Ever since I was appointed to the neighborhood committee for the proposed Innovation Center last spring, I have been looking forward to learning more about this building that would be located near the intersection of Estes Drive and MLK Boulevard (about a mile from my home). However, I remain in the dark about this project as the committee was apparently never convened!
Tonight a concept plan for the Innovation Center is being presented to Chapel Hill's Community Design Commission, which gives feedback on developments early in the review process. At some point this summer, the location of this project moved from the Airport Drive area which is currently used by UNC for facilities services to what is proposed to be the main entranceway for the future Carolina North campus. This is a pretty big shock to those of us who understood that Carolina North would be planned carefully before it begins a 50-year development process.
I am attending the CDC meeting tonight and will report here what I learn.
Issues:
Comments
Ana Wu is leading the
Ana Wu is leading the presentation for UNC, giving the orientation to the site. Says the building will be 3 stories and will seek LEED Silver certification. Will be located where Town of Chapel Hill''s Public Works used to be, so some of the land is already cleared.
I hope she will address the reasoning for moving the location of this building. As I look at the maps, I realize that the location of the building will determine the location of the future roads of Carolina North, etc. The decision over this one building will have the effect of making a lot of other decisions and potential plans moot.
The building will utilize
The building will utilize the existing Municipal Drive/Piney Mountain Road,and is aligned toward both MLK and Municipal Drive. Will provide sidewalks to nearby bus stops.
She mentions that this utilizes many of the same plans that have been shared at UNC's public meetings about CN. But somehow the plans for this project were never shared at those meetings!
The space "will be flexible
The space "will be flexible to encourage research partnerships." Entrance will be visible from the road. Ana is wrapping up.
They are taking public
They are taking public comment and I just shared mine. Now Scott Radway is speaking. Scott says the location change isn't a big surprise, and he thinks this will be a good first element for CN as it sets a high standard,
I am really struggling to understand how the Town can make a decision about this site without knowing the specific plans or Carolina North that it fits into.
Another citizen is speaking.
Another citizen is speaking. She lives in Glen Heights (?). She says there is no need for such a huge parking lost as this site perfectly located next to very active bus stops. Doesn't think this plan is very "innovative."
Now Mike Collins from NRG (&
Now Mike Collins from NRG (& Planning Board Member). Also concerned about the change in location and this single proposal coming through piecemeal without a Master Plan for CN.
Dave Zavaleta (sp?), also from Colonial Heights and NRG. Was involved with Shaping Orange County's Future, echos Mike Collins' concerns.
Commissioners
Commissioners discuss:
George C says he likes the idea of an Innovation Center, but has some concerns about the concept plan including the amount of impervious surface (ie: parking). He points out that this would be a good location for transit transfer station. Also is concerned about making the decision about the site without the context of the rest of CN.
Thanks for the updates Ruby.
Thanks for the updates Ruby. If the front faces MLK, what do the other sides look like? Where's the umbilical for utility services, for instance?
One member says she likes
One member says she likes the design and that they're seeking LEED certification.
Commissioner Mark Broadwell agrees with George's concerns, but doesn't have problems with the building itself.
Another member shares the concerns mentioned by others. Would like to see more innovative site design. Looks like something from suburban RTP. (Great point!)
Another member agrees. Notes that this is a great opportunity to create the gateway to CN, but it looks like RTP not Chapel Hill.
Another commissioner agrees that it's important to see this in context of the whole plan. Also would like more solar features and less RTP-like surface parking. More discussion of George's transfer station idea. Doesn't want to see suburban landscaping a busy street like MLK.
Another member echo's the other comments about the entrance. Would like to see more innovation. Points out that they are not providing very direct pedestrian paths where people will actually walk. The parking is a big problem.
The chair Johnathan Whitney
The chair Johnathan Whitney says he is most concerned about the lack of architectural detail and the amount of impervious surface.
Another member is also very concerned about impervious surface. And one last member would like to see more information about his this fits into the larger CN plan. How will the building look from MLK? How about outdoor spaces for users of the building.
Ana Wu has a few responses:
- UNC is reducing the impervious surface from what is currently on the site.
- They plan to provide a transit stop, but not here.
Bruce Runberg, Vice-Chancellor for Facilities Development: If we had our druthers we would present this project along with plans for the rest of CN. We feel that we cannot wait because that plan is not determined. We have the opportunity to come forward with an SUP for this building now. We have an urgent need for this facility, we have a partner (ie: funding).
Ana and Bruce both appreciated the feedback from the CDC.
