UNC proposes cursory master plan review

Ruby, next week's formal presentation of the plan is a request by the Town Council.  Trustee Chair Roger Perry and Chancellor Moeser both indicated that they were not interested in a piecemeal approach to CN and that the IC was a special case for all of the reasons that have been covered in the media.  The CHH wrote:

Moeser and Perry both expressed the preference that future development applications not come in the form of a special use permit the way the Innovation Center did. The chancellor explained that "a unique and pressing opportunity" to contract California firm Alexandria Properties led to the permit. He said failure to move forward quickly on the business incubator would have "a catastrophic impact on this university," and later promised there would be no more special use permit requests if the town "will work with us in good faith on a process."

 The PowerPoint presentation made by UNC yesterday is on the CN page: http://research.unc.edu/cn/towncouncil_2008.pdf  Look especially at Slide 21 to see the first five year segment, as that's new information.  What I heard at the meeting was that the positioning of the IC was based on their analysis of the site and that the approval of the IC is critical to the University on many operational and institutional levels, but not because the location is critical to the physical master plan. 

I just have a moment to weigh in this morning, but I wanted to answer someone's comment above about  why does it matter about this or that developer and  why can't someone local do this project?   

 It's really a misnomer to refer to the "Partner" as a developer.  The company isn't just building the structure---they will be an ongoing partner in the investment, operation and management of the Innovations Center.   The partner is internationally recognized as a strong strategic partner  with specialized skills in these kinds of Centers--the businesses and companies that the Innovations Center will incubate and accelerate need the kind of services that the company can offer (the name escapes me and I am very sorry --it's that birthday I just had creeping up on my brain!).  So.......it's not just somebody building a building,  it is a company that provides ongoing business support, strategic planning,  recruitment assistance, and specialized services.    And there is a window of opportunity because it is an ongoing business partner relationship.  

Del Snow

Sorry Priscilla-I forgot to log in when I commented on the "Apron Strings."  I totally agree that the Piney Mt/Estes area will suffer the brunt of the congestion-I was just trying to point out that the idea that impact will also reverberate throughout  the Town.

Idiocrat, that's a good review of Alexandria, and you made the point far more clearly than I.   There isn't a local "underemployed developer" that could do this project, because it isn't just about constructing the building.   They provide other services as part of their working relationship with UNC and other research institutions.   

Priscilla, when the Chancellor talked about the Law School Sunday, he called putting it at CN a "no brainer" because they could build a new law school at CN for the same money it would cost to repair the current one. The repair costs are significantly higher becaue of the presence of asbestos Also, he indicated that the way law is taught these days, they would need to spend money to reconfigure the current facility in order to meet some of those needs. Last point - the Chancellor indicated that the Law School would grow in enrollment.

There was a letter I saw where someone proposed that instead of moving the Law School, move the School of Government and put the Law School in that building. I understand that that idea had already been considered and rejected.

As for what the Town gets from the IC, I would say the big thing, according to the plan, is a taxpayer that will pay more than they receive in services.

There is an interesting Op-Ed in the Chapel Hill News. I talk about in my OP Blog.

The summary of that post is, I am very happy that someone moved beyond mere opinion to facts of their daily life and struggles.

As someone who spent a large portion of my life working in and for the Life Sciences and started my career handling blood and roaming the sprawling campus of the Medical College of Virginia, I understand clearly the challenges that researchers face.

I am glad we've moved past two sentence answers about what the town gets that imply we don't have a right to know toward meaningful dialogue that brings forward how we need each other.

I don't think time for review is unreasonable - the opininon I have always held. I also still think it is the best use of the land. I am just not buying the need for speed, yet.

Like a reasonable person, I could change my mind. The Op-Ed was a good first start and certainly better than some of the curt responses I have seen so far.

--Freedom is not just another word

Cam

So if space is so hard to find in Chapel Hill how come DR Bryan can't rent his building at VilCom? Why did the developer at Chapel Hill North get permission to build rental units instead of the commercial space he already had approval for?

Etta Pisano has long been a part of UNC's CN cheerleading squad. This doesn't mean she doesn't have a point just that she has an established point of view........  

Did I say her point of view shouldn't be heard? I was just pointing out where she "sits". 

