWCH 30, 1995 SW PAL CWWORO BOARD !TOOK TO NW W HAU 1. CHA13t MEN'S STATUS REPORT The Chairmen of each Advisory Committee will give a status report of what the Advisory Committee has done to date. 11. DISCUSSION ISSUES A. Conservation Areas and Linkages 1) Assessment 2) Legal Protection B. Transportation 1) Rail Transit 2) Public Transit 3) Roads 4) Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities C. Stormwater Management D. Site Development and Design Alternatives E. Integration of Housing F. Infrastructure and Municipal Services(i.e., fire services, etc.) M. A?ENTIFY COMMON INTERESTS V. ADJOURN