Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 10-13-2016 - Abstract for Joint Meeting Discussion Items
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN JOINT MEETING AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 13, 2016 SUBJECT: Joint Meeting Discussion Items DEPARTMENT: County Manager/Town Manager/County Planning/Town Planning/Town Economic and Community Development ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: As noted in "Background" section Bonnie Hammersley, 245-2300; David Andrews, 918-7315; Craig Benedict, 245- 2575; Trish McGuire, 918-7327; Annette Stone, 918-7319 PURPOSE: To discuss topics of mutual interest between the governing boards of Orange County and the Town of Carrboro. BACKGROUND: 1. Economic Development a) Development of Old NC Highway 86 Property Owned by the Town of Carrboro for Affordable Commercial Space The purpose of this agenda item is to provide an opportunity for the Boards to discuss possible development of Town-owned property located on Old NC Highway 86 for affordable commercial space. Affordable space for flex warehouse/light manufacturing is very limited in Carrboro; therefore the Carrboro Board of Aldermen directed staff to identify opportunities to lift barriers to developing this type of space. Availability and cost of land are limiting factors affecting commercial development and the town's ability to attract or retain light manufacturing businesses. The Town of Carrboro is seeking input from the Orange County Board of Commissioners on developing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to invite proposals for developing Town-owned property located on Old NC 86 as an affordable, light manufacturing commercial park. The property, located across from the Twin Creeks park property, was originally purchased by the town in 2001 to be used for a new public works facility. In 2 response to the Board of Aldermen's interest in expanding opportunities for flex/light manufacturing commercial space, staff have begun studying the property for this alternative use. Preliminary study reveals a building program of approximately 90,000 square feet of warehouse/flex commercial space is possible (See Attachment 1 a-1). The attached site plan illustrates four (4) 20,000 square feet buildings and the possibility of two or more, smaller 5,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. building footprints. The improvements would be taxable assets with an estimated tax value of $9,000,000 which would result in approximately $79,020 in annual County property tax revenues, $18,756 for the Chapel Hill/Carrboro City School district and $53,046 in town revenues upon annexation into the Town limits. The Town is seeking input from the BOCC on development parameters that can be included in a Request for Proposals (RFP). This input will be included in the development of site design criteria and building design elements, required square footage, ownership and leasing terms, including rent controls and other provisions. A process for gathering input from neighboring property owners is in preparation. The 22 acre parcel is currently zoned RR, Rural Residential, and would need to be rezoned for low impact commercial uses that generate little or no customer trips. The concept is for the town to retain ownership and lease the land to a developer who would construct the project and lease the buildings for a defined period (e.g. 2 to 30 years). The primary goal is to keep the project affordable and therefore capable of attracting and retaining local manufacturers, service providers, craftspeople and artisans. Other elements to be included in an RFP would focus on preserving the feel and character of the property with careful thought be given to the aesthetic and the rural nature of the area. Buildings should have a rural character as illustrated in Attachment 1a-2. The existing house on the front of the property could be preserved and used as a small retail location, to provide employees and local residents with basic staple groceries and some prepared food. As envisioned, the project would require public water and sewer which are available south of this property near Lake Hogan Farms, and a turning lane to accommodate turning traffic which should include employees, services vehicles, and delivery trucks only. The preliminary estimated cost of these improvements is $1,000,000. This cost may be an opportunity for an Orange County — Town of Carrboro collaboration on an economic development initiative. Orange County's role in this proposal would be related to the Joint Planning Area Agreement which includes a review and approval mechanism for a change in zoning. In addition, the Northern Transition Advisory Board would review the proposal. The County would also be responsible for considering a request from the town to partner on utility extensions and infrastructure improvements. Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss issues related to this item as necessary. 3 SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There are no Orange County Social Justice Goals applicable to this agenda item. Attachment la-1 — Concept Site Plan Attachment 1a-2— Possible Building Types b) NC Highway 54 West — Commercial Potential and Challenges The purpose of this agenda item is to provide an opportunity for the Board of Aldermen and the Board of County Commissioners to discuss the Town's interest in extending its extraterritorial jurisdiction to encompass the entirety of five lots along NC Highway 54 West, the jurisdiction and zoning of which are currently split between the Town and County. Carrboro town staff along with County staff have been studying opportunities for development in the NC Hwy 54 West corridor within Carrboro's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) (see Attachment lb-1) since this is one of the few areas in or near the Town that are zoned for light manufacturing. Most of the properties on the north side of Hwy 54 are split by Town and County jurisdictional boundaries. Real estate professionals have indicated that this can be a barrier to development by potential buyers of commercial properties. The zoning of these parcels is also split, with the portions in Carrboro's ETJ zoned Watershed Manufacturing (WM-3) and the portions in County jurisdiction zoned Rural Buffer (RB). With such disparate zoning and the associated limitations on impervious surface area in the University Lake watershed, the development potential of these parcels is limited. Most of the neighboring parcels split by the jurisdictional boundary in this area are zoned RB and WR (Watershed Residential), zoning which mostly allows the same type and amount of development activity to occur in either jurisdiction. Currently on these five properties, all aspects of a commercial, manufacturing development have to be contained on the portion of the parcel that lies within Carrboro's ETJ —about half of each lot. The Town has received several inquiries about redevelopment opportunities for one of the parcels. Another property owner has discussed with staff challenges associated with the conditions described above. The complications associated with the split jurisdiction and zoning have apparently proved to be a deterrent to the submittal of formal applications. The Board of Aldermen has discussed the benefits of uniform jurisdiction and zoning for these parcels, which could be achieved by an extension of the Town's ETJ to cover the parcels in full or by encouraging owners to request voluntary annexation into the Town limits and is seeking the Board of County Commissioners' perspective. Information letters have been sent to the affected property owners regarding possible extension of the Town's ETJ (see Attachment 1b-2). The initial feedback from property owners is they would like to see an expansion of existing uses that are allowed in the town's WM3 zoning district. Town staff will be reviewing this for a possible land use ordinance amendment. 4 Expansion of the town's ETJ will require approval from the County Board of Commissioners. The process for considering expanding ETJ is spelled out in NCGS 160A-360, http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Enacted Legislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter 160A/GS 160A-360.html. The statutes describe the procedural requirements that apply to the County and municipal governments. These requirements are summarized below, with notes indicating which party has responsibility for the action: 1. Extraterritorial area must be set by an ordinance adopted by the city governing board. Newspaper notice, mailed notice and public hearing requirements apply (Town). 2. Approval of a request for the extension into any area where the county is enforcing zoning, subdivision regulations, and the building code (County and Town). 3. Approvals, requests or agreements must be established by a formally adopted resolution of the governing board (County and Town). 4. Adopted boundary map must be recorded with the register of deeds and the map maintained permanently in the office of the city clerk (County and Town). 5. New zoning designation(s) must be applied to ETJ (Town) following procedures for zoning amendments. The statues provide for a sixty-day transition period, during which prior county zoning remains in place and enforceable. 6. Membership of planning board and board of adjustment must include ETJ representation (Town). Appointments to ETJ seats on municipal boards are made by the board of county commissioners. No specific requirements or standards for county approval or disapproval are included, other than the need for County approval to be secured at any time before the effective date of adoption or amendment of the extraterritorial ordinance. The Board of County Commissioners held a work session in November 2014 to consider establishing a process for reviewing ETJ extension requests. The most recent release/expansion of extraterritorial jurisdiction occurred in December 2014 when the Board of County Commissioners approved a request from the Town of Chapel Hill to exercise ETJ authority over 1,033 acres in and around the Rogers Road area of what was formerly Joint Planning Transition Area. See pages 15-19 at http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/weblink8/DocView.aspx?id=36133&searchid=cc 626dd7-3fde-4f34-a245-e74181160376&d bid=0 . Courtesy review by the Orange County Planning Board did occur in conjunction with that request and approval. Orange County's role would relate to 1. Expansion of ETJ 2. Amendment to JPA Rural Land Use Classification Boundary 5 Although estimates are difficult without knowledge of specific supply, demand, needs of the business, one could project the need for water storage capacity and pressure to support sprinkler systems for many non-residential uses. This could entail a water study to determine if public or private systems are better suited for fire suppression. Accordingly cost estimates vary widely from $300,000 to amounts more conservative. From a public sewer perspective, again depending on the relative water and sewer needs, analysis for the existing sewer system including the sewage lift station would have to be conducted. These properties could possibly flow by gravity if a jack and bore sewer line was installed under Highway 54. The partial cost of this sewer extension would approximate $125,000. Additional cost would also be anticipated regarding the existing lift station operation. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There are no Orange County Social Justice Goals applicable to this agenda item. Attachment 1b-1 — Map of Existing Zoning— NC Highway 54 West Attachment 1b-2— Letter to Property Owners— NC Highway 54 West 2. Greene Tract— Current Situation and Future Uses The Greene Tract (164 acres) was acquired in 1984 for $608,000 and came to Orange County as an asset in the Solid Waste Fund. The 1998 Interlocal Solid Waste Agreement and amended April 12, 2000 provided for the three owning partners to determine, over a two-year period, the ultimate disposition of the remaining 104 jointly held acres. The Agreement further included a repayment mechanism to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. The financial reimbursement to the Solid Was Fund began on July 1, 2008. This link— http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=27031&dbid=0 — provides a history of the Greene Tract from 1999 through 2008 which is a compendium of various reports and studies which was presented at a `Joint Greene Tract Work Session' on April 29, 2008 and at an Assembly of Governments meeting on December 6, 2012. Attachment 2a provides information regarding the last action taken by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on December 10, 2002. Although there has been considerable discussion about the future of the Greene Tract, no action has been taken by the BOCC since 2002. Although not specific to the Greene Tract, multiple Historic Rogers Road Area (HRRA) small area studies and planning efforts have been conducted by the local governments over the last 15 years. More recently, the HRRA staff workgroup has been reviewing and developing two new initiatives: 1) The Community First planning program (Rogers Road Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) and the Jackson Center) hired by the joint governments. 2) Multi-Jurisdiction Technical Environmental Scan of the Greene Tract. All aspects are being researched and updated and maybe ready for a joint meeting in the fall. Over the years there have been many options (based on various studies) discussed as a possible future use of the 104 acres jointly owned by Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Listed below are the options that have been explored: 6 1) Joint Affordable Housing could be planned for 18.1 acres and the remaining 85.9 acres would remain join open space. 2) The 104 acre tract should remain as open space to be protected by conservation easements. 