May 22, 2012
Read all about it! Read all about it! The Public Hearing draft of the Chapel Hill 2020 comprehensive plan is available!
The draft Chapel Hill 2020 comprehensive plan includes Council policy guidance; input from the theme groups, including goals and action items; information about the future focus discussion areas; and an overview of the process and outreach efforts and a data summary.
On Monday, May 21, 2012, a Public Hearing was held to receive the community’s comments about the most recent Chapel Hill 2020 comprehensive plan draft. The Council received the comments and referred them to the Town Manager and the Town staff.
On Monday, June 25, 2012, the Chapel Hill 2020 comprehensive plan will return to the Council for consideration of possible adoption. The meeting will be held at 7:00pm in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, 405 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd, Chapel Hill.
We look forward to your continued contributions to Chapel Hill 2020!
Current Drafts:
- Chapel Hill 2020 comprehensive plan – Draft – May 16, 2012
- Appendix 1: Process and Outreach Summary – Draft – Issued May 16, 2012
- Appendix 2: Data Summary – Draft – Issued May 16, 2012
- Guide: How to Use the Chapel Hill 2020 Comprehensive Plan – Draft – Issued May 21, 2012
For more information:
Watch the recording of the public information meeting about the Chapel Hill 2020 comprehensive plan which was held on May 14, 2012.
- May 14 video, news release and powerpoint link
- Streaming video page (all presentations, including public informaton meeting)
Past Drafts:
It’s very exciting to see the plan come together like this. Now it’s up to members of the Town Council to help us move to the next phase of focusing on the future. If they put off making a decision before adjourning for the summer, there will be A LOT of citizens very disappointed and deflated, especially after putting so much time and effort into the process – I know I will be.
The part of the process when it turned to proposing ideas to make Estes Drive neighborhood safety problems worse should make us all consider the consequences of high density development that intrudes onto Estes Drive. We need to develop a small area plan that is intermediate to the neighborhoods, to commercial use directly on MLK, and Carolina North, and it needs to be done with great sensitivity towards enhancing the quality of our neighborhood. This requires more time and attention on this aspect of the 2020 vision. It is imperative that any new development be at pedestrian-scale, minimizes asphalt and cars and promotes bus and bike use. Widening Estes and putting more parking into development makes it much less safe, much noiser, and hotter, with fewer trees and more asphalt, and further deflates the values of property owners that already feel robbed from the overused road. On Estes Drive the damage has already been done. Can you imagine what it is like to be getting the mail from your mailbox while cars 6′ away behind you are going 40 mph? Do you know what it is like to be assaulted with 80 dB of noise from speeding cars, where you can’t hear what your walking partner is saying while walking down Estes Dr? Did you know that when it is 80 degrees under a tree in our neighborhood, the air is nearly 100 degrees over the sunny sidewalk on Estes Dr? These, and other problems, need to be fixed, not made worse by hasty planning.
It’s very exciting to see the plan come together like this. Now it’s up to members of the Town Council to help us move to the next phase of focusing on the future. If they put off making a decision, there will be A LOT of citizens very disappointed and deflated, especially after putting so much time and effort into the process – I know I will be.
There should be a definite description about the town shifting from car scale development to pedestrian scale development.
The question is, given the need for higher density development, what does it mean that it be “pedestrian scale” instead of “car scale?
There is certainly a big difference between pedestrian scale high density and car-scale high density. Pedestrian scale is higher density on the horizontal and the buildings are either not higher than 3 stories or wider sidewalks are employed with tree canopy ceilings are used to avoid the feel of being in a building canyon. Because of the need for large parking lots, the density is on the vertical, into taller buildings. In the later kind of high density, the needs of pedestrians are not accommodated.
It is impossible to be green and sustainable without creating and modifying to be at a pedestrian scale.
Sarah
If we agree to “think globally”, it becomes evident that riveting attention on GROWTH could be a grave mistake because we are denying how economic and population growth in the Town of Chapel Hill cannot continue as it has until now. Chapel Hill’s resources are being dissipated, its environment degraded and its fitness as place for our children to inhabit is being threatened. To proclaim, as the CHN does on 5/20/12, that “the meat of Chapel Hill 2020 is, of course, growth” fails to acknowledge that the Town of Chapel Hill is already ‘built out’, and also ‘filled in’ with people. If the quality of life we enjoy now is to be maintained for the children, then limits on economic and population growth will have to be set. By so doing, we “act locally”.
More economic and population growth are not sustainable because there are biological constraints and physical limitations on human consumption, production and population activities on the surface of Earth, including Chapel Hill. Inasmuch as the Earth is finite with frangible environs, there comes a point at which GROWTH is unsustainable. There is much work to done locally. But that effort cannot begin without limiting economic and population growth.
To quote the CHN again, “We face a wide-open opportuniy to break with the old ways of doing the town’s business…..” That is a true statement. But the necessary “break with the old ways” of continous growth is not what is occurring. There is a call for a break with the old ways, but the required changes in behavior are not what is being proposed. What is being proposed and continues to occur is more of the same, old business-as-usual overconsumption, overproduction and overpopulation activities, the very activities that appear to be unsustainble. More business-as-usual could soon become patently unsustainable, both globally and locally. A finite planet with the size, compostion and environs of the Earth and a town with the boundaries, limited resources and wondrous climate of Chapel Hill may not be able to sustain the economic and population growth that is occurring on our watch. Perhaps necessary changes away from unsustainable growth and toward sustainable lifestyles and right-sized corporate enterprises are in the offing.
Think globally while there is still time and act locally before it is too late for human action to make any difference in the course of unfolding events both in our planetary home and our town.
