|
.. ,i
<br /> . . •
<br /> .., .
<br /> , . 000061
<br /> . , . .
<br /> .
<br /> . .
<br /> ar.ly -all respondents recognized some problem{s) wittuther---- , -
<br /> existing, road system in Chapel Hill in the 41,4*-.with the:amour&
<br /> AekL- - : of traffic, size and location of roads getting- them:1.st :
<br /> Igp: =1 . •mentrkarr.:- Most' comments centered problem of resiential: Istreets 7.--r--
<br /> being- used as collectors, and of the level of service aLong. the
<br /> ',, • ;.
<br /> - major -thoroughfares. The frustration of using U.S Highway - • .
<br /> la-set -and N.C. 54 to "bypass" downtown 'traffic noted Nary .
<br /> ",..
<br /> frequentLy. Trade-off proposed to, address these .problems should -
<br /> - also. : - -keep in mind that the • respondents . also indicated - -
<br /> r; • -42Novrmhelningly that when the objective- .neighborhood - :
<br /> "TtratSEErriia±tOn conflicts with traffic effic4encyi-rteighborhoodc- . -
<br /> conservation should prevail. 77.-•i.-- -. ,:
<br /> . . :,
<br /> 7-f 7-: averalt, 7 -86% of the respondents consider the projections of
<br /> - : . •-•potentieluture population totals for Chapet'H*11. Townshilf amt . - . : :.-
<br /> :-. :Town : to be either too high or acceptable. Favored densities of - - - .;.'
<br /> ..:
<br /> new development range from a minimum low density---tof one• 7 --- :
<br /> : • unitiacre to a maximum of high density- :of five units. An : --_- -
<br /> ,!-
<br /> verwhelming majority of the respondents aksmo--indicatedithat -
<br /> changes 4n residential land use {either- higher densityor .
<br /> - -:
<br /> different land uses) should be changed only by. a vthte : - 7. . . . ::
<br /> . . , of the:-.governing body AFTER signatures Cof approval)- have Omni - ---:=7
<br /> :- - - -6-7rmcivved :-..-from the owners of the directly -affected properties. : - - = -:,.
<br /> and properties in.the vicinity. • - . 7:- :::,--- : F, . - --r
<br /> JP:int,21-4,12Anra.,Plainglakel
<br /> .,. . ,
<br /> , , . Eorm_pf Urban Development: Respondents were -split mrywkikether -
<br /> . . w . , - ; urban . development should be constrainec4: - Peographically, -..: . . .
<br /> - : ; - creating- a more compact urban form, 53% Yesand- 30% No They': :. --
<br /> ' :,' _ . • - ' also split on their preference for the-.0ftsign •of: residential- 7.-7' - '
<br /> 7,* communities. Just over 42%* endorse - large residential .
<br /> •
<br /> mommunittes of uniform type and density, :while just. over 35%
<br /> endorse mixtures of low, medium, and high density residential .
<br /> uses- with small scalp commercial areas.
<br /> - 6ocation_And _Iyges_of_6anp_Wses: The three_AFItiO.r.P. .0:flte_red.',__. -
<br /> . . ' . in - the - questionaire for the location of commercial land uses .
<br /> a " - - - were endorsed by an equal numbers of respondents. A total of .21 - .
<br /> - - -- - persons • indicated larger commercial centersdOwntown and along , . - .7.
<br /> - 7 --, Miajt:tr- highways as their preference, while 24 persons-chose the
<br /> • ::- ' same with moderate size centers along major' roads in ,outlying - - 7'
<br /> • . : - areas. Twenty-two persons preferred the development of larger -. :-
<br /> , • 7- commercial centers downtown with moderate size centers along
<br /> 0, 00 . :major roads in outlying areas, and 4mall centers at . .
<br /> intersections in major neighborhoods. . :, Y ' -• • , • : . :
<br /> -- 7: : : An • overwhelming majority of respondents indicated -that areas -
<br /> , . for commercial land uses should be designated -in Chapel Hill - -
<br /> and the SPA prior to these areas being -developed, and
<br /> - commercial development then limited to those areas- for a. - _
<br /> .
<br /> planning period of 10 to 20 years. - - , •
<br /> ..::i . • ,
<br /> :4,::, • • . • . . .
<br /> . - -------*rrawp.nsmWNM9•IfMliOSSUM
<br />
|