3) The acreage for affordable housing could be placed in the Land Trust. 4) Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools requested that part of the Greene Tract be reserved for a future elementary school site. An approximate 11 acre area south of the 18 Affordable Housing site was considered. 5) Rename the property to recognize the headwaters of Bolin Creek, Booker Creek and Old Field Creek. As a result of the Inter Local Agreement, 60 acres of the Greene Tract was conveyed to Orange County for "Solid Waste management purposes". Utility design and extension to the Rogers Road area is in progress. The Greene Tract map is attached which shows the proximity of the various aforementioned parcels. Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss issues related to this item as necessary. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There are no Orange County Social Justice Goals applicable to this agenda item. Attachment 2a — A Resolution Reporting the Recommended Concept Plan for the Portion of the Greene Tract that Remains in Joint Ownership Attachment 2b — Map of Greene Tract 3. INFORMATION ITEMS (Written Updates - Not for Specific Discussion) a) Rogers Road Infrastructure Update Rogers Road engineering design is 90% complete. Permits through various state and federal agencies are in the progress of being submitted. Easement compensation and acquisition has been under way for four months. Bids for the project are expected to be advertised in February of 2017 with bids awarded in May. Construction is expected to begin in June. Later this fall, staff will be presenting proposed Interlocal agreements to the governing boards to continue the cost sharing agreement to finance the project. Some acquisition by condemnation is underway although negotiations still continue. No Attachments b) Rogers Road: Mapping Our Community's Future As an extension of the sewer implementation project in the Rogers Road Neighborhood, Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro funded a contract with the Jackson Center to conduct a community first planning process. The planning process established a set of guiding principles/priorities developed by the community, a map of general recommendations for place-specific hopes, and a set of neighborhood strategies that can be implemented by ongoing 7 resident leadership to help pursue community aspirations. The final report titled, "Rogers Road: Mapping our Community's Future" is attached for the Boards' review. Attachment 3b — Rogers Road: Mapping Our Community's Future c) Southern Library Update Attachment 3c— Memorandum - Southern Branch Library- Update FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact associated with discussion of these topics. There are no action items requiring formal decisions. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Managers recommend the governing boards discuss the topics listed and provide appropriate direction to the respective staffs. co t fF / 1 %/G, °tr ,/ / ,• - Ps,i ii," / le 1 044. * I f 1 7/1: l'IV/, I 1 /, ''''4441/1/7/jaii ,,,,4, ., .7,,,ei.,41ry, ,,09, 4, 1AI a .yr f� 4'7,�%'7 ��� +/ � ;� ✓ {���I� % ■ i 4/ ,,/ 03 --4 /yfi / , , r / / •\ Cb /4 . / ,, ,i , , ,, ..., , //__ „ , , ,,, ,tor 1 /// /i„,,, „f,,_ –- — r / / / Ze 114 " �'� %// j/ /� fi%i / d�; � � ' / "\ i- �, 14,4,,1 ���t�f �t , I % l ,' _ le 1'r '1, t fi% ;� // a / Y // /rug — r,,, I mm ra�a��IAI11uire 1� r� �� %ij A /hV , )0 ,/J r y //6 // / % �/�// { ///a //%%///jj%/%/ j//, Attachment 1 a-2 9 W; r, v' 'per F� � � ;.,�1 U a Eb a. . , �.- - T511+F'v,,,,w144 h 04,:_liiii,--7,r;:.w,...- , ),i ,,,,,,,i,ii,•!, i i aY , c► Dfii 4i46br •. il . r h �1 I '',. 1 1 . " i 1 I El 111111•1111111111111111 a , ir. ." , iii..,, ,,/,./,.,,...,,„.. 111111111•1111111111111' " Y; s.. 1 ''''''l ''''''A,/, .,A-,-P 711 q K 1 T. I � i II 1 0111 1 I I . , c , o -'''' O wE o o WJ v a �� � 2 cy P a �q = , oa N ° o•ICI C U ° am H m ¢ N ()W V g © 1. U'.,`1_' II 2 7 W V r a. E i-g O O 0 N In "� f6 _ V y+ o A c° ,- Z 0 0 c V � d U d d p E Iwo '' 2H a3 M -.) t .. C O O .. OWdU m `,2.S 0 U G" F o F-i Ir-1 f6 f6 LO p,6 5 a'8, >;o t �I :. U U �' d a F°, m ° � r- _ 'w 'o `�,ter .� Fz • ■ = / a CD i J (7sit W — r _ 1 4/%// 0...4 fri i ii: 1 6 LL w Q�/ C • ILL. I i N111 II uul II — C. i 4) eO f E �.,. -C 0 u 0 f� _ hh , �Q n I{;iui1- 1�f�f�f�NuGG i /// iii ■ d 7111,,,, 1 , CARRIE RD ' w < dC1 1/\100-1DM a c I ■ a Q� i� �H lfOS I I2 • I 1 0.) LRi O i 1� E 11 11 - I I� 4 � I i \ / 11 Attachment 1 b-2 uaa�aaaaapppp � r /%%%///%////////��%/rr,r ff�l llriaaiiiniori�ir�� i. r' �imn��n„ • °r�°°�rr/Il������������ �pica/JJJJJ�irari� �I ( W4Nn�ii '1 ,iiJiiiiiorrmlll%%%/ � J/ ,RA oleo ' August 10, 2016 Dear Property Owner, I am sending you this letter as an inquiry into your interest to have the Town of Carrboro extend its extra-territorial zoning jurisdiction ([Ti) on your property located at 630 and 626 NC Hwy 54. Extension of the [Ti does not mean the parcel would be annexed, nor does it include additional taxation. Currently, the above described parcel is partially within the boundaries of the Town of Carrboro's extra-territorial zoning jurisdiction ([Ti) and Orange County's Rural Buffer zoning jurisdiction. The Town of Carrboro is considering extension of its [Ti to follow the parcel boundary line on the north side of your property so that the whole parcel is within the Town's zoning jurisdiction (see attached map). An action of this type requires the Town of Carrboro to ask permission from Orange County to move these boundaries. The Town believes it may be less of a barrier for you as a property owner to develop your property dealing with one jurisdiction. There has been no formal ask to Orange County from Carrboro and no public hearings have been set on this matter. We are only seeking property owner feedback at this time. Please feel free to call me at (919) 918-7319 or email me at astone @townofcarrboro.org to discuss. I am happy to meet you at your convenience also. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Sincerely, Annette D. Stone, AICP Director of Economic and Community Development ffilliZ '''>'le,'''' ,, 15:'8' '24.-5 ,,.,.'59'2''' '':'-'' ,cc)1E.).2C')ol'c -:'''' C\1 .1--- © 71' ;1°,11111111111111111111iiiiiiligifill111101711(11"iiii0;;;Iir,itor01114011#..pigroliriiii$tirrliiii ,...›, 7)0C W ° III '4141 1(11 Blii I, (z5 c 1 4')Ill IIJIIIIIJIJ,,,f.: i "c' ci) >- 1110)))1 $1 a3/1At) S '5'‹ c4 .. -7'.', 0 . 1:4 1=1 pilz •pi ,.. ....a . 1 ocs, W...„ 0 I r, { " ,000•41° zi --, H 0 .1..0 IP' 4 H W W '0 412 (1) o) a) - a) , u, E 4= :01 co) mill , c0 ...-- 0 -] ZE) 11W111111:11111111111111111 0:°- i 6-7°- o 5-<- 0 ...?: 0 hi 0E-4 gli m, am lei RHO lei RHO ,1000001 o, ..,70' . , r/.< ,cl I0001100 , Lf.) II , i II' .ft 1 IS I IIIIII ,, •4 L 1.. III .,7 -,.. 100000 , .ct , 0 /AI , 0 •— < 0 I •ca a)1-- - 00 C16, Z < Ca ::111 . Li.. 0,,)1111 11111111111111:11111111111111 0,r, —1 7... 0 0 °:'. 'a () 4Ln, cl 1 soloollo 0 0 co . 1— 0 1 .., 1111111111111 ,, LC)0 W LI ' 1111111111111 r/ , 1111111111111 / 7',,,,i'' / r* 1111111111111 1111111111111 1.1' 1111111111111 1111111111111 1 111111111111000 GO 0 1111111111111 • 4/I- I` < I <I- C') IS) 000000 0 c) HI /./ ° Z 111111111111 ir> 1111111111111 •'//Lit),) ..,t. 1111111111111 •#•• • 0 1111111111111 ((); 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Air5 : w.,1 c 1 Ni 7 Fi:N:v0')1:sc c Ix 0111111 018''' 111111111111111111111111 ,a,,, •. 11111111111 Do 0 40 w, 5 _ 0z 0 000000 1 1111111111111 I ' Z 1111111111111 (D I° og 0 1111111111111 z 111111111111 AN NV 0 z 1111111111111 1 1111111111111 < 1 1111111111111 ffl 0,, ' IIIIIIIIIIIr i /. :5 11'''1111111111111 i %'/Y,i„ 100010010 5 ,) N11110111 v, ." 11.. •''''' ii, tli ( t 1111111111111 – .,–,do■ro111''''''' . . 11, 5 ... ,0 / . oe---, -- 0000001 \ Is/ ‘-' /*'''' — Ill ■ e fiffl. 1-Z 1J LLI ■ }ilk, :-) I- 1111111111 114 '_ m" C41,,_. x •J loolloom f„4... 100000 <0,, ,__ IN LuX uj.3(!r3v\10013,\A 13 Attachment 2a � . APPROVED GREENE TRACT WORK GROUP A RESOLUTION REPORTING THE RECOMMENDED CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE PORTION OF THE GREENE TRACT THAT REMAINS IN JOINT OWNERSHIP � | WHEREAS, Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill acquired the property known as the Greene Tract in 1984 as an asset of the joint solid waste management system; and WHEREAS, title to 60 acres of this property was deeded exclusively to Orange County in 2000 under provisions of the 1999 interlocal "Agreement for Solid Waste Management"; and VVHEREAO, under the same interlocal agreement the County and Towns agreed to bargain in good faith during the two year period following the effective date of the agreement to determine the ultimate use or disposition of the balance of the acreage on the Greene Tract; and VVMEREAO, the end date of the "bargaining period" as defined in the agreement was April 17, 3002. the second anniversary of the date upon which the County assumed overall / for solid waste management in Orange County; and WHEREAS, the Greene Tract Work Group considered direction from the respective governing boards, comments from interested citizens and orgaOizaUono, and information developed by staff in response to Work Group inquiries in developing a recommended concept plan for the balance of the Greene Tract; and WHEREAS, the Work Group reported to all three governing boards in a resolution dated March 21, 2002 that it had reached substantial agreement on a concept plan providing for approximately 78 acres to be earmarked for open space protected by conservation easements and approximately 15 acres to be earmarked for affordable housing but had not yet reached agreement regarding what designation should be placed on the remaining 11 acres; and WHEREAS, the Work Group had recommended in that March 21, 2002 resolution that the [ following additional steps be taken: • The area shown on the concept plan as open space should be protected by executing a conservation easement between appropriate parties • The Board of County Commissioners should consider protecting its 60 acre portion of the Greene Tract by executing a conservation easement with an appropriate party • The Chapel Hill Town Council should consider initiating a small area planning process to / | examine desirable land uses for the Purefoy Road area • The property should be renamed in a manner that recognizes the significance of this area as the headwaters for three important streams (Bolin Creek, Old Field Creek, and Booker Creek) • The governing boards should take note of the public investment already made in the general vicinity of the Greene Tract, as cataloged in an accompanying table; and WHEREAS, the governing boards of all three jurisdictions approved resolutions extending the bargaining period beyond April17, 2002 in order to allow the Greene Tract Work Group additional time to try to reach consensus on the basic uses to be established for the approximately 11 acres at that time unresolved; and � | 14 APPROVED WHEREAS, the Work Group received e technical report from the Counb/ EnoineerouUiningthe basic alternatives available and apprOximate costs for providing sewer 'service~ to a portion of the Greene Tract, which service would be necessary for the economical and practical provision of affordable housing; and WHEREAS, the Work Group concluded bv consensus that "the carrying capacib/ cf the land" should be the determining factor in establishing how much of the unresolved 11^acres should be earmarked for specific purposes, and that the ridge line reflected on the accompanying concept map determines the portion (approximately one-third) of the 11 acres that can practically be used for affordable housing served by a sewer line that would access the Greene Tract via Purefoy Road: NOVV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby recommend that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, the Chapel Hill Town Council, and the Orange County Board of Commissioners accept the accompanying map as the Work Group's consensus recommendation for a concept plan for that portion of the Greene Tract not deeded exclusively to Orange County, with the acreage to be set aside for open space protected by conservation easements approximating 85.90 acres and the acreage for affordable housing approximating 1810 acres; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby recommend to the three governing boards that the acreage for affordable housing be placed in the Land Trust; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Greene Tract Work Group does hereby recommend to the three governing boards that the Managers investigate options for reimbursement of the Solid Waste/Landfill Enterprise Fund for the portions of the site designated for affordable housing and open space; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Greene T ct Work Group does hereby recommend to the three governing boards that the triggering mechanism for reimbursement to the Solid Waste/Landfill Enterprise Fund should be formal action taken by all three boards to approve conservation easements protecting the designated open space, with such approvals taking effect no sooner than July 1, 2003, and no later than July 1, 2005. This, the 26m day of June, 2002. Moses Carey, Jr. Chair Greene Tract Work Group 15 Page 1 of 1 i 1 1 Greene Tract Concept Plan Approved by the Greene Tract Workgroup, 6/26/02 F r ly ..---7 *---,-, I el )7111111111.4.) \ AI ,, , ',.. I .,---- Landfill 1 - \ '''',„ **--\\ \ - \la, (2 (Inactive) NE ill ..---- fl'iNoli ''‘ii■h_ II \ FA i 1,0,:.‘ Qom:L , I _ ....<—„N. Apies9. **10111■11 illilmir -/-1" IWRI 1 IL limimeasenoloolikii.37,441 Im.„„ip,...„... ......r...... 0,0000,:,, So, lailt - Nal 15 II IVIII i rallgra aril". Ale dmi ore III Landfill MI AIL - of 01/4. A 4 4 I (Active) --N\ N li„ INIIIM ea 1 Wekrittlit 14.11111 V '' c lell %fib- \ ' ' / \ \ r I , ,,,,„, , 6 / )/ DIPPILN a • ,_7„.1 1"111111kNeviiie7j,„1"t„7",::,,,t,r4:7(:///,/2/?