Thank you to all.
I would like to see the 15-501 S Task Force findings, particularly strategies for countering/capturing the traffic to the planned Walmart at the Chatham County line. Is any information from the task force available and if so, where is it.
My comment is about GPNS 5 on page 86 of the latest draft plan, and specifically about the long term action plan (5-10 years) It states:
——————————————————————–
“Promote rental housing in all neighborhoods
Consider neighborhood form/massing standards (applicable to all housing stock, including single family homes) rather than Neighborhood Conservation districts
Revise LUMO to allow Bed and Breakfast Houses and short term (i.e. by the day) rentals of rooms and houses in Town.”
———————————————————————-
This was never discussed or agreed upon in our numerous them group meetings. This is almost entirely devised and written by town staff, and was not a collaborative effort or concensus of Theme Group participants. This over-reaching by the town staff is written in broad and ambigous language and could lead to drastic changes in existing single family neighborhoods.
At the Aprll 12 Economic Prosperity 2020 theme group meeting there seemed to be confusion about what Form-Based Zoning means. I thought the separate presentation of Form-Based Zoning was excellent and very much what makes sense for a municipality.
I and Desiree Goldman spoke most about Form-Based Zoning as a goal for Economic Prosperity. It means establishing areas where specific kinds of development are designated: mixed-use, dense commercial, perhaps light industry, whatever fits best. The Town would also establish the square footage and height maximums acceptable in each development area, so that people proposing projects could meet those standards and then work with staff to refine their specific plans, working with people who understand the issues involved such as construction costs, financing arrangement deadlines, availability of energy-efficiency rebates, etc. A businessman in our group commented that businesses rely on “predictability.”
Desiree Goldman summarized that there are two aspects of predictability that need attention in Chapel Hill: new Form-Based Zoning and a further-streamlined permitting process. Gary Saleeby reminded us that we have heard the generally acceptable timeframe for project permits is 18 months. Chapel Hill often goes into 2 and up to 7 years.
Lynne Kane recalled taking an OLLI retiree course at Duke with Downtown Durham, Inc. Chairman Bill Kalkhof, who described how he got Durham’s downtown redeveloped by identifying needs for revitalization into large areas and then subdividing them into manageable sub-areas to which he recruited businesses. When one area was up and running, he moved on to the next. Downtown Durham has achieved several vibrant locations full of residents and businesses, and even performance areas, in just a few years.
This is the same approach Economic Development Officer Dwight Bassett has presented to Chapel Hill, and it will work if the anti-business customary petitioners are not allowed to dominate the discussion for further years.
The areas that Bassett and our current urban redevelopment consultants have identified in Chapel Hill may need more discussion about the specific Form-Based Zoning desirable for each area, but the concept, along with a streamlined permit process, will enhance the goods and services available here and capture more of the commercial traffic dollars passing through Chapel Hill.
Desiree ended with the observation that even Asheville is using this approach, which is the 21st century model.
Lynne Kane
Chapel Hill doesn’t have the level of devitalisation that Durham has suffered, and therefore doesn’t have those kind of blighted areas amenable to reurbanisation (like the Tobacco Campus). Dwight Bassett was all about enabling builders to more easily request exceptions to zoning rules on properties they had bought. If any one person can be said to have been anti-business, it is Dwight Bassett who enabled Chapel Hill’s leading properties to go tax-exempt in the weeks he was interviewing for the Raleigh job he took.
Dear Fed-up taxpayer,
I’d like you to talk further about why you thought Dwight Bassett was anti-business. I don’t have enough of a background and would like examples of what you are talking about so I can better understand your email.
Thanks, Suzanne Haff
I would appreciate an update on the 15-501 South task force’s discussion and findings. There is a sense of urgency for development in this corridor with the planned Walmart at the Chatham County line. What has the task force come up with vis a vis strategies to counter/capture/build on the traffic and shoppers to Walmart?
Building on the tour bus for locals idea, why not make site visits to existing residential and mixed use developments to observe design and architecural features and also how they are used by people. Lets walk around Glen Lennox, East 54, Meadowmont, Southern Village, Northside and Lake Hogan to compare features that we like and that work to promote and support walkability, access to amenities, sustainability, smart growth and neighborliness.
I find it confusing that postings to the “Web Comment Form” in green, near the beginning of this section, do not appear here on the blog. Where do these comments go? I have a tracking number for my comment so I can see that it was logged, though it has not received any response.
Is there a place where such comments on the draft plan can be seen? Can we make this clear to other stakeholders – if you want to join a “conversation” post to 2020 BUZZ (all the way to the bottom of the page) rather than to the “Web Comment Form.”
Am I missing something here?
As I attempted to gather some goodies for my family this past weekend, a woman approached me and asked if i was the Community 2020 lady (don’t laugh, I’ve been called worse). I responded that I was and asked how could I help her. She wanted to know how she could ask a question for the 2020 team. (Note to self: keep comment cards on person at all times). I shared that I would take her question back to the planning committee.
She stated that she has lived in Chapel Hill for over 20 years but has pretty much stayed in the same area of town that entire time. She wanted to know if the planning team arrange a bus tour of the 5 small discussion areas that were the subject of the Future Focus so that she could know what all of the hulla-balloo (her words, not mine) was about.
She said that she is not good with maps and not having been to many of these areas, she does not have a good feel to make guesses about what would work development wise.
Kinda like a tour bus for locals. What a great idea!
