Northern area hearing

I personally do not like the idea of a "monitoring committee" for the northwest area. If we were to do that, then why shouldn't there also be a monitoring committee for the northeast area or the southwest or southeast areas or the downtown, etc.?

The fact of the matter is that we already have a monitoring committee - it's called the Town Council - and every two years the citizens get to voice their opinion on how they are doing. The Council is charged with the responsibility of protecting each and every area of town but to do so in the context of also protecting the entire community. I do not believe that a monitoring committee focused on one particular area could adequately fulfill that latter obligation.

Ruby,
I would say that we're both right. The Planning Board is appointed by the Town Council and, even though it has certain limited autonomous powers, functions essentially as an advisory board, or arm you might say, of the Council. In any case, I sense that you agree with me that creating a whole other level of committees, requiring additional planning staff time and effort to support, is probably not in the best interest of timely, effective town governance.

The now-defunct Technology Committee recommended adopting a modeling process for growth for several years. Such a process would help locate the transit areas, address concerns for water, schools, etc. Visualizing all of these options, with the capability of creating what-if scenarios, would definitely improve the planning and zoning process as well as communication between council and citizens.

Well, I hardly know where to begin.

I'll start in order of comments posted.

"Some of these TODs make sense to me, but some seem kind of remote. It's not much use making one walkable nugget that you can't walk TO for FROM. "

That was one of the basic points of the Task Force-how to make areas WALKABLE. A basic presumption was that would be connecting sidewalks, trails, bike lanes between all of the areas.

"...but I can't find a copy of the report on the web site. "

A copy of the NATF report has been on the Town website for months.

"Establish a monitoring committee of former NATF members"

There was NO suggestion that a monitoring committee be formed of former NATF members. The statement was that the "unfinished work of the NATF provides the basis for the formation of a NW Area Sustainability Committee."

What's more interesting to me, is the amount of information left out, which ends up skewing the impressions of what went on last night. I realize it is hard to report as a meeting goes along, but then we end up with sound bites that don't reflect the entire picture. This makes it difficult for people not watching the meeting and just getting information on OP to really understand the issues.

Here are some important aspects that were omitted:

1.Mayor Foy's Strategic Plan-Members of the Task Force pointed to Mayor Foy's proposed Strategic Plan-a vision for the whole town- as a necessary step in the process - we (NW residents) endorse it because we actually consider ourselves to be Town residents-not residents of some outlying parcel that is not part of the Town.

2.The fact that the Town Manager had totally different recommendations than the Town Staff.

3.The "Northern Area" was facing 24 significant developments, not counting Carolina NORTH, which formed the study area's sounthern border, and will affect NW Chapel Hill disproportionately. This focus on the area was to avert a crisis, whether you believe it or not.

4.Recommendations to update planning by utilizing modeling and projection tools will benefit the whole town. A census if mobile home park residents whose homes may be lost will benefit the whole town, since I last I looked they are citizens too. Protecting the Booker Creek headwaters will benefit the whole town, since Booker Creek does not end at Homestead Rd. Models for revenue neutral/revenue positive development are necessary for the whole town.

5.The Town is nearing buildout and moving to infill and redevelopment. NW Chapel Hill took the initiative to try and be PART of the town. There has been an individual focus on the Downtown, on Northside, on Rogers Rd., and on the Horace Williams tract (which lasted 2 years.) Unless you look at all of the NW development plans, you just aren't appreciating the onslaught of uncoordinated development that we were facing.

As far as the Council/PB discussion goes-it would be great if it were only that simple. But the reality is that the PB and Council review ONE PROPOSAL AT A TIME. This was the basic inspiration behind the push for a moratorium-there has been no way to measure cumulative impact of a number of developments each on top of the other. It is fine with me to extend this to the entire town, because I don't believe in the arbitrary nature of study borders-we are all one town and what happens in one area pushes the domino in the next-but, it wasn't happening, was it?

Lastly, I want to thank Joyce for her stmt about water needs. OWASA was quite sure that water would not be a problem, but with the drought continuing and predicted to continue, intense development ALL OVER TOWN should be reassessed.

I could go on and on, but I'll spare everyone from my ranting.

One of the most provocative things I heard last evening was Joyce Brown's call to determine how much growth our water supply can tolerate. My recollection is that the OWASA projections show their planned expansions keeping up with estimates of growth except for one point of a couple of years duration during which, in the event of a severe drought, adequate supply could become a problem.

Does anyone recall whether OWASA planning factors in the occasional "100 year drought" (which unfortunately we are in now) or whether it anticipates that the 100 year drought might occur on a more regular basis? I agree with Joyce that water can and should be an important part of future planning discussions on density. I'm not sure, however, that more density necessarily equates to more water usage since water used for landscaping could be considerably less, rainwater collection could be much more efficient, and new construction could utilize the most efficient types of plumbing devices.