Etta's op-ed mentions three spin-offs. One (hers) has no space as yet but it doesn't sound any more obnoxious than the x ray equipment in a doctor or dentist office-she could move to VilCom. The second rents space in Raleigh, which sounds just like "space in Chapel Hill". The third is going to RTP. MY POINT was space seems to be going begging in town now, how does that mesh with the needs Pisano cites? 

If the IC is going to house obnoxious uses that need special facilities, should we hasten to approve it, with expedited review? It seems that the neighbor's would have a great many concerns....

Point of history. A great deal of the doctor's offices on Willow Drive were originally developed as research labs funded by research grants received by faculty at the Med. school. I know because my Dad had one of the first...... 

The Innovation Center is good. 

Most people seem to have no problem with that idea.  The problem comes in at the process level.  People are upset that UNC won't respect the Town process even though UNC wants the Town to respect its needs. 

If the IC is SO important to UNC, why didn't they submit the Master Plan before the Concept Plan for the IC?  Against what baseline plan will the Council be able to evaluate the IC plan?   Chapel Hill has a planning process for a reason and it is frustrating that UNC always needs an asterisk next to its name as an exception to it.

Why was it too much to ask for a Master Plan that would have provided not only the context in which to weigh the IC, but would have responded to all of the HWCC principles which were adopted by the Council?

These questions don't detract from the value of the IC, they give a perspective to some of the objections.

Part of the IC discussion at universities across the country has pointed out the benefit of researcher interaction and other positive externalities of closeness, something that can't happen as well when they are spread all over a region.

I have not heard anyone attempting to equate what UNC desires to the dust up at Butner, so I guess "obnoxious" uses all depends on what people think it means.

As an aside, I DON'T miss hearing those busses rev up at 5:30 in the morning or those dogs barking, so if nothing else, those facilities moving have enhanced our quality of life. And yes, Cam, at that time of the morning it was worse than a weed whacker on a summer evening!

At the risk of being labeled the basically Liberal guy with nuanced opinions that I am:

1) I am against dogs barking and busses at 5:30 AM (and planes flying into Horace Williams Airport anytime) and for the Dog Park at Homestead.

2) I am against all non-electric yard equipment for environmental and quality of life reasons and I especially hate them before 9 and after 5 any day except in designated urban areas. There is nothing I hate more than the a leafblower.

3) I am for Carolina North, because I believe it is a best use of the land and will provide more than just tax revenue to the town. It is the kind of development that should add value to the area for decades to come.

4) I am against an approval process that short circuits a true dialogue. Something that has this kind of impact has to be considered properly.

I admit that I enjoyed the op-ed piece and I do have a bias toward things that benefit researchers in the Life Sciences. I would hope that someone who represented the University would represent her consituency well.

It also has the potential to provide jobs that do not require a car trip to RTP and a location that is better than the area at Meadowmont.

Also, I think that UNC is right to put the Law School in Carolina North, because of the realities of parking and retrofitting buildings.

I understand the University's desire to move forward quickly with a review, but at some point I think we do have to trust each other. The more I hear about this development, the more I feel like it has the potential to be very good for the area provided we get concessions on Biking, Bus Lanes and Access Improvements (ie we aren't stuck with paying for them on something that a Landlord and Developer will end up making the profit).

In this case, being a relative newcomer at 9 years in the area, means I don't have that many preconceived notions.

I realize there is a lot of passion here, but from where I sit (in a part of town that is often ridiculed and ignored), it seems that we have to look at this dispassionately and give it a fair and honest hearing and that will take some time. Let's set a true timetable and deadline for review to conclude and move forward.

The project and the review are inevitable. The quicker we get the review done, the sooner we can get this started and everybody wins. We just need more than tax revenue.

How about the Landlord and Developer paying for part of our Bus expenses and upgrades as a matter of good faith?

--Freedom is not just another word

I agree that the Op-Ed piece did inject some serious perspectives about the IC as something other than just an intrusive, undefined building, but it seemed rather slighting of the Town to relegate its concern about traffic, density, etc. to the realm of "details." For a lot of us who have straddled the town-gown line for a while, that kind of marginalizing of Town concerns reflects the familiar view of the Town as merely the stage for the University's productions.

But it's more than whether we are the "devils" in the details.