I would like to see us focus on the areas of town were there is general agreement these areas are ripe for redevelopment, such as Downtown, and Rams Plaza. How much additional commercial space will those projects bring us? We need to answer some critical data questions before we think about bus tours to additional areas of Town: To what extent will new commercial development improve our economy? How much new retail and commercial can our Town absorb? How much multifamily do we need?
First, my correction to some criticisms of the Co-Chairs of Chapel Hill 2020 and the Theme Group leaders. Rosemary Waldorf and George Cianciolo have broad experience with Chapel Hill and have shown endless patience and diplomacy. I’ve sat in on 2 or 3 of the Theme Groups at various times and my observation is that the group leaders are even-handed in their comments and access to talking time. Most important, the focus has been on the future and not on recreating a 19th or 20th century town which does not exist.
I hope most of those with the time to participate in Chapel Hill 2020 have read mark Zimmerman’s “My View” column, Page 1 in the 4-4-2012 Chapel Hill News this week. He gives much-deserved credit to the achievements of Dwight Bassett, our Economic Development Officer who has left for a similar position in Raleigh. Mr. Zimmerman is reserved in pointing out how hard it is to get change in Chapel Hill despite a lack of economic investment here to serve the local population and travelers/commuters.
Less credibly, Carrboro resident Chas Gaertner has a Guest Column in the same CHN issue Wed. calling the Lot 5 revitalization, finally being built as 140 West, a “regret” for our town. Mr. Gaertner obviously does not know any of the long, costly and misguided Town Council planning before that area was redesigned as an economically viable place. Most disturbing is Mr. Gaertner’s regret that our limited Downtown does not mimic Charleston, SC and the “glorious Marion Square Park.”
First, Franklin-Rosemary Streets run into Carrboro’s Weaver St. with Weaver St. Market’s oft-visited grassy gathering space. Second, we have McCorkle Place an equal distance in the other direction. Third, for those who crave only vegetation, Coker Arboretum and The Forest Theater are nearby also. Fourth, and most important, too many criticisms of this predictable sort make evident the huge lack of understanding of what it takes for a municipality to pay for places and employees (including cleaning crews and gardening maintenance): business taxes should bring in more than residential property taxes while supplying real needs of residents and repaying the business investors their money/assets risked in opening a business. Mr. Gaertner tellingly ends with a suggestion that Chapel Hill residents can easily go the short distance to enjoy Carrboro’s businesses. Even as regional planning gains momentum, Chapel Hill needs its own goods and services.
I also remind those who apparently never attend night performances or shop for physical objects, the most vibrant additions to municipal life require good roads and parking. Public transit can serve large numbers of people who work 5-6 days a week at predictable hours so they can become familiar with the transit schedule that will serve them coming and going. However, shoppers and entertainment seekers and families with young children will go where they can travel in a personal vehicle at their own convenient times.
maintainance).
Actually, we should be encouraging people to visit downtown via public transit, and we should make bus route and system maps available at as many bus stops as possible. Unfortunately, the user-unfriendly nature of the town’s bus stops (little information on destinations or routes) and the town’s website (tiny maps, and routes listed only by letter names as opposed to their termini and main roads traveled) tends to discourage increased ridership and drives up the demand for parking downtown.
Public transit builds communities. Lots of atomized families in their own vehicles creates congestion.
I agree that access to downtown via public transit should be encouraged. One of the issues is that when most chapel hill resident’s would be visiting downtown, evening and weekends, the transit system is weak…and increases in walkability and bikeability are also needed. Further, there should be better shopping areas in the downtown that are suitable for all residents of chapel hill (not just costly, high-priced, specialty products that currently exist downtown) some ideas would be major chain stores like an apple store, pier one, pottery barn, old navy, hallmark, barnes and nobles / relocate bookstore near foster’s market, etc). Right now people are coming to downtown just to eat, adding shopping would be a nice touch.
I agree that the Future Focus charrettes for development along the 5 corridors needs another look in conjunction with the remaining 75% of Chapel Hill for a more holistic land use plan. I would like to see a charrette on the historic districts to explore the potential for revitalization, to benefit long-term residents and also for new people looking for housing at diverse costs and styles in an already established area.
While I tentatively support a certain amount of new mixed used, medium density development along the 5 corridors, congestion will ensue if not coupled with convenient, frequent and safe public transit. Innovative and attractive design and architecture, appropriate scale and artful mix of uses are also paramount if we are to avoid the “blight of monotony” of so many of these mixed use projects.
Building on the previous comment, I urge that we move away from the mixed use developments which have characterized so much of our recent development — and which are little more than shopping malls with housing — and go back to the creation of true neighborhoods. These neighborhoods would have actual streets, residential areas and shopping areas, and be highly walkable and “bikeable,” going back to what Chapel Hill used to be like.
“These neighborhoods would have actual streets, residential areas and shopping areas, and be highly walkable and “bikeable,” going back to what Chapel Hill used to be like.”
Michael, would you mind clarifying further? 1) I’m not exactly sure how your description above differs from “mixed use development”; 2) in my 23 years in Chapel Hill, I’m not sure I can remember a neighborhood that meets your description, other than the “mixed use developments” – how far back to we need to go to get to what Chapel Hill used to be like?
I was referring to what Downtown used to be (and, perhaps, can be again), when there were Belk’s, Fowlers, a gas station, and the like there. Glen Lenox has many of those features today. And it is what Southern Village aspired to.
The Greenways Commission comments on style matters are useful. However, at #6, the call to increase environmental emphasis and focus on environmental protection would continue the overemphasis of the controlling political machine in Chapel Hill and would continue to prohibit the “balance” of economic development with environmental protection, a balance which Chapel Hill has lacked for over a decade.
