Preview slides: Future Focus & Theme Group Meeting · Theme Group Meeting March 20, 2012 . Chapel...

Preview slides:

Future Focus &

Theme Group Meeting March 20, 2012

Chapel Hill 2020:

Overview of Development Scenarios

5 Focus Areas

&

Downtown

NC-54

15-501 North

15-501 South

MLK North

MLK South

Downtown

5 Focus Areas

NC-54

15-501 North

15-501 South

MLK North

MLK South

Scenario 1:

Incremental Growth

Scenario 2:

Modest Redevelopment

Scenario 3:

Transit-Oriented Growth

3 Scenarios

• Existing planned

projects

• Development of

vacant lands and

undeveloped parcels

• Limited

redevelopment

• Limited new road

investment

• Tweaking of zoning

Scenario 1:

Incremental Growth

Low Density

Commercial

Low Density

Residential

Open Space

• Major investment in

new roads,

streetscapes and

ped/bike facilities

• Significant

redevelopment of

existing properties

in corridors

• Modifications and

additions to existing

zoning

• District/Corridor

Plans for key

development areas

Scenario 2:

Modest Redevelopment

Low Density

Mixed Use

High Density

Commercial

New Streets

Scenario 3:

Transit-Oriented Growth

High Density

Residential

High Density

Mixed Use

• High Density

Redevelopment

around potential

transit stops

• More Mixed-Use

• Integrated open

space

• Emphasis on tight

street network

• District/Corridor

Plans for key

development areas

• New TOD and/or

Form-Based Zoning

Districts

Chapel Hill 2020:

Scenario Indicators

Project Background

• Scenario planning provides a

forum, process, set of tools, and

measureable outcomes so

stakeholders might contemplate

alternative growth futures.

• Allows stakeholders the

opportunity to measure results

and evaluate the trade-offs

associated with competing

scenarios.

• Scenarios presented are not

apples-to-apples or cumulative

comparisons.

Study Area Boundaries

MLK — North

MLK — South

Downtown

N 15-501

S 15-501

NC 54

Outside Defined Sub-Areas

Our evaluation focused on six sub-

areas within the Town’s planning

jurisdiction, including:

Trade-offs between the three

scenarios were reported at sub-area

and community-wide levels. Quick Fact:

The sub-areas in this study

account for 24.3% of the

land area inside the Town’s

planning jurisdiction.

Tonight’s Presentation

• Dwelling Unit Counts

• Non-Residential Square Footage

• New CHCCS Students

• Potable Water Demand

• Sanitary Sewer Service Demand

• Demand for New Parkland

• Town Operating Revenue Potential

• Town Operating Expenditure Potential

• Net Operating Revenue Potential

• Average Automobile Emissions

• Residential Energy Use

• Commercial Energy Use

• Development in Watersheds

• Development in Impaired Watersheds

• Demand for New Public Space

(in mixed-use development)

• Total Daily Vehicle Trips

• Total Daily Transit Trips

• Average Population Density

• Average Employment Density

• Jobs – Housing Proximity

• Adjacency to Proposed Light

Rail Transit Service

• Proximity to Proposed Light

Rail Transit Service

• Proximity to Proposed Bus

Rapid Transit Service

Scenario 0: Trend Development

Scenario-at-a-Glance

• Total Population =

• Total Employment =

• Population Density =

• Employment Density =

• General Res. Density =

• General Non-Res Intensity =

78,553

78,874

7.62 p / r ac

23.88 e / nr ac

3.46 du / r ac

0.22 FAR

Key Growth Drivers

• Implements Current Comprehensive Plan

• Favors greenfield development patterns

• Minimal infrastructure investment

Notes:

p / r ac = persons per residential acre e / nr ac = employees per non-residential acre du / r ac = dwelling units per residential acre

Scenario 1: Incremental Growth








79,617

78,819

7.89 p / r ac

22.70 e / nr ac

3.58 du / r ac

0.21 FAR

Key Growth Drivers

• New growth follows committed projects


• Limited infrastructure investment

Notes:


Scenario 2: Modest Redevelopment








80,261

83,394

8.03 p / r ac

22.93 e / nr ac

3.66 du / r ac

0.21 FAR

Key Growth Drivers

• Committed + proposed projects


• Modest redevelopment of existing parcels

• Focus on new road and bicycle /

pedestrian access

Notes:


Scenario 3: Transit-Oriented Growth








99,038

87,408

9.64 p / r ac

26.02 e / nr ac

4.47 du / r ac

0.23 FAR

Key Growth Drivers

• Committed + proposed projects

• Some greenfield development

Notes:


Chapel Hill 2020:

Comparison of Development

Scenarios

February 16, 2012 Workshops

North MLK

• Suggestion that boundary include

Highway Site north of I-40 going

towards Hillsborough

• I-40 exit critical to the development

potential

• Area west of railroad and south of

landfill – Light Industrial/Research

Park

• Mixed use in area of Lakeview MHP

• Mixed use at Timberlyne from MLK –

low density

• Protect green areas/Rural Buffer

• Balanced walkable scale and

responsive development, not stand-

alone retail

• Low-medium density around Weaver

Dairy Road

What we heard

North MLK Land Use

Institutional

High Density

Mixed-Use

High Density

Residential

North MLK Connections

Greenway

Pedestrian Oriented

South MLK

• Need more detail on the environmental

impacts

• Preserve gateway character of Chapel

Hill

• Development should be well

transitioned, not imposing

• Compact urban forms are desirable

• Concern about future needs on Estes

Road

• Estes should include bike paths and

transit opportunities

• Include green space south of

Bolinwood

• More connectivity to Downtown and

UNC

What we heard

South MLK Land Use

Low Density Mixed-Use

Preserved Open Space

South MLK Connections

Transit Oriented Development

PED/Bike Friendly Streets

Highway 54

• Boundary changes to include the

intersection with 15-501 and the area

surrounding the Friday Center

• Focus density and mixed use (with

parking included) around the Friday

Center proposed station

• Maintain “green gateway” along 54

• Focus intensity and a mix of uses

around proposed LRT and BRT stops

• For the most part the highest density

that should be reached is 4-6 stories

• Step down density away from transit

stops and towards existing residential

• Focus growth within Orange County

limits

• Include UNC’s plans for their

properties in future development

strategies

What we heard

Highway 54 Land Use

High Density Mixed-Use

Community Park

Highway 54 Connections

Pedestrian Oriented

Transit Oriented

North 15/501

• Acknowledged high development potential

• Preferred Scenario 3 with Light Rail and Bus

Rapid Transit

• Gateway site (south-west corner of 15/501 and

I40 intersection) and University Mall major

development potential – high density mixed –

use/commercial/residential

• High Density towards 15/501 transitioning to

medium density towards the neighborhoods

and medium density along Franklin Street

• American Legion developed as public open

space

• Enhance Connectivity - Circulator road, east-

west streets between Franklin Street and

15/501, Connect Legion & Old chapel Hill

• Greenways connecting open spaces, existing

trails and major development areas

• Include Blue Cross Blue Shield (and UNC) in

discussion about potential collaboration and

development.

What we heard

North 15/501 Land Use

Low Density Mixed-Use

Low Density Commercial

North 15/501 Connections

Complete Streets

Greenway Trail

South 15/501

• Potential to expand

boundary south and west

• Protect waterways and open

spaces

• Park and ride is integral to

Southern Village

• Area should be walkable

and bikeable

• Be conscious of the

corridors character

• Maintain sensitivity to

environmental issues

• Create safe connections

across 15/501

• Protect water quality

• Transit is integral for traffic

mitigation

What we heard

South 15/501

Preview slides: Future Focus & Theme Group Meeting · Theme Group Meeting March 20, 2012 . Chapel...

Documents

Transcript of Preview slides: Future Focus & Theme Group Meeting · Theme Group Meeting March 20, 2012 . Chapel...