I'm sure that other communities have looked at the pros and cons of density as it relates to water usage. Is anyone aware of such studies?

This is an important issue and like most that are, it's complex. What is troubling though about this whole thing is that this is a conversation we should have had during the recent campaign. Will Raymond was right - it appeared that some candidates avoided a whole lot of substance. A comment at the meeting the day after the election seemed to make the same point: "Councilman Bill Thorpe pointed out the pink elephant in the room, wondering aloud why Foy waited until the day after an election to broach the topic of development pressures in Chapel Hill."

“Councilman Bill Thorpe pointed out the pink elephant in the room, wondering aloud why Foy waited until the day after an election to broach the topic of development pressures in Chapel Hill.”

Fred,

I believe that the fact that in the spring of this year Mayor Foy and Council convened the Northern Area Task Force (NATF) and allocated a significant amount of the Town planning department staff time and effort to supporting the NATF argues strongly against any supposition that these officials ignored the issue of development pressures prior to the election.

OWASA uses the town's planning data to calculate their ability to meet demand. The current estimates, which show a shortage between 2015 and 2020, includes all planned growth including Carolina North. It also assumes droughts on the historical basis--I believe 5-10 year intervals. This year has challenged that assumption. I contend that any planning estimates 10-15 years in the future as highly suspect as well. Plus, neither the towns nor OWASA have ever made those planning assumptions/data public. So it's virtually impossible to have an informed discussion about them, let alone challenge them on fact.

This is the issue of carrying capacity that several of us have raised for the past couple of years. Carbon footprint is another such factor as is air quality. Denser development must treated differently in the models to adequately address concerns of carrying capacity, environmental quality, or whatever you chose to call it.

The other consideration is the rural buffer. The towns are pursuing density in order to protect rural areas. Is that happening or are the rural parts of the county being developed despite the town's efforts?

George, I did not say they ignored "the issue of development pressures prior to the election," I said that we should have had a more of a conversation about this issue during the campaign. If you think it was sufficiently covered during the campaign, then we will just have to disagree.

Ruby and others,

You can go to this blog post on Orange Chat, which links to a page full of information on the Northern Area put together by Catherine Lazorko, the town information officer.

http://blogs.newsobserver.com/orangechat/index.php?title=strom_proposes_...

I agree-the Northern Area is part of long range planning, no doubt. Maybe this was the way to get things rolling-
Concerns about the Northern Area helped prompt the idea of a Strategic Plan (read long term town vision) and the ideas that we came up with will contribute the planning for the entire town. Widely used planning software such as Index, www.crit.com , can be used for the whole town as well as the concepts of development synchronization and cumulative impacts. I know we both want whatever growth that occurs to be sustainable and not detrimental in any way to the environment or existing neighborhoods.

Jesse-thanks for the link.

Another thing worth keeping in mind on all of this is that although the Northern Area in Chapel Hill, the Northern Area in Carrboro and the Rogers Road area compose three different areas as far as planning groups go, they don't function that way for the people living in them. For example, the school districting doesn't break by any of the planning areas. Now- school districts aren't everything, but they do illustrate that the boundaries chosen for these study areas are arbitrary in their relations to day to day functions.

It might be nice to look at this in a more functional/organic way. A way that looks at the larger picture as lived by the people who make up the area. It might even (shudder) involve the towns working together to make a more coherent plan that would benefit the whole of the area instead of this piecemeal rut we seem to be stuck in. It sure would be nice to look at Eubanks as a whole, since no matter how many districts the road might be spliced into, we drive it as one, and it needs to function as a single road. What is done at one end will affect the other end, no matter whose jurisdiction it might be in, and that needs to be taken into account in the planning stages.

Anybody else read this constructive editorial in the DTH?

http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/news/2007/11/15...

the last line really struck me:

"Maybe next the council will just declare a moratorium on thought and we won't have to worry about it any more."

I'm wondering if whoever wrote that disrespectful editorial volunteered for THAT moratorium. It's easy to be insulting and obnoxious, however, it's more challenging to do research, get your facts straight, and base your opinion on a platform that can be defended.

"It's easy to be insulting and obnoxious, however, it's more challenging to do research, get your facts straight, and base your opinion on a platform that can be defended."

Del, you're right but unfortunately there will always be people who choose the easy route. It's best to let them have their 2 minutes of fame (or infamy) and just ignore them.

"It's easy to be insulting and obnoxious, however, it's more challenging to do research, get your facts straight, and base your opinion on a platform that can be defended."

Other than the last line, what other facts did they get wrong? I'm not familiar with "uses of right" or how that factors in the VMU zoning criteria.

Thanks George-"they" really didn't upset me personally-I was bothered that people who haven't had the opportunity to learn about the issues, Task Force report, or to understand the Council's motivation would take this as the "truth." I just wanted to set the record straight.