Identifying all town “assets” is essential to correct the extreme imbalance of attention to natural areas with the great inattention to developing a sustainable economic base.
I repeat that the Vision statement should include nurturing community access to the intellectual stimulation provided by our university. This is missing in almost all discussions while it is the unique appeal of Chapel Hill. Trees, parks and water features are available here and elsewhere in the Triangle and all over the U.S.
The Greenway Commission comment that the “primary focus should be on infrastructure that supports walking, bicycling and transit” is way off the mark to balance with economic development. Roads should NOT “be only a secondary focus.” Chris Berndt led the numerous Lot 5 redevelopment meetings some 8 years ago when the Town Council Committee insisted on “a car-free Downtown” and a design that almost no one would bid on. Hundreds of thousands of our tax dollars were wasted by objecting to an experienced national consultant’s advice, followed by a total redesign by NCSU Dean of Architecture Marvin Malecha. Finally, 140 West mixed use building to enliven both Franklin and Rosemary Streets is being built with underground parking.
In addition to the imperative of parking adjacent to businesses, people knowledgeable about city planning are pointing out that Chatham County development will bring many more vehicles through Chapel Hill and that good sense captures some of the money spent by creating commerce and parking around transportation corridors here. Greenways will provide recreation and paths for those with the time to bicycle and walk, but support for commerce and performance venues, even art gallery sales, depends on good roads and adequate parking. Without those, traffic speeds on to Durham, or from Durham to Chatham, without stopping in Chapel Hill.
Safety and security emphasis in transportation and throughout a municipality are a positive for most people. Chapel Hill has had violent crime, drugs, and alcohol-related safety issues like any other municipality.
Mileage goals are useful as a general metric for greenway connections, but we cannot allow numeric goals to trump other pressing civic needs.
Another comment I made was regarding GPNS.6, regarding the goal or measurement? to “promote rental housing in all neighborhoods”. This was never discussed in our GPNS theme group meetings, and I don’t know in any way what it means. Promote rental of houses? Encourage apartments to be built in all neighborhoods? Both this and my comment on the assumed population for Chapel HIll were made on or before March 28th, and I believe they should have shown up as posts here as I wrote them. I’m not interested in getting a Gravitar or putting my comments on Facebook or Twitter. I simply believe the posts should be shown as they were made.
I did several posts regarding the first draft of the comprehensive plan, but have never seen them posted anywhere. What happens to these posts. One of them for example, was assigned a tracking number 4737082746.
In the post I objected to the assumption that 80483 will be the town population. Of course I said more than that. But my comment never showed up.
Big thank you for the Greenway Commision’s list of omission, questions and issues with the CH2020 process.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chapel Hill Planning Department
FROM: Greenways Commission
Christine S. Berndt, Chair
SUBJECT: Comments on the March 13, 2012 Draft of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan
DATE: March 28, 2012
The Greenways Commission voted unanimously (5-0) to make the following comments related to the first draft of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan document dated March 13, 2012. We will continue to review future drafts and make a formal recommendation to the Council at the appropriate time.
Organizational Comments
1. Reorganize the Goals Chart. We believe that the goals for each theme group should be kept together and not split out over three sections. Begin with the long range goals, followed by the mid-range goals, and finally the one-year goals. This arrangement would present the most important concepts and ideas first, and would show the relationship of the short and mid range goals to the long range goals. It would also make it easier to see all of the goals for a single Theme Group without searching throughout the document. It would aid understanding of the flow of the implementation steps, measurements, and responsible parties over the ten year period.
2. Writing Style. The writing style, tense, and voice seem to change frequently throughout the document. Try to achieve greater consistency.
3. Council Goals. We suggest moving the current year Council goals to an appendix. The current annual Council goals are an important reference point, but in the context of a 10 year plan they have too great a presence listed first and discussed as they are in the draft document.
4. Population Growth Information. On page 4 the Population Growth information does not appear to be useful. The information is presented as a hodgepodge of facts that don’t naturally flow. Reorganization and greater thought could improve this section. In particular, there is no information presented to support the statement in the second sentence that Chapel Hill will grow by one third in thirteen years. We felt the third sentence was poorly written and did not convey the intent that the purpose of the plan is to help the community manage growth.
5. Color-coding. Include an explanation of what the various colors mean in the text.
Environmental and Transportation Related Comments
6. Increase Environmental Emphasis. Increase the focus on environmental protection throughout the document. Identify the Town’s natural area components or “Greenprint” through a variety of mapping techniques, including streams, floodplains, wildlife corridors, natural heritage areas, open space, steep slopes, entranceways and scenic views, tree cover, and farmland. Do not refer to environmental features and open space as “assets,” which tends to imply that there is only an economic value to those features.
7. Vision Statement. The vision statement on page one should make reference to protecting/preserving the natural and historic environment, and convey a message that the vision includes balancing development with environmental protection.
8. Greater Focus on Alternative Transportation. We believe the main focus for the 2020 Plan should be on achieving the long-range desire to develop alternatives to the automobile. The community’s primary transportation focus should be on infrastructure that supports walking, bicycling, and transit. Roads should be only a secondary focus. This focus should be stressed throughout the document, and funding/implementation measures should reflect this priority.
9. Reduce Emphasis of Safety and Security in the Transportation Discussions. Safety and security are important aspects of all public endeavors. However, the constant use of security related terms in this document related to greenways, transportation and transit seem to imply that safety issues may trump other interests. For example, it sometimes appeared to us that the text was implying special efforts need to be made to make greenways safe, or that safety is an issue, when generally the Town’s greenways have been very safe environments. We suggest downplaying the safety language, which tends to convey a negative feeling.
