Carolina North presentation

WillR

"Cam congratulates himself on how he helped shorten the whole LAC process)."

Was that before or after his editorial advocating moving CN to the Mason Farm Golf Course? ;-)

Council members have to be careful not to express
opinions on a future development that may be proposed
to the town in the form of an application for a Special
Use Permit (SUP). The council is supposed to base its
SUP vote on only sworn testimony given during public hearings
on the application, held during official town council meetings.
If a council member says, way in advance, that he doesn't
like the project, and later the council denies the project,
the town can be sued by the developer,
claiming a priori bias. Moreover NC courts are typically conservative, with an emphasis on property rights.

All that said, CN is huge and has been
discussed in so many forums, that I don't think that
this scenario would play out. I think that it has always
been assumed that UNC would propose some sort of
master plan (perhaps like that of the main campus),
and that individual buildings would be approved if and only
if they conformed to the master plan. For the
reasons that I wrote a dozen posts above,
for such a huge project, I do not like an individual
stand-alone SUP presented by UNC, or any developer,
simply because the money to build the specific building becomes available.

The towns need to get their acts together soon, to start
to define a flexible zone for the Horace Williams tract.

Thanks Joe for adding the wisdom of your experience as a Council member. I personally would hate to see any Council member do anything that would affect their ability to represent us.

Joe:

Words of wisdom.

Do you think Cam Hill has muddied the waters for the town somewhat by advocating so consistently against CN's development on the Horace Williams tract?

Anybody know of such lawsuits & how they resolved?

According to today's DTH, UNC submitted preliminary Innovation Center plans to the town last week.

I don't think Cam has muddied the waters for anyone by expressing his concerns during the "pre-application" phase of CN. Remember, the Chancellor asked the Town to appoint representatives to his Leadership Advisory Committee and presumably he was interested in hearing their (including Cam's) honest opinions. And the University has (prior to last week at least) not submitted an application for either re-zoning or a Special Use Permit for CN nor have they presented their official Concept Plan to the Town Council. Even the Trustees have yet to approve a Concept Plan for CN to be presented to the Council. If Council members could never express an opinion on anything that wasn't officially under review it might become a pretty boring Council and uninformed citizenry.
As Joe pointed out, the important thing is that Council members maintain objectivity during their review and base their votes on the evidence presented in public hearings and whether that evidence supports a project's compliance with the pertinent ordinances. I'm sure that there have been more than a few projects which Council members didn't like but that were approved because they were compliant with the required ordinances. The Cobb parking deck and chiller plant comes to my mind as one such case.

At this morning's Chamber Annual State Legislative Breakfast featuring Speaker Joe Hackney, Rep. Verla Insko, and Rep. Bill Faison, I asked during the Q&A, "What is the status of HWA in the Legislature?"

Speaker Hackney said that he knew of nothing that had changed, i.e., UNC had the authority to relocate AHEC from HWA and close it. He added that hearings were held in this session to give AHEC supporters the opportunity to be heard on the issue, but there was no legislation.

Rep. Insko added that UNC had already assured the Legislature that nothing would close until the AHEC program had a home.

Then, to show his grasp of this complex issue, Rep Faison stated that there were communities all over the state trying to get or expand airports as a part of their economic development strategy, and in his mind, "Closing HWA is just nuts!"

Oh well. None of this changes the fact that if the Legislature desired, it could still pass legislation forbidding UNC from closing HWA.

Stay tuned!

Fred:

Thanks for the update.

"Rep Faison stated that there were communities all over the state trying to get or expand airports as a part of their economic development strategy, and in his mind, “Closing HWA is just nuts!”

Maybe that's because Mr. Faison is a private pilot who uses HWA for his own personal pleasure. (Like so many others speaking out against the airport's departure.)

He did mention that he had a plane but that it was at RDU. But to me, complexities like this are not simply reduced to a "just nuts" summary.

Fred:

"if the Legislature desired, it could still pass legislation forbidding UNC from closing HWA."

Any idea on when this will no longer be a possibility? At some point, won't UNC need to know for certain before beginning construction of the new AHEC hangar at RDU?

Tim, Jack Evans indicated to me that the UNC position was that they were moving ahead with their RDU plan.

I guess the possibility remains until CN is built on top of the runways. :-)

There's quite a bit Council members can say before an approval. The parameters are spelled out in this golden oldie.

Some might argue that prudence is a virtue that directs reason to choose rightly the proper means to attain the end in view.

Have been following recent comments while on the road (but wasn't in position to post until now).

Rep. Faison's comments, while utterly predictable considering the source, nonetheless point up something I've been trying to figure out how to express. So let me try it this way: if there were no airport on the HW tract, would anyone in their right mind propose that one be built right there right now, in the middle of CN and embedded in CH? The FAA would undoubtedly have some comments about that, just for starters.