//' /fi'l"4, , I d , i p, i0 1 , e),,„ ,,,(2,., , , v/it -,_f Tract (//:(2 .,nu, ,ii I I iio /7 r),07 Y'71A/ A \ .41F silt ilk ' A)(///li ill ''''(/ "sob 0 • ' ."' , " ' . '111111111111111111,1111'11,111,111,111,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,111,11,11,111,11,11,11,11,111,11,11,111,111,111,111,111,111,11,11,11,111,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,111,11,111,11,11,11,111,11,11,11,11,11,11,1?,„„„„„„1,1,11111,1111111'11,11,1111'111,100010001011!;[11:"1/111i1111////i''111/P,,, ,,,/ '', .1,.„1:111r41:11:1:17:14:11;11:21:1114-1/1***64: m ., i. in _ ninninn11111111111111,1111111114404 It si ri, I lommil II -4:, 21 -,2111 „Ivo.. pooloo,,,,,,,1 ins, ,ra miim I dmilepoomoo:7„01001 v ; 1 7 iiiiithsvint 1 1,iv, N ,- —,-,77-717:'T:7'.11' *''''77”: 01111111111111111111111111111111111M111111111101111111 , 4001611 wat,N,14 it 61111116 '1 eYlill ....*. 1 Tr 1.10MpearSit(ead i 'II till TO IS I 1 ' air Its• ort ttr toliktitiviararf,. ft, , h 810, !lb! Ai' lit tet i —i- or , . 11 r II 4.– ....d10.°11iriltrYt \lifilibitft , -Jr"4.` 1' 1'4 , 4011 410 '1 f ) , I. la rill 1 r 41111pillawm-rdir qr9r r irt rig'''. wet '' .....,-- :a„,,4 4416 .1111111 4 „war b . I ifirbriling0711411;414*-'4 ill ' * -1MI - I/ a ----"mowinimi \ i r I Mil IN hP /4:47'1)6141 Altik1/21,11 / le 4 I ,,. ..,No."PaM l a al E r Ur p e ) oirStleirs Sewer Line Si r di4VA Revved 1 /404441eler Une ()range County AjOonbcr Lines Environment&R es 'Y..1 n.......+. file://C:\I)ocuments%20and%20Settings\Adrninistrator\Local%20SettingsYromp\conceptplan0625... 12/6/2002 f co _ A , I pow Ail iim I! 4. 7.7. .,.., ,,, , iii 1 , 11111 -ill / .;.,.i /xi ..,a ik 10 W 2> Oil' 1 , 1 Z 4110, , . i O R ---1 :69 v : c„„ ........„,...,_ ,„,„..„,, , ..,, , ....„.......„ 4 , i i —.. 1 r ',t._:_p t 4,,~,d.__Mern rid ,_,— j. —/g 11 i, t __ j to .... i CV '• I 1 ( . ) vt I' G VIII , }(dJ I III„II �� 7 III 1 �" �,� I � 1 ��� ._.. � �f 1.. : ilk ! HI!,.,111,))I El q' - 10. log i , jl� ♦ , ' �► imp � ° t• pi er:- P4, 4 -* i-s.- ill ' , ' 0 - .-F,..,J 1 __ 1,g, `� ``� I 1 I 5 I' ? 41i1i • I ro_ M 11-1"-- 1 = t, 'CC „ ' ,�,1110k i m 44 i g ' ii* 4 ry ..4. 4.4, g & 8 cn Ork. - ,,,A. Ibil .... V 3 - 1 2 A. ZS O I --- - I;ik�.+ ” : u�i a$oc 1 ta ',J,IkTAA ,, ,. \'., __,,,,v „pip _ , II,i-3, ,, 111, lif f,a) co ar,;,, a� 1♦ MAIL tll, a 1'IIM,---- - �. -.. �.:_-,_eta, co Attachment 3b 17 ''"'""""":-- ... 11111114: rw--,„Alis k . il, iiiiii, •,_____ a . . Al I III � . ,..:'''4,'',,,,,,'..,-,. .. * �lr1 , 17 � e; - . ?it ' Al#-,✓..,i Mw--- a i x] + n� f y/ ;;t• .e, ..., ....,,, , .*:. .,, ,„,.!111 : . ..,, y. rA ..,.. .,.,: ,.,., . . . Rogers Road Ma • •in • our C WE f 1 18 Table of contents Executive Summary 2 Primary Partners and Collaborators 3 Background and Process 5 Summary Recommendations 7 Retains families who have lived here for decades/generations 7 Connects us with each other and the larger community 7 Preserves socioeconomic & cultural diversity for the future 7 Respects the physical/natural character of the neighborhood 7 Detailed Recommendations 8 Retain families who have lived here for decades/generations 10 Connect us with each other and the larger community 13 Preserve socioeconomic and cultural diversity for the future 18 Respect the history and physical/natural character of the neighborhood 22 Tools for Action 25 A. Zoning 25 B. Land Use 26 C. Design Feel 28 Principles for Future Action 33 A. Follow the stipulated priorities for future development 33 B. Ensure Accountability 33 C. Maintain Open and consistent communication 33 D. Support Community-First Planning 33 Appendices Appendix A. List of Unity Board Members/Participants Appendix B. Glossary of Terms iii Appendix C: Timeline v 1 19 In July, 2015, Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill & Carrboro requested that the Jackson Center and RENA (Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association) partner to facilitate a proactive community planning effort in the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood as sewer design and implementation makes progress. Partners proceeded to collaborate following the "Community-First" organizing model, which involves community members as principal actors in assessing and determining the course of future planning. Extensive collaboration and consultation led to four goals for future development: retain long-term residents, connect us with each other and the larger community, preserve diversity for the future, and respect the natural environment. These in turn yielded a refined sense of charge and detailed recommendations. The collaborating partners are confident that the plans reflect a uniquely inclusive and informed process. This document was created to be a guiding and a working reference for invested community members and government partners in dialogue about next steps and specific plans. Key to its success is the following set of principles, elaborated at the end of the document: 3 Follow the four stipulated priorities for future development ") Ensure accountability for collaborative action -) M a i nta i n open and consistent communication ") Support community-first planning /1111'I�111111111::::::::::::::::::::* II ll�Clr�-/��?11�� ll ill 11.1 II 1 1111 1„„„„11,111111,0111111111. ,,,„,,ik,111111111„ 111,1 1111„ ,1,,,,, ILLIL 1 /1 1 :1 1,1100000010000100111111 %e, �,m,.,,..u.,va , 'o $ Iv 2 20 In 2007, the socially cohesive and culturally rich Rogers-Eubanks community founded the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) to formalize a long-term ad hoc community alliance and movement. As a community organizing group, RENA needed a place to gather to provide a location for sharing of community resources and development programs. RENA organized social justice, service, and faith-based organizations in Orange County to form the Coalition to End Environmental Racism (CEER). This group works to create community-driven events, which bring residents of the impacted communities together for the education of the wider community (citizens and local government officials) about critical issues of environmental health and justice. RENA also seeks and strongly values partnerships with local universities, and has been engaged in four projects with partners at the Gillings School of Global Public Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC). RENA has successfully organized the neighborhood in victories to close the landfill, secure a community center, provide services for all neighborhood children, and secure water and sewer for the Historic Rogers Road community, among many other successes and victories. Robert Campbell, David Caldwell, Larry Caldwell, Rose Caldwell, and Jasmine McClain are the lead RENA members on this planning effort. The Jackson Center is a public history and community development center located at the gateway to the historic Northside of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The mission of the Jackson Center is to honor, renew, and build community in the Northside and Pine Knolls neighborhoods of Chapel Hill/Carrboro. We want to make sure that the histories we hear, and the values and visions on which they are built, make a difference in communities now and for generations to come. Our work is rooted in oral history listening and realized along three primary lines of creative community development: organizing and advocacy for livable neighborhoods, youth and education, and celebration and connection. In 2011, the Jackson Center organized a coalition of dozens of organizations and hundreds of residents in an effort that led to the passage of a historic moratorium on development and community plan for Northside. This plan dramatically changed zoning and increased support for neighborhood efforts. Between 2012-2015, the Jackson Center played a critical role in planning efforts that led to UNC's $3 million land bank loan to Self Help Credit Union, which is helping to create dozens of affordable housing units and facilitating neighbors' control over land decisions. The Jackson Center has partnered with RENA, Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro on community engagement and planning efforts from 2014-2016. Hudson Vaughan and George Barrett are the lead Jackson Center staff on this project. Stephanie Barnes- Simms, a community planner and Executive Vice President of Self Help, serves as technical assistance to the Jackson Center on this project. 3 21 P`°"I < ta Tim Stallmann is a freelance cartographer based in Durham, NC. His work focuses on using maps as tools to build community power around racial, economic and environmental justice. Tim has worked with the Jackson Center since its founding, and has also participated in the 2014 community survey project that produced Historic and Vibrant Rogers Road. His maps and his collaborations with the Counter- Cartographies Collective, of which he is a founding member, have been widely published and exhibited. Tim holds a Masters degrees in Mathematics and Geography from Duke University & UNC-CH, respectively. In addition to consulting, he also teaches map-making at the Center for Documentary Studies at Duke University. For more of his work, see www.tim-maps.com. The Community Unity Board is a group of neighborhood leaders from all across the Rogers Road neighborhood. The Board was originally formed in 2013-2014 to bring together residents of all of the sub-neighborhoods of Rogers-Eubanks in ongoing dialogue and partnership. RENA & the Jackson Center re-initiated this board for this specific planning effort, inviting residents from various sub-neighborhoods to take a stake in Rogers Road's future and to be in ongoing dialogue with their neighbors. This group of nearly 20 residents, most of whom have been actively engaged in ongoing community efforts in Rogers Road, took part in 9 intensive meetings over the course of the last seven months and several additional consulting sessions and interviews. 4 22 B . Ilckg o a noo 00noo ° For the last 9 months, a core of neighborhood residents and other key stakeholders have gathered for intensive dialogue about our hopes and fears for our community, the strengths and struggles of our history, and the diverse visions we have for the future of the Historic Rogers Road Community. We initially planned to participate in four intensive meetings over four months. In order to reach a variety of stakeholders and ensure sufficient discussion depth, we adapted this strategy to nine sessions focused on creating, reviewing, and strategizing together. '///11J Many of the primary stakeholders have participated in planning efforts for decades. %�sc , 1� Throughout the process in Rogers Road, we faced a ���,,, ,�� great challenge together: the collective feeling ,, and reality among constituents - that planning ✓' r^�`i Y g p /Oil 01(1 0 � � �t��� �i;, � efforts in Rogers Road have consistently fallen 111 short on implementation. We discussed questions like: What is the point of this effort? Will the three � �r 11111111 ��' � t ° j governments respect our visions and actually help „�o '�, fir, 1X __mm___ sm " us achieve them? Will sewer really happen or is this process a trick to focus us on development Neighbors in a discussion about land control and conservation. instead? Will this just become another plan shelved for people to reference in their articles about the struggles of Rogers Road? While some of these questions remain, our dialogue about these questions led us to clarify our common understanding and our group's charge for moving forward. Our focus and group charge for the effort was to work together to create: • A collective answer to the question of what would we like to see from any future development in the form of a crisp list of easy to explain priorities that we can remember. • A map of our vision for future development/improvements. We are working on being able to describe both what we want and where we would like to see it happen • A specific action plan that describes how we achieve our aspirations, including specific action steps,with "gives and gets,"or realistic trade-offs,for neighbors, local governments, and developers We used the model of Community-First Planning that that the Jackson Center developed for use in the ongoing Northside Neighborhood Initiative. This model is built on an intensive set of communication and organizing tools that bring neighbors and other stakeholders into active and realistic planning discussions focused on change that enhances community and regional goals. Unlike external, top-down, or selective representative processes, Community-First Planning features broad-based participation developed on the ground in direct communication with residents and stakeholders, "reverse-consultancy" leadership (funding for on-site existing community leaders as primary consultants), and a direction-setting group that remains accountable to community interests. Accordingly, RENA and the Jackson Center worked for 5 23 several months to identify major stakeholders, sub-neighborhood representatives, and neighbors who could bring an array of visions and opinions into dialogue with one another. We ultimately invited 19 people to participate in ongoing meetings together and asked them to take the ongoing questions back into their sub-neighborhoods to more intensively reach stakeholders who may not attend. We then conducted over a dozen additional interviews to incorporate perspectives of residents who were not able to be part of the stakeholder team. Because of Rogers s Road's long history of neighborhood leadership and �/, / �j �� ;��� action, our process engages the strengths and struggles of �� t,rl history first and continually. Creative communication 1 strategies area central part of our work: we find ways to ( „m„„„ql�„„y„,p �i� ro� reach people the ways they best receive contact. We �� 11111,11,111101111:„1111111111,f develop clear "gives and gets” strategy framework. We � 111111-111111111111111111,1:1,4111111111111 1„, ' u q111.11110111,11111 plc believe that discussing the benefits and challenges openly � ��'1110,11111.1.