Personally I don't find his argument very compelling from the Town's perspective, but I can see why it makes him feel a sense of urgency.
George asks why the change in location. Bruce says that over time they felt that this would be a better location. The old location was near neighbors who have issues with anything being built there. This building "is what a mixed-use strategic campus is all about" so it makes sense as the gateway to CN. Says they have done a lot of planning that hey can't show us.
End of this item. I am sticking around for a proposal in the Rogers Rod area.
Oops, they just announced
Oops, they just announced that the developer for that project (Habitat for Humanity, I think) cannot be here tonight. On to other projects...
Will, I just saw your
Will, I just saw your comment. The building is L-shaped facing MLK and Municipal. The parking and utilities are behind ("inside") the L.
Oh the Purfeoy (Rogers Rd) developer is here!
So I think it's cool that
So I think it's cool that Habitat for Humanity is building a new neighborhood on Purefoy Drive, which is a small country road off Rogers Road. However, I think it's problematic if they propose to provide water and sewer that is not available to current residents of that area.
In fact, the town's of Roger Road Small Area Plan Study Group has clearly stated that the Town should commit to not providing services to new homes without also serving the existing residents.
Of course Habitat for Humanity is hardly in the financial position to provide water and sewer to the entire area, but I believe the Town should commit to pay for the needed infrastructure and try to collaborate with Habitat on building it as much as possible.
RTP circa '90 or RTP today?
RTP circa '90 or RTP today? I called the earlier design RTP-lite, hate to see a reprise of that...
Good point on the gateway aspect.
If this building is signaling the entrance to a world-class research campus it would be nice if it was a signature building - something that communicated the mission of UNC, said something about Chapel Hill - where it has been, where it is going - and reflected the unique qualities of our region and State. There's plenty of characterless business parks stretching 2,000 miles up and down the East coast.
Here's the boundary plat: http://www.unc.edu/community/100innovationcenter.pdf
The design hasn't been posted at http://www.unc.edu/community/innovation.html
And the concept plan was added to the CDC's agenda
http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/ABC/agendas/cdcagenda.htm
Anyone know if it's been posted elsewhere?
Couldn't make it to last
Couldn't make it to last night's session, but (at the risk of being tedious on this subject) did anyone ask about waiting until HWA is closed before beginning construction? Or at least before populating the new building?
Based on the boundary plat (neighborhood impact map) compared to zone delineations in the "Airports and Compatible Land Use" report at
http://tinyurl.com/yrlkur (pp. 44 ff.), it would seem that the Innovation Center would be built in an unrecommended zone relative to its distance from the end of the runway. Height isn't the issue -- vulnerability to mishap is, and the historical probabilities are part of that report.
If the Town goes along with opening such a building, placed where it is while the airport is still operational, it sets a problematic precedent.
Actually, the airport was
Actually, the airport was one of the reasons Bruce gave for moving the Innovation Center. Apparently they feel the new location is more compatible with the airport remaining open because it's near the site where the Town previously operated municipal services (but NOT In the same place, as Ana stated).
How many parking places per
How many parking places per employee are proposed for
the Innovation Center? Was this discussed?
Joe, They proposed 210
Joe,
They proposed 210 parking spaces. No number of employees was given (nor would I have expected it) because this is the type of facility that will be carved into several office/laboratories to accommodate start-up companies. Based on their proposed building size (85,000 SF), its anticipated use, and my experience with biotech start-ups, I would guess that the building might house up to 10 companies with a maximum of about 250 employees. If they have more computer/software-related start-ups, that number could be much higher.
The number of parking spaces didn't bother me so much (start-ups tend to be 24/7 operations and although we have a very good transit service it doesn't provide round-the-clock service). I was bothered by the fact that approximately 75% of the 7.4 acre site will be impervious service with most of that related to parking. No creativity whatsoever here.
Ana Wu made the point that the proposed impervious surface is less than what is on the site now, but I would like the University to start their design process with a "clean slate", as if there was nothing there, and to design something truly innovative that really minimizes impervious surface and that can be recognized years later as a facility that was designed as, and continues to be, an example of energy-efficiency and environmental stewardship.
GeorgeC, the development
GeorgeC, the development company UNC wants to partner with specializes in wet labs. Seems like most of their deployments have been more on the physical side than software. info-tech.
Was the mix of business types discussed last night or are you making an informed guess?