If you come at it from that point of view, it does make proposals to try to plan and construct CN around this large flying-elephant in the middle of the CN living room seem inefficient and odd, like trying to build a house around a mountainous boulder (to mix images considerably). Eventually, someone would inevitably say, hey, wouldn't it make much more design sense, and cost a lot less ultimately, just to remove the boulder and start fresh? The current CN plan effectively works from that premise, but the boulder's turning out to be very difficult to extract, not because of its size but because of all the people chaining themselves to it in defiance of the bulldozer.

Of course, an airport's a lot more "lively" entity than a boulder. As an active center for incoming and outgoing air traffic, it represents something that has a much wider impact than just what happens on taxi-ways and runway. In fact, the comparison to other hazards, like automobile traffic or drugs, is a common but specious approach -- among other things because it's never an either-or choice (we can't opt for a plane crash instead of a drug overdose or a car jumping a school-ground curb) allowing us to ignore known hazards because they don't worry us as much as something else does -- especially when we're planning for a whole community.

The "we" I'm talking about here includes Council members who face zoning decisions, the University, and anyone else expecting to have input on CN.

It's true that personnel in existing buildings near the proposed Innovation Ctr. site have been there for a while, with only a few voices (like Fred's) pointing out that they are in an area statistically more likely to be affected by a take-off or landing mishap than if they worked further away. That's an issue in itself. However, the implication for CN certainly can NOT be that "those people have been fine, so everyone else would be fine, and it's fine to go ahead and build there." The fact that something hasn't happened yet, despite even minimal odds, never proves that therefore that something will never happen.

Finally, it's not merely a matter of our emotional or even moral fears -- or lack thereof -- regarding exposure to harm. It's a matter of consciously, officially, and purposely planning to construct a community and put people in buildings where you've been notified there are drawbacks (such as vibration that can disturb scientific research) and risks.

If Rep. Faison feels there is such a clamor for airports all over the state (despite increased concerns about general aviation's carbon "footprint," increasing air-traffic congestion, and security issues), he should have no trouble finding lots of locales for a new airport, right around the corner, right?

Meanwhile, in the absence of any actual building activity at RDU for the AHEC facility, I interpret the move to start on the Innovation Center as a way of getting CN underway without risking any confrontation with airport advocates or legislators, at least publically. "Boulder? What boulder?"

Priscilla, Very well said. Those in command have hereby been put on notice. If they read OP anyway.

"On notice?" Hardly, but thanks...

Priscilla, I agree with everything you said, except your
last sentence. I don't think that the primary motivation
to start the business incubator is to get CN underway
while dodging the airport controversy. I think that the
primary motivation is, as usual, financial.
UNC funding doesn't always work in a nice, planned, predictable manner. When UNC gets the money for a building, it finds a
place to build it, and soon, before the money blows away,
perhaps to some other campus. Can anyone recollect any
example in which UNC has walked away from building money
or delayed a building until some major planning effort is
finished? The first school would likely be under construction
at CN right now if UNC had been able to reach an accord
with the school system.

For those interested, Joe Hackney will be "The State of Things" at noon today on WUNC. He''s taking call-in Q&A's as well. At last, maybe we'll get verification of HWA's imminent departure straight from the Speaker's mouth.

Don't be surprised if he doesn't say anything more than he said yesterday. The "imminent departure" is a function of UNC relocating AHEC. That's the story and I bet he sticks to it.

Point absolutely taken, Joe.

Re: Hackney's stint on SOT/WUNC -- as important as HWA is to some of us, my guess is that there are considerably more pressing and more state-wide issues he will and probably should be asked about. Even if someone were to call in and ask, he's unlikely to say more than "it's under further review and of course we have to take the needs of many parties into account - AHEC is valuable and so is the University" or words to that effect.

Woops -- simul-posting with Fred. So: ... what Fred said!

Point taken, guys. I won't get my hopes up.

Small point of clarification Joe. As far as money, the Innovation Center is a private concern funded out of VC (some UNC related) and their own pockets.

Now, the cost of infrastructure is another issue....

"True prudence commands that the decision be put into effect with courage and without needless delays, and without being discouraged by any difficulties encountered."

St. Thomas via Father Paul A. Duffner.

Interesting choice Fred. Nothing about there about not being clear in your motives or slinking around the truth of a matter.

Is there anything new likely to come out at Tuesday's meeting?

Any chance they will actually announce commencement of the process of taking bids, awarding contract, breaking ground on the RDU facility?

Hi everyone - this is the email I sent out on Friday. Hope to see you Tuesday:

Dear Friends and Neighbors:

Continuing our community sessions on Carolina North, we will meet on Tuesday, August 28 at 4:00 p.m. in room 2603 at the School of Government at the intersection of South and Country Club Roads, opposite the Old Chapel Hill Cemetery. The focus of this meeting will be on infrastructure scenarios for Carolina North.