„1111011111111111111111111""111Y191 sff^4 is the best way for communities to mobilize for movement Vii'%� l'111119111111.1.1111,„1,44 forward, and we believe in building this infrastructure in a ,//, /// tJ f � way that it can be utilized well beyond our active role. Neighbors workshopping summary recommendations This is not the first effort at a plan for the Rogers Road at an early meeting. neighborhood. As mentioned above, the neighborhood has long experienced marginalization from the political and planning process. Conventional decision- making has been for and about neighbors rather than with and by neighbors. We entered into this process well aware of the history of racial exclusion, and always with the nagging fear that the results of our efforts would be more of the same exclusion. In spite of that fear, we were willing to complete this Community-First planning effort because of the following: • The assurance that sewer infrastructure would continue to move forward for Historic Rogers Road residents, and that a community effort was an important step in preparation for development speculation that might result with this new infrastructure • The understanding that this effort would help guide future conversations about land use planning and development approvals, especially in the Greene Tract and on the Chapel Hill side of the neighborhood, given the recent change to an ETJ and concerns about future zoning decisions in Chapel Hill without prior input • The desire to "get ahead” of the rising development pressure, given the growing concern in the neighborhood about what is happening all around the fringes of Rogers Road, especially the significant rise of new subdivision and townhouse developments on Homestead and Eubanks Rd • The hope that we could create a guiding document together that would be immediately useful for us as residents and community partners Part of how we approach planning is to engage differences and to value a diversity of community opinions, not to try to get rid of it or find absolute consensus. The materials and recommendations in this document do not "represent” all of Rogers Road. This process has engaged a wonderfully diverse set of neighbors in ongoing dialogue and sought to create a document that elaborates on shared visions; it includes differences and nuances that have enriched the discussions. 6 24 � � 8T| 8T| � ��� � �� ��� 8T| 8T| �� � � �� ~ �� � � ~~ ~� . . . . . � . ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ . . . . ~~ . . ~ ions . . ~. These summary recommendations were created through a review of historical documents and processes and several Community Unity Board meetings. Once the Unity Board established a draft, this list of priorities was shared widely for feedback and revision: with their sub-neighborhoods, on the community listserv, through the community newspaper, and in individual interviews. The following is the result: "We want development that we are a part of, not the victim of. " -David Caldwell We want development that- �C": 1;a I gi S fa "Il I | I C": S g,I a 0 a a II C": | I II C": d a�r c': fo r d c': c a d C": S/g C": gi C": r a 1; I 0 gi S • Supports owners in maintaining their homes and mitigating rising cost of living • Creates economic opportunity for people living here • Provides opportunities and services for elders to age in place/in the el neighborhood C0 rf rf C': CtS US �,1 I 1; a C": a C a 0 1; a�� a gi d 1; a C": Jar g c': r c o ''t ''t u n I 1;y • Improves bus service & roads, pathways, and sidewalks to connect us to key places and to one another ° Ensures new development opens to and connects with the existing community, avoiding internal fragmentation —�~— • Promotes intercultural connection and multi-culturalism P r C": S C": 'I C": S SOCIO C": C 0 rl 0 ''l IC & Cil |tilra | � I V C': r"S I I,I yfor" 1,: c: fill,: ur"c: • Prioritizes the creation of diverse affordable home options • Expands the community center and provides additional services for neighborhood children • Ensures access to essential social and retail services —,". - • Provides space for smaller local businesses to start-up and serve the local community ��S p C": CtS t C": p ysica |/gi a 1; ura | C araC 1;C": r of1; o c': n c': ig or ood • Balances land conservation with density to reduce suburban sprawl • Minimizes disruption to the natural landscape & opens environment to people's use and enjoyment • Promotes design that fits into the character and fabric of the existing tf - community • Honors history and contributions of neighborhood in tangible ways 7 25 This section, organized into four guiding principles, provides specific suggestions and recommendations on ways that the Towns & County, neighborhood residents, and any future developers can realize the goals identified by Rogers Road residents. f, it, f, Bgitill ri tom.11 0 f11111111111111111111111111111114014p1MIN11111111111 III§ rooloore00000111 t, 400001000 1011 10000000 00 00001 0 10000000 100000000000 10 000000000100010000 0000 10000000000000000000 0 000000 00000000010000 00000 000011 NI 0000000 10000000 100000000000000 10000000 0000 001 0 00000000 01 1 oliiiiiii lull 101 / G i ,1%, of/i:::;:""IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII;;;;;;,I,I,I,I;ii;;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::0000::::::::::::::::::::::::::: e rioreoseorve000006 10001 et 10001 elloollorlooloi t Lim, 110110001 000 000 olio 00.000000 001111111111 11111111 00 I 0000 0 to00000 01 00 11111111 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 , 4 1 1 /11111moiiii=! Ilrilill;;;;"111111111111111111111111"11711111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111112111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111""gliell1111.111111,..,1111111111111111111111112111311EVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIE"Iiiiiiiiiii1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1/%fff/,/ If I ! ! NI MI 00000 Opi 8 26 Preserve socioeconomic and cultural / diversity for the Future ( / Respects the physical/natural character (7,_ 1 of the neighborhood ggg;ggg'g)ggg2/g///'g,gg ,ggggg g g/ggggg' 110114411 , r ,„,,„„ i , / ,///7/ 7 G7ddoodiaittittlillifil,pill„, It A a votitvA'''( Retains Families who have lived here ,o, For generations gg ,gg', ',ggY z givollillighliIIIMIIII lAt , , , -es 1/ ///gA''r'"'-'7 AliiilibliOrvi 4, , / ,/ , - / E ( a r t, ,//// /;, i ,z,,,, ,,,, ,,,,,r7f / „,,,,,,,1111111,11111111111010111,r/ ,,,,, 3 :„ / ///./, 1,,,„ 1 ,,,,/ ,r/ '' - - / ,,,„ . ./ Legend :t/z„„,/094111:1,„,,,,L1411,01h0,,, ;,,,,, / 4 110000iI1111111,11Vidd f g ,,,,k,,,,,,wri , A New Neighborhood Gat owdy Markets o llp A 1))?1,11/114111,11I'l 1,gitoctitralcii .,---- Newt(W Connor tor Road r g g 7.•, 4/1)(1011)iiti,,i,,) .. g,, , 111V1' '',,,,,,, g - Greenwdy Path (existing and proposed). , , Cultural Preservatiott Sites ti, it Ifililk Connect us with each other and , , g 1011(41j; , laj)jj Significant Natural Areas the larger community do( 41'(ilit AO i Conservation Priority K cci'li• , / ( KOMOIsa as A Picfentodl areas kin development 'itAi Af 40* TA Approxinlate Plins n ing Area Sr ctirortit WAY''''' if .74, 9 27 rrr,�r�,�rktyn Retain families who have lived here for decades/generations Support Develop and fund home repair programs, especially to improve in-home homeowners in accessibility for long-time residents. In the 2014 survey of the Historic 86 parcels, maintaining their over 65% of households in the Historic Rogers Road area reported a need for some home homes and repair support, including but not limited to: essential repairs of leaking roofs, broken HVAC mitigating rising systems, $500 utility bills due to a lack of weatherization, and increasingly inaccessible cost of living houses for those who are aging and disabled. Given the scope of need, Rogers Road would be a great focus area for a targeted home repair effort by an organization like Habitat or Rebuilding Together, with support from the County and/or Towns. This effort should be proactive and utilize RENA's existing database of home repair needs. The County and Towns should create a unified fund for home repairs in Rogers Road so that neighbors' ability to get repairs is not dependent on where the house is located within the neighborhood. Currently, Rogers Road is split between Carrboro and Chapel Hill's [Ti, leaving the community in the middle of CDBG and other funding efforts. The County could take the lead to host a unified fund to address the challenge of the multiple jurisdictions. Strengthen community organizing infrastructure by supporting the Rogers Road Community Center, especially to increase volunteer networks and provide sustainable presence in neighborhood. The Rogers Road Community Center has been a hub of action, but it needs regular operating support to continue to thrive. Create property tax mitigation program for long-term neighbors to offset rising taxes as result of development. Durham is currently working on a proposal to offset the rise in taxes for elderly, low-income residents over a period of time due to rising property values. Given the potential of development speculation, a similar program should be implemented to limit the drastic increase in taxes that could result from development pressure, both for elderly low-income residents and their heirs. The County could also lead a proactive effort to ensure residents who qualify for the Homestead Exemption have this important tax exemption. Support efforts to prevent land loss. Across the country, historically African American communities are losing land at a rapidly accelerating pace through investor speculation, heirs' property complications, and policies of exclusion. We are already beginning to partner with the Black Family Land Trust, Conservation Trust, and Center for Civil Rights to assist us, protecting land rights and use for future generations. 10 28 Create economic Utilize existing skills and leadership of residents. We, residents of Rogers Road, opportunity for have a vast array of skills and experience: in engineering, business and non-profit people living here management, construction, nursing, elder care, and more. Any jobs created through building and development should utilize existing skills and leadership of residents. Provide opportunity for community business ownership and management in new business spaces, especially any on publicly-owned land. Not all of us are interested in area retail, but all support the idea that, if there were to be any small, mixed use spaces, these spaces should be designed and structured in a way that provide true accessibility for community ownership and management. Consider updating zoning and signage restrictions to give more flexibility to community-owned businesses. Current zoning allows for some home-based businesses but restricts signage. Zoning and signage regulations should reflect the benefit that small, community-owned commercial spaces can bring to the neighborhood. Provide Pursue a proactive effort for public-private partnership with model senior opportunities and living, especially with Piedmont Health. Senior housing, independent but services for elders supportive, is a huge priority. The partner would need to be a provider/developer to age in place/in committed to serving neighborhood residents and affordable spaces, not simply high-end the neighborhood senior needs. Ensure zoning allows for elder development or services that increase livability and accessibility of these long-term neighbors. This is the one form of housing that residents, even those that were wary of any increase in density, were interested in finding a way to support. Support location of a community-health facility in the community. St. Paul's Village already has a proposed community-health center planned in partnership with Piedmont. Increased support from the governments to make this possible in the near future would be beneficial to all parties. 11 29 "NrIfir„. „,,,„,,,„,,,„,„,„„vrrnc,,,,,,,,,01,1,01pc,, ,1(‘( ,,,„p,qo , ,g,,,,,,,,v .u,, 4,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,l,l 1' 7 lI� t,1 1 1 fI 14p i'll/ liiii Y '' i p/k 0l 1 II (j/g�pl 11�(��)ryl�/1 P ,, r wl.,, . fi �'Yl��l0 I 1�'�I� YI!'kWYll UY "C ,011$),01,i Nd II,1,04( roy"Vrileolpir:..r. *IIJ ill!j11,11„111( 1,j),11111,111,1411410}'Jii'lllii,,,, ** "'"""P/111014 '111,11/4(ell'ii!. lioli,',1111'vil lij):;!Itri:,), ,/,21,1:r!1!)