WillR, Just an informed
WillR,
Just an informed guess. Wet labs are obviously the most difficult kind of space for an early start-up to come by. A lot of developers are reluctant to up-fit flex space for a biotech type of start-up because there is usually a lot of specialization that each company designs into their up-fit. A developer worries about taking on as a tenant a company that has only a seed, or even first, round of funding because of the risk that the start-up may not be there a few years later. Alexandria Realty already has a wet-lab facility out in RTP (off of Davis Drive). The fact that Alexandria recognized the growing value of biotech in this area several years ago, and the fact that this would give them a partnership with one of the premier research universities in the US, makes me a little skeptical of the claim that "they will walk" if things don't proceed quickly enough. Kind of reminds me of all the threats companies seem to be making nowadays to either not relocate to NC or to leave NC unless the State grants them a boatload of incentives. At some point officials are going to have to start standing up to these "greenmail-like" threats.
"Actually, the airport was
"Actually, the airport was one of the reasons Bruce gave for moving the Innovation Center. Apparently they feel the new location is more compatible with the airport remaining open because it's near the site where the Town previously operated municipal services (but NOT In the same place, as Ana stated)"
Having pre-existing buildings in an unrecommended zone doesn't justify new building there. Again, a worrisome precedent, esp. if they go ahead with authorization by the Town.
Thanks George. I concur on
Thanks George. I concur on the "they will walk" analysis though I also believe UNC thinks they're under the gun else Bruce wouldn't of tried to RAM this through...
Speaking of RAMming, wasn't this part of the "bigger is better" crowds' argument for expediting Lot #5's approval? Wish we'd taken a cooling off period on that project - time might've provided the perspective that would've led to a better outcome.
I'm still not sure that the
I'm still not sure that the Legislature has to do anything for UNC to close the HWA, but I agree with Joe - no investors are going to put money into the Innovation Center on a bet that it might get to open one day because HWA is closed. Somebody knows something!
Also, as the quote Priscilla posted indicates, UNC understands that building and operating are two different things. Is this why construction crews wear hard hats?
Priscilla you read my mind;
Priscilla you read my mind; thanks for putting up the
Moeser quote and the link to the article. What I find interesting
here is that, assuming that the quote represents reality,
UNC will spend big bucks to design and build
a facility without being able to control whether it
can be used. There's no way that any developer, even UNC,
would take such a risk. Consequently I think that Chancellor
Moeser knows something that he isn't saying. Perhaps he's
got committments from Tony Rand, Marc Basnight and
Joe Hackney that
the legislature will pass a bill to close the airport in spite of
strong lobbying by AOPA and the other pro-airport groups.
Qu'est-ce tu penses, Fred?
See today's CH Herald
See today's CH Herald article on putative talks with the county to create an "Orange County General Aviation Authority" that would develop a replacement airport if/when HWA is closed. Moeser is spokesman floating this idea (placing him in presumably somewhat better relationship with pilots).
http://www.heraldsun.com/orange/10-883357.cfm (requires you to register, even for current stories)
About the Innovation Center?
" [Moeser] explained that under Federal Aviation Administration regulations, UNC can build its first planned facility, the Innovation Center, while the Horace Williams Airport is still in operation, but the business accelerator cannot open until air traffic is halted."
Asides: Interesting to read that OC commissioners themselves seem not to have been part of those talks, although Mayor Foy says he's aware of the initiative. Interesting also to see statute chapter and verse quoted re: the county's authority regarding siting and building a new airport. Historically two things are true: general aviation will always promise huge sums of available money to build an airport, which turns out later to be federal money not so easy to acquire; and the idea becomes hugely controversial in the areas targeted for acquisition.
an airport "authority" is a
an airport "authority" is a special purpose unit of government chartered by the General Assembly, usually with more than one government appointing members (similar in nature to OWASA). Most airports in NC are operated as authorities.
Counties and cities can also operate airports as line departments of the county or city without any further action by the General Assembly. Charlotte's airport is operated as a department of city government.
Second article in recent
Second article in recent weeks from Goldberg on this subject. Kudos to him for his investigative efforts, but note, specifically, the occasion for this article: "... UNC Chancellor James Moeser said during a meeting with the editorial board of The Herald-Sun ..."
Also, it's slightly quirky to find this kind of verbatim quotation of statutes on municipal powers in a news item, especially when it includes a phrase like "eminent domain."
As Fred said, "somebody knows something," and somebody's making sure the H-S is getting certain parts of what they want us to know.
Stay tuned.
WRAL just announced that
WRAL just announced that Chancellor James Moeser announced that he will be stepping down as Chancellor, effective June 30, 2008. He will take a leave of absence and then return as a professor. The announcement is at
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1865120/
New post on that subject
New post on that subject here http://orangepolitics.org/2007/09/big-news-chancellor-resigns/