Fifty parking spaces have been reserved and prepaid in the NC 54 Visitors' Lot. You can also park at the Rams Head deck on Ridge Road and metered parking along South Road may also be available. However, please carpool if possible – the attendance at previous meetings has been more than double the spaces being held at the Visitors Lot. The School of Government is also served by transit; information on transit service is below.

For background information on Carolina North, visit http://carolinanorth.unc.edu and click on Community Meetings. Presentations and comments from the previous community meetings are posted. Please note that we now offer an RSS feed for email alerts when the site is updated. To sign up for this service, go to http://research.unc.edu/cn/RSSfeed.php.

If you are a neighborhood or community contact, please forward this to your group as well as any others who may be interested. We have had great participation from the community at the previous meetings and hope you can join us at this one.
Best,

Linda

Please check the Chapel Hill Transit site at http://www.townofchapelhill.org/index.asp?NID=399 for routes, exact schedules and real-time transit route information.

Note today's N&O/City-State article by Jesse deConto James:

http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/685683.html

Aside from some of the more shrill comments by yours truly and some Heavner-land predictions about the future, it suggests a shift in political approach to the HWA issue, and possibly others related to CN. However, if Hackney says the airport is the University's to manage, that's no guarantee that others in the GA won't still believe the University is the GA's to manage.

Sorry I missed yesterday's presentation but it still sounds like a lot of fingers-crossed for the far-future with all kinds of wiggle room for the near future.

(Will, you made the DTH, in case you missed it.

http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/news/2007/08/29... )

Dang. I missed the CN meeting this afternoon. Anything new happen?

Tim, I got there a little late into the intro but still managed to capture over an hour on video. I'll post a link once it's up on the 'net.

A couple quick notes:

1) "C-road" from Piney Mt. to Estes might not be built for 10 years (strange, as this gives the development its "shape").

2) UNC presented some good ideas on waste reclamation, including curb-less or integrated runoff control (plantings and sumps) streets. Don't know how that impacts side-of-street parking that Ayres-St. Gross floated a couple sessions ago (if that's even in play).

3) Joe Capowski tried to nail down utilization of OWASA services - especially sewer - but Evans and company still have no good numbers. Hard to tell when CN will require an increase in capacity.

4) Still no commitment to monitor off-site environmental impacts. Watercourses leading from the SE corner of HWA STILL not integrated into plan.

5) UNC has stated they'll integrate bike paths/trails into Town system but still haven't worked on "informal" travel N/S or W through adjacent neighborhoods.

6) 75,000 sq/ft infrastructure component - Phase I Energy complex - roughly located W end of existing Municipal Dr. I asked when it and other integrated support infrastructure would be built - for the Innovation Center only, etc. Evans and CN energy expert said not for Innovation Center only - needed a critical mass. I asked what was the tipping point - 2,3,5 buildings? Depends on utilization - large computing facility might trigger or several "regular" buildings.

My concern here is the emerging theme of incremental buildout coupled with deferral of elements that would make CN a cohesive project instead of a hodgepodge of buildings built because of expediency/convenience on periphery.

7) Bill Strom asked about commitment to making N/S corridor BRT capable (nice to see him come around on buss rapid transit). Evans - premature to speculate.

8) I asked Evans afterwards about the valuation of the land for the Innovation Center. Basic idea is a "short" land lease (less than 99 years) with the possibility of the building converting to UNC owned property (too bad the Council couldn't negotiate the same for the Lot #5 boondoggle).

Lots more, including JoeC's request that the C-road be buried - "trenched" - to hide it from view.

Basic issue is that this late in the game (a game whose timeline was set not by the project's dimensions but the diktat of UNC's BOT), a lot of detail still hasn't emerged.

Woops, wrong link -- please stand by.

Sorry, Will -- it was the CHH: http://www.heraldsun.com/orange/10-876450.cfm

If I were UNC, I'd go out real early tomorrow morning with a half-dozen bulldozers and plow over the airport runway before the private-pilot contingent figures out another way to get their friends in the legislature to keep it open.

Actually UNC should wait to bulldoze until after the next home football game so the Big Bucks Flyers can at least get one extravagant football junket under their considerable belts this fall.

"{2) UNC presented some good ideas on waste reclamation, including curb-less or integrated runoff control (plantings and sumps) streets. "

I know this was a typo Will, but for those who weren't at the meeting, Will is talking about WATER reclamation. The plan is to capture stormwater and rainwater in cisterns. They also plan to connect to the sewer main running along Bolin Creek and treat sewage onsite to produce highly treated reclaimed water for use in the chilled water systems and irrigation.