Specific Greenway Goals Comments
10. Adopt Greenways Master Plan. A goal should be added in the 1 year goals for the Transportation Theme to adopt the Greenways Master Plan. In general, the 2020 plan needs to be informed by the draft Greenways Master Plan and draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan under development.
11. North-South Greenway. As part of the greater focus on alternative transportation, we think focusing on completion of a north-south greenway/bicycling/walking corridor from Southern Community Park to Homestead Road in the ten year period would greatly improve citizen mobility, connect key destinations, and provide recreational opportunities.
12. Specific Mileage Goals for Greenways Development. Measurable goals for developing new greenway trails should be added to all three goal sections within the Transportation Theme Goal Chart. At this time we recommend that place holders be inserted and that actual mileages be added prior to Council adoption. We also recommend adding measurable goals for sidewalks.
13. Responsible Parties. Clarify whether advisory boards should be “Responsible Parties” in the Goals Chart. For example, the Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Board is a responsible party in two places on page 24 of the Goals Chart. Other advisory boards are not listed as responsible parties, including the Greenways and Parks and Recreation Commissions.
14. Add Greenways to Certain Goals. Greenways are both alternative transportation and recreation facilities. Where appropriate, we recommend adding Greenways to all Transportation Theme goals that discuss alternative transportation and include listing Parks and Recreation as a Responsible Party. Add development of Greenways to the goals within the Good Places and New Spaces Theme. Again add Parks and Recreation as a Responsible Party.
Present: Christine S. Berndt (Chair), David Tuttle (Vice Chair), Patrick Crawford, Robert Myers, and Paul Ransford. Absent: Roger Badrock and Lindsey Hoffer. A quorum was present.
Sustainability and Smart Growth
Planners sometimes promote “Smart Growth” as the solution to the problem of sustainability. Smart Growth applies to new developments which are built to accommodate growth. It calls for development on a human scale with places of work, shopping and recreation all being located within walking or bicycling distances from the residences. This is very pleasant indeed. But we must note that:
Dumb growth destroys the environment.
Smart growth destroys the environment.
The difference is that smart growth
destroys the environment with good taste.
So it’s like buying a ticket on the TITANIC.
If you’re smart you go first class
If you’re dumb you go steerage.
Either way the result is the same.
Albert A. Bartlett, PhD
I would like to refine my comment/ recommendation regarding riparian buffers and well water protection.
Theme 5 Nurturing our Community
NOC.4 Simplify RCD
requirements by normalizing
with Jordan Buffer e.g. a known
buffer width on intermittent and
perennial streams). (p 18)
Recommended change:
NOC.4 Simplify RCD requirements by normalizing with Jordan Buffer in areas of low-density development (e.g. a known buffer width on intermittent and perennial streams). Higher density development that significantly increases impervious surface needs wider riparian buffers . [Town planning will set these buffer widths]
Recommended addition (near term goal)
New developments need to protect catchment areas that serve drinking water wells. If protection is impractical/impossible then affected landowners may request compensation to obtain another drinking water source.
David: I think we both agree that we don’t want to lower water quality standards. Let’s talk to the experts in stormwater and see if your objective of simplification can occur without reducing standards. This should be a discussion item on April 12.
Precisely because this is a general “Comprehensive Plan” process we have had valuable input from experienced consultants such as Stan Harvey and Mitch Silver as well as trained specialists on our staff such as Dwight Bassett, David Bonk and others. This is the kind of process which is very strongly needed in Chapel Hill, where few people have ever risked their own money or taken out a second mortgage on their home to invest in a business, and where those residents who have actually done so are busy running a business, or several businesses, so that they cannot attend repeated meetings held by Chapel Hill 2020. Besides being amazed at irrational and unrealistic votes by the longtime Town Council members during the 12 years I have lived here, I have become aware that the activists who repeatedly appear before the Town Council do not seem to attend forums at our 2 closest universities, UNC Humanities weekends, movies (except documentaries attacking corporate activities like fracking or collateralized debt options and similar), or even local Playmakers and Deep Dish Theater, etc.
We cannot allow only people without broad interests to determine what will be the future vision of Chapel Hill. Yes, “future.”
A current member of the Planning Board has raised the question that the “branding” of Chapel Hill is at risk. Do the signers of the latest petition, essentially saying delay yet again, know what Chapel Hill’s brand is outside of the groups headed by Our Lady of Perpetual Petitions? In my 12 years, attending weekly retiree classes in the Triangle, I have had the reaction to my residency in Chapel Hill change from, You live with The Tree Huggers, to, You live where a few people run around in their cars telling the rest of you to take the bus, to now, Why are you living in The People’s Republic? One young man approximately 30 years old in an early 2020 session expressed it this way, “People everywhere else laugh at Chapel Hill. We need to join the rest of NC.”
That’s a bit too general, but it expresses the isolation Chapel Hill has put itself into. And much of that isolation is due to a lack of holistic awareness among too many Town Council members and the activists who seem to have too much time on their hands. Someone recently noted, this is a weird place where a capitalist economy is dissed and anarchists are assuaged.
Whit Rummel takes a productive position: address the traffic congestion in Chapel Hill now and stop refusing to widen our roads.
Tom Henkel likewise raises the importance of providing alternative-fueling stations without insisting on micro-managing their locations. He also argues for specifics to reduce buildings’ carbon footprints without trying to micro-manage all the revitalization areas tentatively identified by our consultants.