., t er f, �' r ti 11;W(;{'U' 1 1- , * '�"C" �, * r a 'PI j' ,'d illi iirglY/im " v,, 4„It”-'' , rl , rm,e n � v f,, 11,141.11rgriry, lii,?q {S Q ), l 0 1 it ,,C 4h , �1001, >. . '1"11FiloiliP'Pci 't,ofjotiltroi00,111 1 ,0,,,,,‘„„,,, ,, ori,„,„,, p,, ',!' zq 1,, ,t '72(' nilii,i1J,741;1101 1,11P11011)M01100ki!4,,,4,,,, yligoi ,(Ili,' iltilik14):111!::fl4ifiregittlittlirkii isiailigkO'Ittiliitrail,411,, y,100,f'ri'J',Y71 ' 1 IgliLiyi' IN YIllytiAdlitiggaNidgeedd4944N1694'9,Y,ye,y, 9 , Legend ' Long-term residents(>30 years) Development Do's Development Don'ts Senior housing: single story, primarily independent Development that will significantly raise area taxes units (see design feel document); additional safety and without creating a tax mitigation plan in advance accessibility needed if more than one story Development of new affordable units without Community-commercial spaces near senior housing significant investment in the repair of existing homes Housing for veterans and homes accessible to people with disabilities Co-housing model for shared services among community Community-health clinic Requirement of community benefits agreement for new development that includes tangible ways the new development will support neighborhood retention strategies 12 30 vt Connect' us with each other and the larger community Improve bus service & Build a new road into the Greene tract from the East, preferably one roads, pathways, and that utilizes existing pathways or clearings. New development on the tract sidewalks to connect — even just for recreational use — will increase traffic into the neighborhood, us to key places and largely from the MLK Boulevard corridor. Purefoy Drive is not suited to handling to one another through-traffic into the Greene tract at this level, nor should it be. Expanding this road without connection to the other side would endanger the neighborhood patterns, safety, and feel. The best design for a new road would connect Purefoy Drive on the West with Weaver Dairy Extension on the East, a route that passes through Town and County-owned land exclusively (except for the railroad crossing). An alternate route would be a North-South connector from Eubanks into the Greene tract. Improve bus service to the neighborhood that connects with Timberlyne and employment centers. Chapel Hill Transit is already taking some steps in this direction, following on the heels of organizing by RENA and Justice United. The routes could still be improved to connect to essential retail services and employment centers. Add bus shelters at the bus stops along Rogers Road. Currently, young children and elderly neighbors stand by the curb signs without any shelter from the rain or a bench to rest upon. Adding attractive bus shelters would improve safety, increase ridership, and improve aesthetics of Rogers Road. This should be an immediate action in the near future. Create greenway and walking path improvements throughout the neighborhood. Residents recommended using existing utility easements as walking paths. These would ideally be unpaved and minimally improved to retain the rural feel of the neighborhood, but officially designating these as paths and adding signage would increase recreational opportunities for residents as well as aiding privacy since folks who are walking through the neighborhood would use walking paths rather than cutting through residential lots. Ideally, greenway improvements would allow pedestrian access — on walking paths or sidewalks the 'Connectivity: Connection is often limited to physical infrastructure. A new subdivision is sometimes considered "connected" if it ties into the main road and has access to Weaver Dairy,for example. The term here means more integration of spaces: connection that is physical,social,and cultural. Connectivity prioritizes historic Rogers Road residents and requires integration of new development into the existing fabric of the community. 13 31 whole way — from the neighborhood to Timberlyne and the MLK Boulevard area. Easements and existing pathways on Greene Tract should be made into walking trails or greenways that provide a walking loop through natural areas accessible to neighbors. Improve sidewalks. Complete sidewalks on both sides of Rogers Road — this would improve walking access to bus stops and the community center and help keep children out of the road. Additional sidewalks should be networked with greenways to provide full range of connections through the neighborhood. Increase traffic enforcement in the neighborhood. The blinking speed sign works well on Rogers Road but there is still a need for more police presence and speed reduction mechanisms on Rogers and Purefoy. Consider adding traffic lights at the intersections of Rogers Road and Merin Road with Homestead Road. These intersections are difficult left- turns that are part of the daily commute of residents. Traffic lights or other measures to improve traffic flow would help safety and convenience. The Merin Road and Homestead intersection, unfortunately, presents some difficulties because of the railroad tracks immediately adjacent; we recognize that a traffic light may not be feasible there. Ensure new Require that new development have clear physical integration with development opens to existing neighborhood, increasing connection instead of segmenting it. The and connects with the physical integration of Phoenix Place was a good example of this. The new Burch existing community, Kove development is a development that does NOT promote this kind of avoiding internal integration. fragmentation Ensure that any new development does not build walls/barriers; limit culs-de-sac where connection is possible. Rogers Road is a diverse and inclusive community, and we believe structures have the power to connect or divide us. Several years ago, there was a proposal to redevelop one of the large heirs property into a subdivision with a wall surrounding it and a set of culs-de-sac for the center of the development. This kind of exclusion should not be possible in future development. Development should show clear integration with the existing fabric of the community and indicate ways it will enhance social connectivity. In our meetings, we discussed the problems of the social integration of Winmore and how residents of the affordable housing development within it are limited in their use of common facilities and do not feel connected or 14 32 welcome in the high-end space. Any new development in Rogers Road should be fully integrated and not create exclusive benefits for its own residents but instead contribute to community improvements and accessible recreation spaces. Promote intercultural Increase space for community gatherings and support intercultural connection and mu/ti- festivals and community events. We have always been a community of cu/tura/ism celebration. As our community has grown, we have continued to find ways to extend our festivals and community events to all who reside in Rogers Road and have a stake in its future. Add multi-lingual sign welcoming people to the neighborhood in the many languages of our community. Our community is one of the most ethnically diverse in the whole County. Signage should reflect and support this diversity in the major languages of our community. This should be an immediate action item, integrated with the building of neighborhood gateways. Provide opportunities for multicultural businesses in any community-commercial spaces. This would take proactive engagement with the diverse groups of people who call Rogers Road home and would help make any such businesses successful. Provide educational opportunities about the community's history. RENA has partnered with UNC to document our oral histories. These efforts can be expanded, sustained, and given space to be brought into dialogue with the broader community. 15 33 6 6�'ecr'eat pnaneaf pat:Ere.„fo Pdaa wpun�q eh:Stivrey t ea�aewarwts aarta rwforwvad prratka Nap-paved e° s� 4a°. ,«tart a or radwiovaratky rraave€d.No(acdlut:rncp,to press^.rve rural feed. I, ¢rfl,�ratq, n wwww mxm, t4 Ft, a r A New cuwrnecter road -crrtrcla fact at fear at49 CO vwapde e sfedeweadkn.cactty both / , new Ceve(erpwvr'av,t erw(C eevvr'Nevrt(e P ast is cadet;of Roger,er, Road. Provides rarces to vxeagCbarCoo d from the tf �? twat.a(revrates traffic pre sare�Crn Roger,Rd, s ee� Route ;d uaP d Foddraw exist-bag a a deuwrvac+ ' wFew'eyassi"kler,. www d rt2acwft left-tRrn Pan vavh Cow' --- tlii0 a/ 4a a p A ' 1 ra lit w u. )" 0,8 erg �y t'b i2 ' 'PU. MAGMA uiin �d1ka.A8reYda.:e.., b r Connectivity t Existing streets v Oi aduwvtsro'e,� „n 0 Bus Stops(Existing) New E:-W Connecter Road I �e Paths(existing arid proposed) trfffct4 t left-turn 'p-, �ucn cux v k, .a wx i"1/41 ,H,...°fC... ... I .� 1 In our meetings, residents associated connectivity with both positive and negative aspects. Road connectivity, done poorly, could come with the cost of increased traffic, and detract from the rural feel of Rogers Road, which is one of the assets all neighbors valued. One resident, in a mapping activity, drew a bicyclist riding down Eubanks Road and "biking right on past our neighborhood;” this illustration showcased the desire of many residents' to keep the community feel of the neighborhood rather than add numbers of new outsiders using the land for recreation. For the most part, residents framed connectivity improvements as an if-then situation: if there were new development on the Greene tract area, then new road connections would be necessary so that Rogers Road doesn't become overburdened. 16 34 Development Do's Development Don'ts "When government builds something, there must be Retail along Purefoy Dr without a road connection east. egress and access."-Mr.Stroud. Development that would require the widening of Extension of Purefoy Dr. into Greene Tract, connecting Purefoy Drive. to Weaver Dairy Extension Development without expansion of road through Extension of services. Ex. Buses Greene Tract. Fear of development if Purefoy remains the only point of access. Trails on existing pathways. GATES or WALLS! Fear of a closed community! Access to green spaces and nature, adding trails and Development should NOT make the original residents greenways feel unwelcome in their own neighborhood. 17 35 N1J�9JfJ� � Preserve socioeconomic and cultural diversity for the future Prioritize the creation of Maintain the level of socio-economic diversity of the existing quality affordable homes community within any new residential buildings. This would require a higher percentage of affordable units than currently required for affordability (upwards of 25%). It would also necessitate a significant percentage of units accessible to households below 50%AMI. Create affordable homes2 for families. These homes should be accessible to 50%AMI, primarily with 3 br/2bth, and integrated with any market homes Require median home price on a development to be accessible to the median income of the community. To maintain the socio-economic diversity, new development must provide a similar mix of housing accessible to a range of residents Provide co-housing options for working class and elderly, with shared common spaces to decrease costs. Most co-housing models are primarily aimed for middle-upper income households, but the model could be for shared common spaces and modest density in Rogers Road should be primarily in the service of the elderly and working class Consider requiring a community impact or racial equity impact study as part of the evaluation process for new development in the neighborhood. Development decisions should consider what impact the new development will have on the community as a whole. 2 Affordable Homes: There is a difference between affordable housing and affordable homes,and "homes" is used purposefully here.Affordable homes necessitate a certain quality,wholeness,and connection with the community around them. Rogers Road has been home to generations of residents(indeed,over 80%of residents have historic ties to the community). Whatever new housing is built in the neighborhood must be suited for families(3 bedroom,2 bath as the primary model,with a smaller model for elder housing)and also be integrated into the fabric of the existing community.A next generation of residents should want to live in these homes.Also,the standards for affordability used in new development should further the existing socio-economic diversity in the neighborhood (including a significant percentage of households earning below 50%AMI)—which will necessitate more careful and creative approaches than the standard 60-80%AMI metric. 18 36 Expand community center Add a wing to the community center or additional space in new and provide additional school or other development to provide space as community grows. services for neighborhood If new development is approved, it should contribute significantly to the growth of children shared community spaces, either financially or by creating spaces accessible to all. The development of a new school should also have to provide significant community space and benefits. Increase services for children that serve both neighborhood children and provide job opportunities for residents. There is a great need for affordable daycares and spaces of recreation for high school age children. We have also heard talk for years of the possibility of a neighborhood school. Any actual proposal for a school should be planned in close dialogue with us and other neighbors, in order to address concerns about impact, equity, and connection to the community. Any services should utilize the wealth of educational leadership and teaching experience in the neighborhood. Provide public park and recreation space. Currently, the only outdoor park is located within the Habitat community and is not a public space. This park should be made more accessible; additional land in the Greene Tract should also be preserved for public park use. Ensure access to essential Provide distinctive areas within walking distance that can serve social and retail services, community commercial. Many of us would love to be able to walk to get with a priority on essentials. Our maps show a few distinctive spaces accessible to the community in community-commercia/t which this kind of commercial may be appropriate if economically viable. Partner with agencies that have a track record in managing and operating community-based commercial. Who owns and manages any commercial will be critical to its success. If any retail is included on the Greene Tract, then the governments should be careful in partnering with trusted partners and maintaining some control over these spaces, consistent with community development principles. 