Terri-
Starting at the top, the first meeting that the Task Force has was May 17, and the last, August 30th. I wish we had started in March and were still regularly meeting! I do not believe it is inaccurate to say that no progress has been made on the issue. The TF report is full of guidelines and recommendations and a vision for the area. In 3 1/2 months of work, the TF provided the groundwork for how development should proceed in the area. Hardly "accomplishing absolutely nothing." Because of the Task Force work, the Council is talking about a Strategic Plan for the Town-a concept that is vital to understanding how we, as a town, want to confront growth.

I'm not too sure about the meaning of "landowners in the area have been unable to proceed with projects, that were submitted beforehand." Any project that made it throught the Boards and Council (Chapel Watch Village, the Residences at Chapel Hill North, Vilcom, Freedom House, and Orange Methodist expansions) are in work. Anything that was halted had not even received advsiory board approvals.

As for than the comments about the tax base that were made "and for all the talk among Council members of increasing the commercial tax base and reducing the tax burden on residents, this seems like a lousy way to do it," what is a lousy way to do it? Making sure that development is revenue neutral or revenue positive? The guidelines were about transit oriented development-what would be the point of it all if we could not afford the buses to support it?
The cumulative impacts from intense development in a relatively small physical area have the potential to create an area inhospitable to citizens and developers alike.
Establishing revenue neutral or revenue positive development will translate to successful mixed use transit friendly development. The reality is that development costs money through increased costs for infrastructure and services. If an economic model is not established, not only will the vision of mixed use will fail, it will take Town residents paying property taxes down with it.

As for the zoning, the MU-V zone proposed by Staff had the distinction of uniting everyone, developers and residents alike, against it. I'm not too sure that any editorial writer bothered to find out why. Rather than looking at the entire area as a mixed use zone, MU-V would have required even individual parcel owners to include a residential component on their property-something that they did not want to do. It prohibited uses that were encouraged by the NATF report and allowed for building heights that were out of scale with the existing neighborhoods. Foundational work has to be done by town staff in order to help development move forward in a zoning category that works.

I believe that most developers value good development, as should the DTH editorial board. Good development benefits everybody. NW residents are concerned about the cumulative impact on our neighborhoods, the loss of affordable housing, and the need for environmental stewardship. Working that out prudently has a greater and longer lasting value that moving full speed ahead as the editorial would suggest.

Tonight, November 19th, 7pm, the Chapel Hill Town Council has a business meeting. The moratorium extension (or lack thereof) will be discussed, but there is another item, Agenda Item #7 that you might find interesting. Especially the attachments. I don't want to interpret it for you, it's too complex for my small mind this early on a Monday. All I know is that I'm not happy at the moment.

OK, my small mind is wrestling with the "Long Range Transit Policy" (if that's what you meant by item #7), too. I'm also unhappy with what I see on a couple of the attachments, transit scenarios notably but also the land use presentation graphics, which seem to presume a number of changes in zoning around CN, as best I can tell, just for starters.

Would be interested in what Suzanna sees there as well as anyone else.

I'm going to the meeting tonight and will let you know how it plays out - I encourage anyone concerned to express that now - things seem to be moving pretty fast. Please look - everyone - all over town - the implications are comprehensive.

"things seem to be moving pretty fast"

Suzanne, which things are you referring to? Are you referring to the Long Range Transit Plan or to the Transit Oriented Development scenarios shown in the report? I hope it's not the Transi Plan as it is something that has been worked on for about 10 months or so, I believe, and it is critical to determining how development might proceed in CH and Carrboro as well as on CN.

George-
Can you explain the following from the agreement with TranSystems:

Work Task 5: Transit Orientated Development guidelines
This task will involve the preparation of guidelines for the Towns to evaluate current and future
development for the incorporation of transit supportive elements.

And the Task Force-which you were part of- was charged with?

Del,

The NATF only considered the northwest quadrant of CH. The Transit Study was commissioned by the University, CH and Carrboro and, as the map shows, encompasses all of those areas. So I presume that the statement you picked out is suggesting the development of similar guidelines for the other areas to be served by transit, especially the BRT and BRT-busways that the Transit Plan shows. But I'm just speculating at this point.

The CSS plans for the Northern quadrant now seem to be part of the Long Range Transportation Study-and the Northern area was NOT excluded from TransSystems work anywhere that I can find. As you know, the contract was signed on 2/20-before the NATF was appointed.

OK, I think I get that this is "long range" and all process at this point. I do think, however, that now is the time for the Chapel Hill and Carrboro citizens to look carefully at this report and the preliminary drawings of land use to support transit and decide for yourself if this is what you think is best for the future of the area. We don't want to not take part in the process and then complain about the product - do we?