The consultants have been clear that residential areas, yes 75% of Chapel Hill, are not likely to be changed much. Our Neighborhood Conservation Districts come as close to micro-managing their areas as one can imagine outside a commune. Do you not want to see aged construction in homes repaired and improved?
A new Comprehensive Plan was overdue for some years. This new land-use plan, which surely should include Form-Based Zones that identify what kind of revitalization height and density will be suitable in the 5 revitalization areas (leaving your “neighborhood” as is for now), is exactly what Chapel Hill needs to expand its tax base and provide goods and services within our town with access to well lighted passable streets and parking.
No one is opposing free public transit or improved modes of public transit. Many of us who loathe bicycling for ourselves and fear hitting bicycles on vehicular roads support connecting off-road bike-ped paths becoming connected.
Note that the community survey prior to 2020 values Safety and Security first. We must plan for a Police Dept. with enough employees for the population we actually have and a building in which they can function without tripping over each other and pails to catch leaking water. We also must plan for enough Fire Dept. personnel and equipment for the actual population. These are the basic municipal services that the activist critics take for granted and do not mention.
We do not need a map of every “steep slope” and “watershed area” in order to determine what kind of revitalized areas we would like. Nearly every bit of land on the planet drains to some waterway or natural reservoir. Those are the details for trained staff to work on with proposed builders.
Our Man of Metrics and his merry band of micro-critics will be disappointed forever. Projections are guesses. More and more retirees are moving here or are staying after raising families, so schools may not become as crowded as some protest. Again, a holistic view must make sensible use of measures, graphs and projections.
Let’s get moving by June before every possible tax expansion available to Chapel Hill bleeds into Durham.
This rant is so insulting to me (someone who has lived here a good deal longer than 12 years) that any good points in it are lost in her effort to put down those with views differing from her own. It makes me very sad. No wonder it is difficult to find consensus. I am pleased that most comments on this blog are more constructive.
Seems to me the 2020 leadership has taken a lot of hits in the past week, some justified, some not.
I think it’s absolutely fair to speak up when we think they’ve made mistakes or taken a questionable direction in their steering efforts, but I also think it’s completely UNfair to accuse them of underhanded motives like pushing the agenda of big-time developers – that’s just plain crazy.
Leading the 2020 juggernaut is a thankless enough job as it is; let’s try not to make it even more thankless.
I completely endorse what Amey Miller said in her post of March 17 at 5:25 pm:
“Dear Buzz/2020: I hope this is not overly inflamatory, but I just had an opportunity to view Mayor Kleinschmidt’s explanation to the council of the new 15-501 non-task force. His explanation that the 2020 process is “citizen driven” and that therefore this has just blown up quickly in the midst of all these driving citizens, seems to me, from my vantage, to be completely other than the case. I have found the 2020 process to be by in large staff driven, with some clear staff priorities (fast track development) as main drivers. A non-task force with perhaps great power to influence development in the southern part of our town peopled by the developers who want to develop the area seems on the face of it to be troubling. It fits with charettes which did not offer any pertinent ecological or zoning information to citizens while they were to discuss potential development.”
Seems to me the 2020 leadership has taken a lot of hits in the past week, some justified, some not.
I think it’s absolutely fair to speak up when we think they’ve made mistakes or taken a questionable direction in their steering efforts, but I also think it’s completely UNfair to accuse them of underhanded motives like pushing the agenda of big-time developers – that’s just plain crazy.
Leading the 2020 juggernaut is a thankless enough job as it is; let’s try not to make it even more thankless.
I am somewhat surprised that the draft plan does not address Chapel Hill’s governance structure and processes. It seems to me that with all of the important choices to be made in the coming years — land use, budgeting, etc. — that we need to examine whether our current processes, advisory committees, town council, and the like, will allow these choices to be made in the most effective, rational and integrated manner.
Similarly, many of the goals and objectives are not solely within the Town’s purview. Do we have the means, structure, processes, and will to coordinate with Carrboro, Orange County, and others to ensure that we are able to realize the goals we adopt? I believe that more attention needs to be devoted to these issues in subsequent drafts and, of course, the final plan.
Last night, a concerned group of more than 15 stakeholders spoke to Council about our experiences as 2020 participants, the concerns we have about our progress to date, and some recommendations for improving the process and moving forward in a timely fashion.
So far, 43 stakeholders have endorsed the letter and our recommendations; if you’d share our concerns, please reply to this post and we’ll add your signature to the list.
Amy Ryan
Text of the 3/26 presentation to Council:
To: Chapel Hill Town Council
From: Concerned 2020 Stakeholders
Re: Specific Requests to Council for Improving the 2020 Process
We, the undersigned 2020 stakeholders, would like to respectfully ask that Council consider the following actions to address stakeholder concerns and ensure the success of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan:
(1) Endorse the completion of the goals and objectives section for the June vision document;
(2) Allow each theme group to choose two stakeholder representatives to join the co-chair discussions tasked by the Manager and the 2020 leadership with achieving consensus on theme group goals in the June vision document;
(3) Remove input from the Future Focus event maps, surveys, and conclusions from the June document and agree that work related to land use recommendations be continued in the subsequent implementation phase; and
(4) Develop, with stakeholders, a new process for creating the land use portion of the plan after the June document is complete. Include opportunities for comprehensive, analytical discussions of the impacts of proposed changes town-wide and to key growth areas to ensure that town goals and objectives are met in a balanced manner.
A letter is attached, detailing our experience with the 2020 process and our reasons for requesting these changes.