3 Community Commercial: While there are a range of opinions about the presence of retail and commercial generally in the neighborhood,there was strong support for the existence of modest,community commercial spaces that allow for small,local businesses to serve the community. Examples given have included hair salons and barbershops,small ethnic restaurants, hardware store outposts,community health clinics,small outdoor markets,and kiosk-size spaces for short-term use(such as flower shops)to support entrepreneurship.We use the phrasing"community commercial" here to highlight that the goal is to serve the neighborhood, provide employment opportunities,and ensure that affordable commercial space is available long in the future. Meeting those goals will likely necessitate a different model from traditional commercial retail,either involving a nonprofit developer,subsidies,or both. 19 37 Create an economic development strategy that encourages the recruitment of businesses that will provide access to essentials. We discussed the desire for beauty salons and barbershops, ethnic restaurants, convenient stores, and small hardware stores. A strategy should promote and enable the right kind of community-connected economic development for the location, traffic flow, and population. Provide connections to job training and living wage jobs. Our young people have endless potential. New development, especially on the Greene Tract, should provide a diverse set of job trainings and living wage jobs that will help strengthen our community Provide space for smaller Create smaller and more affordable business spaces, to keep costs local businesses to start-up lower and provide diverse opportunities. One example of this would be and serve the to allow for market-style kiosks for people to rent for shorter-term leases. Another neighborhood example would be to create 4-6 small retail shops together on the right corridors. Smaller individualized business spaces allow for a more affordable entry needed for many local businesses to succeed. Provide special zoning for small community-based businesses and a wider range of home-based businesses. Current zoning does not allow for small, community-based businesses and limits home-based businesses significantly. We have marked locations in which this might be viable on the included maps. Ease signage regulations for churches and community-based businesses to have visible signage. The signage restrictions in Chapel Hill and Carrboro make it difficult for home-based businesses and churches to have decent signage. 20 38 Residents by . e oinconie Historic Is wwa p 0-040 00.0.0 00 00 tre Household descant,as a percent of arca II hAtan incorno Development Do's Development Don'ts Community commercial. Limit to 3-4 shops. Development catered to one demographic Ex. Barbershops, Beauty supplies,family owned business. Large-scale commercial. Big businesses (Supercenters) Affordable Homes: Workforce, teachers, early career, and a consistent fear. Ex. Timberlyne borders on being too seniors.Affordability defined as who can access housing. large for this community; Walmart/Target are way too large. Daycares, parks, and community center expansion: spaces for neighborhood children Development that provides destination retail or attracts large amounts of people from outside of the Diversity of housing: not one housing type. Variety in community(would add too much traffic). design. Connects to the variety of housing that exists within the neighborhood. Gathering space with only one point of access Single-family style for affordable housing 21 39 „ Respect the history and physical/natural character of the neighborhood Balance land Respect identified areas of land conservation through conservation conservation4 with easements and other appropriate protections. Currently, areas with a priority modest density to of conservation are not formally protected. Conservation easements for large parts of reduce suburban the Greene Tract and for heirs property (where owners desire them) could help sprawl achieve some of the long-term hopes of maintaining large portions of the natural surroundings. Designate specific areas for modest density, to increase diversity of opportunity. We do not want the suburban sprawl taking place on the fringes of Rogers Road. Designated areas for modest density, crafted carefully, could increase diversity of opportunity & affordability, limit land disturbance, and support the mixed community so many of us desire. Minimize disruption Maintain a wooded buffer on the eastern edge of the Sandberg Lane to natural landscape portion of the neighborhood. Residents along this gravel road have long enjoyed & opens environment the privacy that comes from their sparsely-developed neighborhood, and any new to people's use and development in the Greene Tract should not infringe on that. enjoyment Ensure that large parts (80%) of the Greene tract are permanently preserved as open, natural, space. We, and many other community members, have long used the Greene tract for recreation, education, enjoyment and even as a food supply. This vacant land is a unique opportunity for residents, working with local government and groups such as the Black Family Land Trust and the Conservation 4 Conservation: The undeveloped land in Rogers Road is not vacant:to the contrary it has a wealth of value for residents of Rogers Road and surrounding communities. For generations this land has played an important role as a site for recreation, for gathering food, and for contemplation. Conservation on the tract should acknowledge and build on this cultural value without disturbing the rural feel of the area—not creating a sectioned-off or walled-off part of the community,but keeping large portions of these lands open for enjoyment and connection to the natural world, while protecting this special environment. Promoting "development that we are a part of, not the victim of" means honoring, preserving and amplifying the cultural and natural assets held by the Rogers Road community.This community aim is detailed under the rubric of conservation. However,as the glossary discusses, conservation in this context has a much broader meaning than the strictly environmental preservation, which has often been a strong consideration in planning decisions for Chapel Hill,Carrboro and Orange County. 22 40 Trust for North Carolina to devise an innovative conservation plan which centers the value of the land to the area's Black residents. Already, residents have identified a few areas for special conservation priority, which are sketched on the map, but more field- work is needed to specifically identify their boundaries. Limit how much clearing of land is possible. Some developments have limited the clear cutting of land and ensured a large portion of existing trees remain. This would be our preference. Additionally, some development possible in the Greene Tract could be shifted north to the Neville Tract to utilize existing cleared land and allow for increased conservation of woodlands and wetlands. Honor history5 and Add gateway markers on the northern and southern ends of Rogers contributions of Road to honor the neighborhood and celebrate those intersections as neighborhood in entrances to a culturally significant, historically African-American tangible ways neighborhood. Some of Orange County's most well-known brick and rock masons are connected to the Historic Rogers Road community. These and other legacies should be honored. Identify & preserve slave graves and other historically significant sites. Marked as cultural preservation sites in previous planning efforts, these historic areas have still been overlooked. The graves of enslaved Africans are sacred sites and need to be identified and honored with markers and continued preservation. If these graves cannot be found, a memorial should be created in their honor. These efforts should include neighborhood leadership throughout the entire process: both in deciding how to identify and research these sites in a culturally sensitive way and in deciding how best to honor them. St. Paul's church is exploring some ways to do this with respect to sites on land they own. Add signage that identifies this as "Historic Rogers Road" and Integrate community-specific historical markers throughout the neighborhood. Rogers Road community has a rich history, which is rooted in place, but often not immediately visible to passersby or visitors to the neighborhood. Marking this history can be a way of preserving it for the future. 5 Honors history: Honoring history in tangible ways refers to more than just physical markers,signage,and history exhibits, although these are important. It also means that any development must show alignment with community goals and be something historic Rogers Road residents take pride in. Preserves diversity:To continue to promote and ensure the existing diversity into the future;to further the remarkable socioeconomic and cultural diversity that is already present in Rogers Road. 23 41 Development Do's Development Dont's "Preservation means leaving it the way it is, but making Businesses that interfere with surrounding it also accessible to the public." -Carl Purefoy homeowners. Fear of strangers invading property. Gradual Process. Integrated design. Development that destroys community feel. Greene Tract: High priority for preservation. Dense Removal of the historic community & existing street development - not too much. Infuse with existing names. Fear that new development will seek to wipe characteristics of natural environment. out historical names. Development on Neville Tract instead of southwest Block flow of streams and water run-off. Fear of flood area of Greene Tract. Utilize the existing clearing on the areas during intense rainstorms. Neville Tract to preserve more wetland and forest Removal of significant woods in the Greene Tract Development accompanied by buffers. Large multi-story housing developments. This takes Development consistent with historic vision and away from the family feel. (ex. Greenbridge) existing neighborhood character (including height, diversity of building materials&types) Mini-mansions Community Markers: Historical markers. Preservation Large amounts of artificial lights of slave graves.Cherry Orchard. Suburban sprawl. (Burch Kove, Homestead). Requirement of community impact study for any major development before approval 3+floors for housing Privacy: "Being able to go out in your bathrobe without being watched"- Ms. Reid 24 42 Tools foil- Action M ' 'till 1111)1111 ''''''''''''''''' RT 0,14.t: I ''')Yy # t 1, III )J(1 �il ( ,., ,l nai I A�IIIL v1,11 0111 1 il, 0.1,) 1 1 ))hi 0 iz/f 7 /i y ::::z , ,,�1 I'l f i)}1 /�� / 1I r i,; {a R)0 R S W,, �� l �llJlrq 0 Y���J11J1/Ieii RR 7rniii%,iiioiolii '?, /// 111 RT //ll 1 ��//////// %fffffffff��lllllr%,' �, Chapel Hill zoning rl//// � e/// /. I,/I f/ 1,IVIU 011 ) V / /////f ',//\;),),/ ,t, ( 2i/ MU II 1 7 �� �,, Y'��?/ R 1;VIA II ,, /, i /,/it. l,,,i 1' , 11 r/�� . e,,,,,, ,i�`, R2 1 f ,, a r p '' 7 I'do 111 ��� PI 1 ai ..° R4 R 4 f. � ���� k S( Ili 7� °� f ''=1 iPl l(IN l R-_,S-C. R20 R-4-C r )6ii m, 'I . . As the map above shows, the Rogers Road neighborhood is mostly zoned Chapel Hill R-1/R-1A or Carrboro RR, zoning classes which allow up to 3 units per acre and lot sizes as low as 17,000 square feet. This existing zoning allows development-by-right of a kind that is potentially inappropriate for the community. The upcoming Merin Road development on the neighborhood's outskirts — which conforms with the density of R-1 but has lower lot sizes— matches pretty well with what residents described as one of their worst fears for new development in the neighborhood (the others being mini-mansions and monolithic mixed-use developments like Greenbridge or Meadowmont). Residential areas should be zoned in a way which imposes more specific limits than R-1 or RR on both square footage and density, (perhaps a minimum lot size of 30,000 square feet) by default, but which increases neighborhood input throughout the development review process and allows for exceptions with the neighborhood's approval. On the Chapel Hill side, this could potentially be done through a Neighborhood Conservation District. 25 43 The Greene Tract is currently zoned in a way (RT) which would allow for development matching residents worst fears — in this case an expanded landfill (albeit with a special use permit requirement). Conservation of the Greene Tract will likely need to take place through conservation easements rather than zoning. f I'll (li (ca The Rogers Road neighborhood is already surrounded by new development (see map below), and the development pressure will only increase once OW finishes providing sewer service. Therefore, one of the main charges of our discussion was identifying place based desires for future development and land use in the neighborhood. Some of these are discussed in more detail in the Do's and Don'ts section of the report. _ (f idr % j.�r�r r r/✓r r r r%i%a r!✓//.//r„,,,,,,,,,,/,�r z//, //x r//�i✓ ,,„„4„,/J0/av/i '/e'rou✓ra++a dS�n// I -B'r} 'v a r ri>r'rr,r�i ✓Y r ,i k✓i r"'it/ / %i;'; ,✓ r ✓ a r ;„fir � r „,„,,,,,,,,,g,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,/% r// N r l Frrr a �,,,f xatrih wro r y o / ,, #a(eaautp / r r r H r^ ll nN ,z u, r ' d h1 l� /r 91(1,19,9 11/ , / r ' MRn /r/l�/� ' ';7 / � �/?+ � / 4! ' � �GP�"Ab° Ry/rf,r11",(91,111111 ”9, J o / r/°r l r R� 1.1 'rc ra�rac� a l / I or 7 r � % , / '';', 4';'$/"'-',"°,5,.;,4'/ x h dr/KI n/,\\,,,i,\/,,,,„,,,...„,-;, i / r ✓ X C 4 , i . r p'1 �/i ,/ / /c a j, g A 7)''' /Ir r -' r 1";"''",' 4.14.'"':11';',,.. T",' i %, / i/ 1 / ";' / r !r %;"1.,',' :' % / r i a a r di,v r i t h r y :!k' f , .1 r � , " ,r"S s r I ✓ / /d 1,/,; � m r r'I% /,/,'i e%✓i h i r r ” r hi,C P Y x ht✓r/f/'Pati C, r l i/ / / /e i£< 1,1' `iir ,/ 7 l 1F :. % r d / i "c / '/! l�/ ./ rm% t„ „u ✓i r :"%"''' / r j% �r,„ "444{4; /i� iN / 4 / / / / / // ��,l n l � 1� ✓ r r 9991,1( r' "1:11"1'911 l i l r/ '� � �I r /i i o �/ / r - ,r�, t✓'7/ %i � � ', Sri SKr 15,d a e a r r,',1 i✓b 1 1 fW � ( / � / / a r � //� r 2✓ , / ✓ r',,,',,-,4''Y4 �/ o / ,,l a&�,1 / r ,fi r/ � f ., ,r r % r r � i,,, 7 r /g'/ %/ i�✓ ."',',"p”q%ii � i% /r n i a y r F r U 1 r/ / d u ,��J H r r '7 � i /% ,r/ x kar ' G 'trSdkRd/ /9�jr 1 47,,,,t9,,,,94,,,,,,etfl C4lVo Mt ne/r r ( ' C "trrxttmmr�I /`n / j r �K1ro 1 m4dtR �r d Y J l N Legend , I °bG10.PCo7 f d R d 1 , �(, Current and Upcoming 7 ° r� r M / d ” r a k t r dd 4*t^�2Pfi(lyd r� a � €G o v e r n m e n t Owned I and i; 7 ✓! / i ��i l ,1rOr t f � .S� Y A' o eI dn ntlyAffrrccbI housing ✓i „ / ,r,.