The Op-Ed piece does begin to outline the kind of missions that can make CN a source of state pride, but it is worrisome that the idea of local pride seems defined as serving the personal/professional needs of some residents who happen also to be University faculty. The jump here is from "why do we need it in Chapel Hill?" to "the university serves the state" to "I am one of your neighbors [owner of an enterprise], and I need it."

Don't get me wrong, the kinds of research Pisano describes are definitely worthy and, yes, it's sometimes very hard to get medical and bioscience research situated and funded -- it's a lot more than just finding a room with a bench and some sinks. And I'm hardly arguing against bringing CN's potential and mission into clearer focus. To the contrary, I've already questioned the sense in having biosciences and the Law School thrown together up there just because two opportunities happened to have presented themselves at the same moment.

But the OpEd piece, for all its thought, seems less to have been written by someone thinking as a Chapel Hill resident and more by someone with the all-too-familiar wish to tell the Town, "get out of our way and let's get the show on the road."

George, I don't think that she is saying not to be concerned with the details. Look at what she wrote:

Of course, citizens of our community have raised concerns as this new development moves forward. What will this mean for adjoining neighborhoods? Will there be more traffic? Will property values go up or down? What will be the impact on our environment?

These good and necessary questions have been addressed in public meetings over the past few years, and the university will undoubtedly continue to address them as planning proceeds.

But let's step back from the details about how many parking spaces will be built and how traffic will be managed to consider why Carolina North, and the Innovation Center in particular, are needed by this community. What exactly will the Innovation Center support? Why do we need it in Chapel Hill?

I take that to mean that she thinks we need to put these things in proper perspective, but first explain to the public why we need the IC in particular. She is trying to answer that.

As some posts on this thread demonstrate, there is plenty of confusion about this entire process and if IC decisions some how lock the Town in on CN overall. As Terri wrote above, the issues related to the IC are not the same ones for the 50-year, multi-phase CN overall.

As we continue to press our concerns over the IC and CN, I hope folks will do it honestly and constructively and not in ways that hinder conversation.

I hope people show up Wednesday night at Town Hall to show that they are going to pay attention.

But to discount UNC's belief that they need the IC because of the current occupancy status of office space in Chapel Hill continues to reflect the tired old argument of some that CN is not needed and therefore it shouldn't be approved. Sounds like a barrier before the fact rather than how our process is suppose to work.

Terri,

During the concept plan on the IC presented to the CDC in August by the University they stated that nearly two-thirds of the impervious surface on the site would be parking. Although the total impervious surface would be reduced by 4% over that existing now, I think we can and should expect more from the University for this, their lead project on CN. I'm sure that if and when the new owners of University Mall and Ram Plaza come in for plans to renovate those sites that the Council will ask them for a reduction in impervious surface of more than 4%.

You can't have it both ways Terri. You can't use the University's stated plans for all of CN regarding reductions in emisions and environmentally-sound site planning to defend this one project which they themselves have chosen to separate from a master plan for CN and to apply for under a Special Use Permit. This project has to stand on its own merits and the concept plan I saw in August could have done a much better job of reducing impervious surface and perhaps greenhouse gases (although my biggest concern was not the number of parking spaces but the impervious surface).

The problem with having a private partner, such as Alexandria Realties, involved with a project like this is that the private partner is by necessity usually driven to make decisions based on profit margins. I'm not yet convinced that Alexandria shares the same principles as does the University and what the University might prefer to do in principle and what Alexandria will be willing to do in fact might not be one and the same.

In the public presentation UNC officials made at the senior center, they stated that the plan for the IC is to stick with the current surface lot and then convert it to a deck when CN construction gets underway. If I am reading you correctly, you believe the university should build the deck as part of the IC special use permit since you have stated in earlier discussions that many of those who will work at the IC won't be amenable to public transit. To me, I'd prefer that they do what is cost effective. One way or another, this is our tax dollars at work.

I agree that we can't have it all, and to me that means we need a more open and direct discussion of how we balance out environmental protections with revenue generation. Holding developers, including UNC, to a standard that puts one in conflict with another is short sighted.

As for your comment on impervious surface...I thought the challenge was to reduce stormwater runoff, which can be handled in many ways other than reducing impervious surface. Can you tell us what percentage reduction in impervious surface Greenbridge and Lot 5 will achieve?