Signed,
David Ambaras
Elisabeth Benfey
Philip Benfey
Dick Blackburn
Jill Blackburn
Watson A. Bowes Jr., MD
Jeanne Brown
Terri Buckner
Joe Buonfiglio
Mary Buonfiglio
Shelley deFosset
Glen H. Elder Jr.
Linda Finch
Arthur Finn
Debbie Finn
Geoffrey Daniel Geist
Suzanne Haff
Bob Henshaw
Fred Lampe
Emily Lees
Jack Lees
Pat Lowry
Estelle Mabry
Julie McClintock
Amey Miller
Susan Morance
John Morris
Snehal Patwardhan
Sims Preston
Will Raymond
Randall Roden
Amy Ryan
Dave Sidor
Janet Smith
Alan Snavely
Del Snow
Mickey Jo Sorrell
Ann Stewart
Olympia Stone
Misako Toda
Alan Tom
Sandy Turbeville
Polly van de Velde
An Open Letter to the Chapel Hill Town Council:
The purpose of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan is to hear citizens’ vision for the future and write a vision plan and land use map to make that future a reality. The Town Manager says we are on our way to completing the Comprehensive Plan vision and framework document in June. With utmost respect to the Manager, the Town staff, and the 2020 leadership, many 2020 stakeholders feel that our work to date is far from finished and does not answer the fundamental question the Town Council wants to know: How much and in what way do we want to grow?
As we near the June deadline, we think it’s important for you to hear citizen input on the process, unfiltered by the voices of the 2020 leadership. Here’s our take on where the current process stands, where we feel it has succeeded, and where we still have work to do. We ask you to take our experience as stakeholders into account and consider making some mid-course corrections to the 2020 process that we feel are necessary.
The most successful aspect of Chapel Hill 2020 so far has been the outreach effort conducted by Town staff and 2020 leadership to engage citizens not previously engaged and to educate us on town affairs. We applaud these efforts and appreciate the many presentations that have been made to increase citizen understanding of town-wide issues.
Less successful has been the process of actually drafting the plan’s goals and objectives. The theme groups given this task have struggled with spread-out meetings, out-of-date materials, and sometimes conflicting direction from the 2020 leadership. Most have found it impossible to have substantive discussions and reach consensus decisions in the short hour or so we have met at each session. As a result, the goals recently inserted into the first draft report are more a collection of “sound bites” gathered and filtered by the leadership rather than informed discussion and consensus agreements among stakeholders.
Most troubling, the process of proposing land-use changes for key town areas has fallen seriously short. The 2020 leadership has admitted that the abbreviated Future Focus charrette exercise was not well understood; groups were not provided with complete information (such as streams, slopes, and location of ecologically sensitive areas); there was pressure by some staff members to favor particular development scenarios; and there was no process for citizens to identify the issues they were in agreement on or to resolve issues in conflict. As with the visioning and goals process, much preliminary information was gathered, shaped into a “consensus” document by consultants, and then presented as the conclusions of informed discussion.
The Comprehensive Plan process is a complicated one that typically takes a year and a half in most communities. We can accomplish some of our initial goals within our nine-month timeframe, but not the entire plan. Although the theme groups have not had time to reach consensus decisions on the goals and objectives section of the document, there has been much good information generated, and we feel that, with some tweaks to the process, this material could be ready for final presentation in June.
In contrast, the material gathered from the Future Focus charrettes is seriously flawed. This land-use section should not be part of the June document, and work should not proceed on this part of the plan until Council, staff, the 2020 leadership, and stakeholders have agreed on a process to build on the goals in the vision document and connect them meaningfully with land use decisions.
On page 3 of the Manager’s memorandum presented tonight, it says, “The Chapel Hill 2020 Plan will include land use policy guidance and recommended changes to the Land Use Plan. …One of the priority implementation efforts will be to address critical areas in the community where rezoning would help…(in) achieving the goals of Chapel Hill 2020.” Is the Manager recommending land use changes for the June document or for the later implementation stage? Citizen input is crucial to building a community supported new Comprehensive Plan, and we don’t believe the current schedule would achieve the collaborative processes required to begin major land use changes.
As stakeholders, we have invested much time and effort in making Chapel Hill 2020 a success. Throughout the process, we have met with the 2020 leadership to share our concerns and suggestions. Our most recent meeting was on March 12. Based on these interactions, we feel that their commitment to finishing the project in June prevents them from considering ways to resolve the critical flaws we see, especially in the key-area “development frameworks.”
Tonight, the Town Manager is presenting you with leadership’s version of where the process stands and what it has accomplished. We ask that you hear from the troops on the ground as well, who want to report on the process that they have experienced. The Town Council is the only group that can step back, hear from all participants—the 2020 leadership and the stakeholders—and decide how to move forward to produce a Comprehensive Plan we can all be proud of.
Signed,
Concerned 2020 Stakeholders
Please add my name to the list: Jennifer Newall
I have a few comments directed at the current 2020 draft:
Vision:
“The Chapel Hill of 2020 will be a vibrant community that
creatively balances the future visions of entrepreneurship and
clean natural stewardship with the firm hold of sustainability.”
‘future’ seems to be an unnecessary word.
the syntax of the last 9 words of this sentence is confusing.
I am an environmental professional and work with these ideas all the time.
suggested replacement: ‘environmental stewardship’
Section 6 ‘How We Grow’
I would suggest that this section emphasize how the town will engage stakeholders to develop each of the focus areas. There seems to be too much disagreement over the direction of development for these areas. (This is especially true for the 15-501 South focus area)
Theme 5 Nurturing our Community
NOC.4 “Simplify RCD
requirements by normalizing
with Jordan Buffer (e.g. a known
buffer width on intermittent and
perennial streams).” (p 18)
This statement makes watershed protection less stringent than it currently is in some cases. It does not match the NOC point of discussion that changes to buffers would retain the same protections or be more protective.