•l, r, 111t1q x' ; i r yyz ; . : ,,a„" It is important to highlight that discussions about future land use and development in the Rogers Road area take place in the context of intense development pressure. In many of our discussions about development, residents framed their comments in terms like "if we have to have new development, then " The unfortunate history of Rogers Road is largely a history of development decisions being made for 26 44 rather than by the neighborhood's residents, and that legacy makes it hard to have real visionary conversations about what residents want. Probably the most important land use and zoning priority for Rogers Road is not any specific use or zoning class, but strengthening neighborhood decision-making and voice in any new development. This map highlights future land use classes identified by residents for different areas of the neighborhood, described below in more detail. , / '/ / //' / t .,,,,,„,.., fr(„ / , , N04242214 2 02° MNist,Uses ' 1... ,„2, ,2,, ' , ff,'arrordethfe AomeA,Oder koone,„ e , \ w 4 ri,7"--- 4„(.„,commu 4,it y c a mom re ia( 42E l PC Community 20 2 ofitop T f#',/' , Recreation,Conservation,Food Production 2012212221 KC 2 Retail/Restaurant Single Family Residentol(lower density) 5 # ,,,, 44,„„,,,,,fr t-1 ,,, Single Family housing lmedlum density) -/222 Nevv F.:W Conner ter Road Low-density reSich2n tia/ Historically, most of the neighborhood has been low-density single-family residential — lot sizes of 1 acre and above, with most houses below 2,000 square feet. More important than specific lot size, building size and density requirements, however, is that any new residential development in the historic neighborhood preserves the "neighborhood feel."This means: • New homes which are affordable for homeowners and/or renters with incomes as low as 40 6U% ofAM| 27 45 • Individually-built homes which face the neighborhood and integrate into the existing landscape (rather than subdivisions or pocket neighborhoods) • Houses which are open to the community, not fenced off Mixed Use (Greene Tract) Some residents are opposed to any development on the Greene Tract, whereas others see it as an opportunity for new building which serves the needs of the neighborhoods. In this report, we've identified an area on the western side of the tract, neighboring the existing Phoenix Place development, as the best area for development if the tract is to be developed at all. The Phoenix Place Habitat development, with lot sizes between 7,000 and 7,500 square feet, is the most-densely developed area in the neighborhood, and residents identified that density as about the maximum appropriate density for Greene Tract development as well. Those residents who did support development supported somewhat denser mixed-use development here, incorporating neighborhood commercial, senior housing, affordable housing, and new community spaces to serve neighborhood teenagers and/or seniors. Mixed Use (Buddha, I...LC land west of Rogers Road) This was another area which was less-controversially identified as a potential site for denser mixed-use development. In contrast to the Greene Tract, where a village center feel would be more appropriate, residents preferred a shopping plaza-style development here, which could incorporate small retail establishments serving the neighborhood (examples include a convenience store, hardware store, barber shop or beauty salon) as well as offices and potentially a police or fire substation. Another option for this area would be a senior housing development. J „' S 1 12 1,,.,1 J% We used dozens of examples of each development type mentioned in the strategies above from cities and towns around the country, and Unity Board members responded to the "fit" of these examples for Rogers Road. These photographic examples were not meant as development proposals or to get a clear architectural design but to try to understand general vision and feel of what residents meant when discussing "senior housing," "mixed-use," and "modest-density affordable housing." The following few pages show highlighted examples from these discussions. Senior Housing Residents expressed the desire to prioritize senior housing throughout the discussions of any future development, particularly affordable, independent units for seniors who hope to age within the community. We showed a set of photographs of a range of senior housing developments across the country, asking which felt like it fit most into the "fabric" of Rogers Road. 28 46 A few common themes among the examples that residents thought had the best "fit": they were single story, independent units that could be attached but opened to the existing community. Several people mentioned the Town of Chapel Hill's senior housing on South Roberson or Habitat's senior housing duplexes on Rusch Road as positive examples locally of senior housing of the right scale and design. Generally considered to "fit" 1 i ; dv,11 11 Ho, 111111 1.111111111011 III, doli611 in, �� �� QI('l1 t °% �; This example was the most popular, partly because '% o � /fir '; ��G�� �i/„ %�1 � I r� :„,„ ,, residents overwhelmingly support single-story senior /// 1, housing. Residents liked the scale, individual units for �h,« art;' iors, small yards and stoops. Some thought it looked �,, �,� ,� ti° l too much like public housing, though, and thought a a true fit would be better designed Mixed responses 000 0 or lorrIrrollor11111roloolooroorroorri � ism // This photograph had a mixture of responses. Those � iru iusrrcmr� iao Ili % ° III ,- �/; who liked it mostly commented on the design and scale. holool000lloollooloolloitiool � Most who did not commented on the institutional look 111 11 11111111111111111111111100001101.1111 1 1 ; 111uu r and inward facing courtyard that did not seem to fit in '� °' %/, / with Rogers Road rural feel. Absolute "NO!" s11 ii ,// , Pictures like this one that were multi-story nursing or i � r/i ��i �i �� assisted living facilities were not considered a fit, mostly t, !; 'n, � 1110ua,1 ; %� %� because of the scale, the institutional look, and the � � 1 11 ! 1, i ! 1 �' ' feeling that it didn't fit as well with the rural feel and plull @NfllBi f81i6f9unr %�����// independent living most seniors here want to see ill It 1 promoted in the community. 29 47 Higher Density Residential with Sig niiic ant Affordable Component Affordable homes are an important component of any future development in Rogers Road. But how these are designed, integrated into and connected to the community is critical. Participants responded to photographs of a mixture of mid to higher density residential development that included all or significant percentages of affordable housing as defined by HUD. Discussion about these responses made the following clear: • Residents are interested in affordable homes, not just affordable housing, and preferred the scale of existing Habitat homes or the photograph on the top below best (1 to 1.5 stories were by far most popular) because they were "family-friendly" • Any increase in density must still fit into the fabric, and most photographs of planned developments do not fit into the natural feel of the neighborhood • Most participants did not like the "apartment" feel, and preferred either detached homes or carefully integrated single-story attached units Generally considered to "fit" The photograph of a co-housing development to the right received the most positive "feel" of the �< more than dozen photographs (just over 60%), � ,� ,1 y ', .-o � ! M 1 1.0000.001111,11,1: j�� �, � �mostly because of the scale and better integration of natural surroundings. p° 1�� �r, f , a IdidliPt Mixed responses woo 4000 00,11,1,,,,,„„, p,,,,,00,04 liorlitit7t Tri!)1"0// i i i IP' ,/ g#0,4$■9111v,,I 1 / /// /( , ,/ 7t/ii m 1 : AIrZ , ///„./, / / .1111111111,1,„,„ 11,111,,,o11:0")4f, ,/,/ // // if 4/0tivoll, '11Ji /--/-- ' 100010,1111„ 11,11101„1 ,„4",,, iff ,/, /,. . . ,,,,,,11:111111,11„1„„1,1110101101000(101011,J ,111 � ilit 10,0111rieii H 0 IP ,1%;°' r i I01 r p ii W aw . II r; �lx rrrf1111111 ll JrfrrlIfIllrl // Half of participants thought the example developments above could fit into the existing community. It seemed this was due more to the right scale of development rather than the actual design, as many commented on the desire for more unique units with more privacy. 30 48 Absolute "NO!" Pictures like the ones below and to the right received unanimous "no," again, mostly because of the scale. The examples on the top were considered too suburban and the one on the bottom was considered too urban and institutional. �n �f„ 11 1,,H M111111111111111111"111HIll 4 r 111111111111111.11,11.1111 1 q1111 PI ,,✓d '�/ Ie �fii//�lirtiw,emlii j'^n ✓r^ `* ✓i � ,g P�5 n a f� P11� �k�t I „0 r,/0000 1 100000001 i11 a �l//?�� P��� � r 010 1 10 ✓V nt,_. 1�,,,.,, , .. �,_`., , f/r..rH+ , , „ . ,. ., rmm,ynnwrY9+�+^w,mm✓'nmw+wn l , i � 1 Pl 1 f 1111 0 d I a ,. i ( 11 1111111 1 1 111,1,1 '11 1 1 11111 1100000000 1, ''44,'111111 ft 11 % 11/,/ d'V1J oj"1"1"m*''11 11011111111 11111111111111110000 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101,111111,11,11011 „ 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 V111111111111111111111,71, 11,1 1 10 / 1, o1111111g 1111111111111111 1011 1 II 111 1111b 111M 1e e � �0 10 +mg w 0,0°1/ Ill 000000010 10 i 0 10 10111 IF01;01"",,ht001th 1 1 1001 10010 0 01 „1101101 0100 00000010 11 lit 101110 100000 1111 1111111.111i,000 00000. ,,,. �... ,f �,n!ail0.,,;, ,ii✓u p z;, 31 49 Mixed Use and Retail Many participants, though not all, welcomed the idea of Community Commercial/Retail on a few specific sites if economically feasible. While participants expressed a range of opinions on whether this could work, most were interested in the possibility of small-scale retail spaces that were walkable. We explored the meaning of this with a range of photographs of commercial and mixed use. Common themes: 1) No more than 2 stories, 2) 4-6 shops max, 3) integrated into the design fabric of the community More than 50% considered a "fit" The photos below received just a bit more than half of respondents who felt like these examples could fit in, mostly because of the scale and the integration into residential community life. r ,, ei� 1 r t yam ,, ie,4. upogiir„„ mumnuu�,, 4 y ''' � ! �..�tea. I ir.--- \10;P. , ..r Pti Mixed responses Around 50% found the structures in the photos below could fit in. Comments on the left photograph suggested that the retail spaces were small enough to include a range of options but many did not like the "strip-mall" feel of the parking. The right photo was one of the only mixed-use that did not receive overwhelming "no", likely because of the smaller scale. .1 Or marl, L '' I , I' i i i,I �I ill }i i 1 "+17 r I� rrz� Absolute "NO!" Pictures like the below received unanimous dislike: too urban, too large, or too suburban. VIIII 1 t 1 .4 �p'i( /' r„'**gin s? r y ..r..i 32 50 Pri i des for 1 pr o Action Support a community owned process that the community is "a part of, not the victim of." / . // 1 '1� ',lI ' 11 �>>� '7 l UI `, 1t1 f ut i) ( (1( /( t)'Jr1( , t The priorities identified in this report should be considered the platform for development in Rogers Road. Rather than a step-by-step guide to development, this planning process established a guiding list of crisp and clear priorities for the future. One of the main concerns we heard throughout the process was "Even if we do all this work, how are we going to ensure that the powers that be (local governments and developers) will listen?". Decades of broken promises and countless, so-called community processes have left an accountability gap between the residents of Rogers Road and the Towns and County. Rebuilding trust will come through sustained efforts to increase accountability. As resident Marian Peppers puts it, "Tell the town to fix it. Just fix it." During our process, we learned about a concurrent meeting among campaigning county commissioners regarding future development of the Greene Tract. Neither RENA leaders nor residents were asked for input; their perspectives were not engaged in discussion. This is the kind of failure of coordinated communication processes that leads to breakdown. To ensure planning that is effective for all concerned, residents of Rogers Road should be involved in all related conversations out of the gate. The absence of community members builds further distrust between residents and local municipalities. Conversations involving decision-making bodies would aid in building a bridge of trust between local municipalities and Rogers Road residents, with the ultimate goal of "win-win." Any future action should reflect direct and immediate integration of perspectives of RENA leaders and residents. 1a 1)11111 1r1U_,/ , r11 H11, Community-First planning came through honest and tense dialogue with the long term and historic residents or Rogers Road. The community is dynamic, with diverse opinions that work to create complicated plans. At the end of the process, we could not say with one voice, for example, "Rogers Road wants a small scale commercial development to happen in the Greene Tract." The process did not, at this stage, produce consensus but it did engage points of view that may otherwise have been buried under external assumptions about "the" community's point of view. 33 51 Often, even community-oriented developers justify taking action without more input by saying that community members are tired of more meetings, or don't have time for process. This is simply not the case in the Rogers Road neighborhood. Given appropriate planning for availability and direct communication strategies, residents tirelessly showed up to meeting after meeting, and have been doing so for over 30 years. Needs and desires in the neighborhood are highly contextual, and change over time. This document is testament to the value of inclusive, honest, ongoing dialogue. However, it represents a starting point only for a development process that must continue to engage residents in determining the future of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood. Rogers Road has the necessary resources for effective Community-First planning. The Community Unity Board is expanding. Members have consistently brought over 20 residents to community meetings, and organized in-home conversations with the neighbors on their street. RENA has produced a monthly Baja Newsletter via the work of the RENA interns. Neighbors have been able to articulate their diverse place- based hopes for various potential spaces for development. The Town of Chapel Hill, the Town of Carrboro, and Orange County have a unique opportunity to proceed on development planning in coordination with residents that will meet municipal, county, and community goals and set a model for development that is directly responsive not only to the history but to the vision of its constituents. 