Undeveloped riparian areas need more stringent protection than the standard Jordan Lake buffer.
Riparian areas with steep slopes also need more stringent protection than the standard Jordan Lake buffer.
Planning staff has the GIS skills to create an RCD that incorporates nuances related to terrain and current land use. I’d be willing to help if they have questions.
Please move some long term goals to near term goals:
ephemeral stream protection from p 44 to near term goal p 17
wellhead protection (p44) needs to be moved up from long-term goals to near term water quality goals p 17
Carbon footprint goal, please move this from long-term to near-term goal.
Dear Buzz/2020: My experience from being a member of the Northern Area Task Force leads me to strongly suggest that George and Rosemary maintain the integrity of the final document by not including maps that have been batted around in discussions and “for examples” but not voted on by a majority of those participating as part of the final document. We found it misleads developers and causes unnecessary problems that strain the patience and pocketbooks of both developers and citizens of the town.
I find it odd that this draft of the new Comprehensive Plan has not directly addressed the item Chapel Hill citizens cited as our Biggest Problem in the recent town survey – Traffic Congestion. IMHO, the town should take a much more proactive role in identifying major bottleneck areas and taking immediate steps to improve them. We can no longer afford to bury our heads in the sand by refusing to widen problem roadways in Chapel Hill. Whether we like it or not, the traffic is HERE and we should do something about it NOW.
In my opinion, the two most important concerns for a so-called sustainable future are adequate clean water supplies and a low carbon footprint to mitigate climate change. Water is mentioned frequently in the document, but sustainable energy is not. Almost 50% of all energy use in the US is for buildings, with fossil fuels satisfying over 80% of this demand. The final 2020 document should set much more specific goals for reducing our carbon footprint. These should mention energy efficient buildings and transportation, and renewable energy technologies to satisfy the energy demands of buildings and for transportation (i.e. solar PV charging stations at park & ride lots for plug-in hybrids).
I agree that a more comprehensive look at the remaining 75% is necessary before further discussion about size and scope of development at the five pre-identified sites. One of the things that has been missing is an understanding of other properties in each area (and town) that are likely sites for development or re-development in the future. In the case of properties that are in or near neighborhoods, these might become the site of more housing (of various scales). If that is the case, how does that impact the decisions we are making about these more dense developments? Does it offer new opportunities for bike/ped connections or greenways/parks? Could it provide opportunities for some of the other town goals – creative school sites for Pre-K/K to alleviate crowding in schools and provide a neighborhood park, a teen center or community center to serve our youth, truly affordable housing, a site for a community garden.
At this point, I know that we are not our discussions are supposed to contain “broad stroke” goals, not property-specific recommendations but, as I pointed out above, this type of additional information allows participants to look at their area in a holistic way and to make suggestions to all of the theme groups as we define our goals.
We saw some of that type of information during Dwight Bassett’s “Future Focus” discussion about redevelopment in Downtown. In addition to showing us the new cross street plans, he also had a slide that discussed additional properties identified by GIS as good candidates for re-development. As some in the audience pointed out, there were some flaws in the process for identifying these properties (especially, as I recall, that they relied on presence of a building so gravel lots or small green spaces would be overlooked) but such information is essential so that the plan we are developing takes into account all.
Of course, as we also learned during the Future Focus event, 30% of Chapel Hill is owned by UNC and we need to understand where those properties are and what purpose they serve.
As Michael points out, this is supposed to be a comprehensive plan – a look at the entire town based on the goals established by the various theme groups. Looking at the whole we can re-affirm commitment to neighborhoods while looking at ways to improve their connections to the broader community.
The plans as currently drafted envisions five areas (and with a vague nod to the downtown), comprising about 25% of the Town’s area, as the areas for development. It is silent on the remaining 75% — the neighborhoods. I believe that this a significant omission. We need to have a clear vision of how the rest of Chapel Hill will evolve, or else we’ll either be an ossified museum or we will continue doing our planning piecemeal, based on applications for SUPs.
MIchael – I appreciate the need to take a more comprehensive look at the town as a whole and to figure out our needs first before we discuss where zoning changes are needed. On the the other hand, I don’t want my neighborhood redeveloped and I imagine everyone feels the same way. What is your idea for neighborhoods?
I don’t have any specific plans for any neighborhood. My point is that is that if the plan is to be comprehensive then it needs to address 100% of the town, not 25%. History has shown that this town will evolve and change pretty much everywhere, as it probably should (I, for one, do not want to live in a museum). We can either plan for and direct this change or allow planning to take place piecemeal and be guided by what developers and others seek to do through SUPs and similar means. Northside, for example, has changed in ways that many do not approve of. Perhaps under a more comprehensive plan this could have been managed better.
Dear Buzz/2020: I hope this is not overly inflamatory, but I just had an opportunity to view Mayor Kleinschmidt’s explanation to the council of the new 15-501 non-task force. His explanation that the 2020 process is “citizen driven” and that therefore this has just blown up quickly in the midst of all these driving citizens, seems to me, from my vantage, to be completely other than the case. I have found the 2020 process to be by in large staff driven, with some clear staff priorities (fast track development) as main drivers. A non-task force with perhaps great power to influence development in the southern part of our town peopled by the developers who want to develop the area seems on the face of it to be troubling. It fits with charettes which did not offer any pertinent ecological or zoning information to citizens while they were to discuss potential development.
Thanks for the opportunity to share my views. Amey Miller