34 52 35 53 �� �� Hen , � . � � ices 33( , 1,1X ,�. David Bellin* (Tallyho) Tim Peppers* (Rogers Rd) David Caldwell* (RENA, Rogers Road) Carl Purefoy, Sr.* (Purefoy Dr) Larry Caldwell* (RENA intern, Rusch Rd) Karen Reid* (Sandberg Ln) Rose Caldwell* (RENA, Rogers Road) Jimmy Rogers* (Edgar/Purefoy) Robert Campbell* (RENA, Purefoy Dr.) Nancy Rogers* (Edgar/Purefoy) Sally Council* (Billabong neighborhood) Shirley Sharpe* (Rogers Road) Rev. Lisa Fischbeck (Church of the Advocate) Jeannie Stroud* (Rogers Road) Jasmine McClain* (RENA intern, Rogers Rd) Laura Wenzel* (Tallyho neighborhood) Rev. Thomas Nixon (St. Paul's) Bishop Ila McMillan* (Faith Tabernacle) Marion Peppers* (Phoenix Place) *indicates a neighborhood resident List of Additional Participants/Interviewees/Neighborhood Consultants Larry Reid* (Sandberg) Lillie Brown* (Rogers Road) Linda Allen (Rogers Road) Beverly Ferreiro* (Billabong) Malwood Revels* (Sandberg) Georgia Revels* (Sandberg) Quiana Phillips* (Phoenix P1) Leander Stroud* (Rogers Rd) Ebi Joelin * (Billabong) Courtney Gray* (Purefoy) Burnice Hackney(St. Paul) Tracy Kulhman* (Tallyho) 54 List of Facilitators Stephane Barnes-Simms (Jackson Center) George Barrett (Jackson Center) Tim Stallmann (Jackson Center) Hudson Vaughan (Jackson Center) RENA leaders already mentioned also helped facilitate* List of Additional Panelists/Guests: Mayme Webb-Bledsoe, Duke Durham Partnership Ebonie Alexander, Black Family Landtrust Melanie Allen, NC Conservation Trust ii 55 /.';7'1( t11 Affordable Homes There is a difference between affordable housing and affordable homes, and "homes" is used purposefully here. Affordable homes necessitate a certain quality, wholeness, and connection with the community around them. Rogers Road has been home to generations of residents (indeed, over 80%of residents have historic ties to the community). Whatever new housing is built in the neighborhood must be suited for families (3 bedroom, 2 bath as the primary model,with a smaller model for elder housing) and also be integrated into the fabric of the existing community, ideally attracting and retaining subsequent generations of historic Rogers Road residents. Also, the standards for affordability used in new development should further the existing socio-economic diversity in the neighborhood (including a significant percentage of households earning below 50%AMI)—which will necessitate more careful and creative approaches than the standard 60-80%AMI metric. Community Commercial While there are a range of opinions about the presence of retail and commercial generally in the neighborhood, there was strong support for the existence of modest, community commercial spaces that allow for small, local businesses to serve the community. Examples given have included hair salons and barbershops, small ethnic restaurants, hardware store outposts & maker spaces, community health clinics, small outdoor markets, and kiosk-size spaces for short-term use (such as flower shops) to support entrepreneurship. We use the phrasing "community commercial" here to highlight that the goal is to serve the neighborhood, provide employment opportunities, and ensure that affordable commercial space is available long in the future. Meeting those goals will likely necessitate a different model from traditional commercial retail, either involving a nonprofit developer, subsidies, or both. Connectivity Connection, in the planning world, is often limited to physical infrastructure. A new subdivision is sometimes considered "connected" if it ties into the main road and has access to Weaver Dairy,for example. The term here means more integration of spaces: connection that is physical, social, and cultural. Connectivity prioritizes historic Rogers Road residents and requires integration of new development into the existing fabric of the community. Conservation The undeveloped land in Rogers Road is not vacant; to the contrary it has a wealth of value for residents of Rogers Road and surrounding communities. For generations this land has played an important role as a site for recreation,for fruit orchards, and for contemplation. Conservation on the tract should acknowledge and build on this cultural value without disturbing the rural feel of the area—not creating a sectioned-off or walled-off part of the community, but keeping large portions of these lands open for enjoyment and connection to the natural world,while protecting this special environment. iii 56 Honors history Honoring history in tangible ways refers to more than just physical markers, signage, and history exhibits, although these are important. It also means that any development must show alignment with community goals and be something historic Rogers Road residents take pride in. Preserves diversity To continue to promote and ensure the existing diversity into the future; to further the remarkable socioeconomic and cultural diversity that is already present in Rogers Road. iv 57 Timeline of Community Planning Work Pre-process interviews and review: In the first month, RENA and the August 15- Jackson Center worked together to review past plans, including the Small Area Plan & the various Task Force reports. We devised questions for the September 30 planning departments and key stakeholders and completed several small group interviews, to better understand what the gaps were in previous efforts and what common priorities and themes had been identified as starting points for community discussion. We identified leaders from the sub-neighborhoods and other major stakeholders to invite to the Unity Board, and sent out invitations. Unity Board members include neighbors from sub-neighborhoods including Historic Rogers Road, Billabong, TallyHo, Meadow Run, Phoenix Place, Rusch Rd, and Sandberg areas, and leaders from St. Paul, Church of the Advocate, and Faith Tabernacle. Unity Board Meeting 1: The group reviewed the proposed process and October 8 charge. We shared visions for the future of Rogers Road 10 years from now and began discussing priorities identified from past planning efforts and what had changed since that time. We had dialogue about the struggle of past processes to move toward implementation and began discussing sets of questions to help this effort move forward comprehensively. Unity Board Meeting 2: The group developed a draft of priorities for future October 22 development based on the themes from the shared visions and from the previous plans. Three small groups participated in a rotation activity into categories of past priorities, updating them, challenging them, and mapping vision into strategy. Unity Board Meeting 3: The group began to geographically map answers to November 7 questions set forth from the priorities for future development that began to elaborate on the "what" and "where." Unity Board Meeting 4: The group critiqued the existing work to date, November 22 finalized the priorities for any future development, and worked on mapping questions related to the priorities. V 58 Unity Board Meeting 5: We identified the major parcels of undeveloped January 16 land or large tracts with the most likelihood of future development. The group explored hopes and fears specifically for those identified parcels and how it connected with the overall visions for the neighborhood. Interviews Round 1: We developed a set of questions for individuals to Jan. 16- Feb. 11 respond particularly with their hopes and fears related to large undeveloped tracts of land and conducted interviews with participants of the Unity Board. Unity Board Meeting 6: We reviewed all work to date and focused on the February 11 points in which there were the most differences in the interviews. We created an outreach plan and an approach to begin moving toward a final strategy document. Interviews Round 2: We interviewed additional neighbors from sub- Feb. 11-March 15 neighborhoods with the questions focused on major areas of undeveloped land and the design feel document, to make sure these conversations were taking place more broadly. Community Panel Discussion: Tools & Strategies. Four organizations - Black March 15 Family Land Trust, NC Conservation Trust, The Duke-Durham Partnership, and RENA discussed models and tools historically African American communities have used to influence land use and development; what experiences from across the state might assist Rogers Road in the preservation of its diversity; and what strategies might be used to pursue the priorities laid out by community members. Over 30 neighbors attended. Unity Board Meeting 7: We met to review the final draft of the document. April 26 Residents gave feedback page by page. At the end of the meeting, residents in attendance decided unanimously to move forward with the document pending suggested changes. Unity Board Review: The final draft was distributed to all primary April 26-May 20 participants for one last round of edits. RENA and the Jackson Center incorporated suggestions and finalized the document. vi 59 Ark - 1 ow "Itlirr4 ""V` • 1, t '1111' Preserving the Future of Rogers Rd el Discussio v' 'AllatnJo . tool:. hae hLL4iea , Aii....an t,scr.or: an communities u:.ed to influence land use and development in their communities? ✓ What experiences from across the state might assist Rogers Road in the preservation of our diverse neighborhood? ✓ What strategies might we use to limit suburban sprawl happening around us? Come join this discussion in which leaders from across the state of North Carolina will share their experience and engage in a dialogue with neighbors as we work to preserve the future of Rogers Road. Panelists: Ebonie Alexander, Executive Director: Black Family Land Trust + Mayme Webb-Bledsoe, Neighborhood Coordinator: Duke-Durham Partnership + Melanie Allen, Diversity Program Director: Conservation Trust for North Carolina + Minister Robert Campbell, NAACP President& Rogers Road Community Leader March 15th at 6 pm, RENA Community Center Refreshments will be served. RENA Community Center: 101 Edgar Street,Chapel Hill, NC 27516 919-918-2822 vii 60 References Final Report. Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force, 2008. Historic and Vibrant Rogers Road. Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association and Marian Cheek Jackson Center, 2012. Rogers Road. Emily Eidenier Pearce in collaboration with Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association, 2008. viii 61 Attachment 3c TOWN OF CARRBORO 0 ��p� '„(� "jJ NORTH CAROLINA ACA � � t MEMORANDUM TOWN MANAGER'S OFFICE DELIVERED VIA: El HAND El MAIL El FAX ® EMAIL To: Carrboro Board of Aldermen Orange County Board of County Commissioners From: David L.Andrews, Carrboro Town Manager Date: October 7,2016 Subject: Southern Branch Library-Update In early 2016,the Boards authorized the County Manager and the Carrboro Town Manager to begin discussions regarding the Town owned 203 S. Greensboro parcel as a site for the stand-alone Southern Branch Library and associated parking. Discussions of other potential uses that could benefit Carrboro are also underway. The roughly one-acre site continues to be used for public parking. Town regulations allow for a multi-story structure on the property with an estimated maximum capacity of 50-60,000 square feet of development space on 2-5 levels. Since reporting last in the early spring, Carrboro has been working with consultants to study existing and projected parking conditions and demands as well as its own space needs to inform future decisions, including those related to the potential development of the 203 S. Greensboro property. These studies are ongoing but have been completed to a point to where the Managers and staff have begun discussing a development partnership. Once the space and parking studies are fully completed, the Managers intend to bring a draft Agreement to the Boards for comment and feedback. The timeline associated with this project is depicted in Attachment A. Orange County has appropriated project funds for a stand-alone library with associated parking within its FY2016-2021 Capital Investment Plan. Planning Department• Planning Division 301 West Main Street,Carrboro,NC 27510•(919)918-7327• FAX(919)918-4454•TDD 1-800-826-7653 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER rJ N O N L N no to yam] o Aaenagaj o 6T0Z Aaenuer v X aagwe as v v aagwanoN v v aagopp aagwe das a ;snsny II Alnf MM auni MI AelAl MI I!adV II yam] II Aaenagaj II 8T0Z Aaenuer II aagwe ad II aagwanoN ME II iegop0 0 tN1 MMaagwaadas ;sn8ny Q0 an — Alnf c a o a) g auni AelAl "CO v (Q I!adV E QyaaelN k a E 0 Aaenagaj o n eV LTOZ Aaenuer m o ::: aagwe as vl aagwanoN _C aago13p.� aagwaadas In III III w — — — ;sn8ny T° n Alni h Lt auni a a — Q9 AelAl v llady I ..,, v 9TOZ y3-1M1 h U ra 2 W n fX 3 b v N N N v C '- ea a a a v ..=E o 0 o h ' v 2 b - v o o b 6 a w v a o a s v • _ v c w 2 U Q ` N S 6 6 J niiz s o 'o v °; v a. a . = E v = 6 ra w b a '� o °' N °o' 0 ° 3 0 o- t -2 a E c '- _ c o 6 v 6 a O z E v a v a c 6 p °i c 6 v v v w c o cn a v o o, v a o a . o ° b '6 0 o v 0 6 c o h 6 b a o c 6 a c ct i a E ,, a Q v <Z v v o d c ° ° , o m ° v 6 -9. 2F, -6 O. 4.., U d 6 6 Y O U i E o v s :Q c r, 6a a „ a : of a U v - 3 i, ° a „ IT, o a o a .,`, C3 , z o , o - ' a ° .n '6 0 z a o m c ' ) o , a '0 3 '. `' .'°i. § o u1 Sc S a a o mo o a m° ¢ a a a v0 �0 a s a` °n w ¢ a u° °m