I went to this evening’s Council meeting fully expecting to be steamrolled.
Yes, the negotiation team has worked years on “a deal” but not “the deal”. Since Nov. 20th, no real new details have been forthcoming.
I’ll be posting the video of tonight’s action tomorrow, so I’ll reserve detailed critiques until then…
Just a few quick comments, then:
- Jim Ward’s description of how his “love was lost”, switch-n-bait and his solid reasons for opposition
- Bill Strom and Mark Kleinschmidt watering down an amendment to the resolution to hold the the Town and its partner, RAM development, to the same energy efficiency requirements as we’re asking UNC to…
- Laurin Easthom’s itemized list and request for specificity. Other Council members “response” to her request…
- RAM’s VP Cummings shooting down reasonable condo fees for affordable housing and Leeds Silver + %20 energy efficiency
- Mark K.’s remarks that paying reduced fees will make folks feel like second class citizens. Heck, if I made the commitment to move my family into a 850′ unit in what will generally be an expensive place to live, I’d be happy to deal with the tension of paying affordable condo fees.
- The comment that the negotiations haven’t been rushed. True enough. Rushed has been the education and time for citizens to digest this radical right turn.
This is the first major issue I’ve come out against folks – Cam, Sally, Bill – that I’ve strongly endorsed in the past. The experience has been interesting….
For anyone interested, here’s the latest datasets for my Powerpoint (ugh!) presentation:
I’ve already tweaked the elevations again in GE using altitude. I believe I’m either going to have to go back to 3DS to fine tune the data or import the same topology that the model was developed against into GoogleEarth (GE).
I believe the Planning Department (Gordon Sutherland and company) might have better models of Granville Towers. Mine are envelopes of the actual structure, height based on the testimony of RAM’s designer (who provide comparable elevations for Granville, University Square, NCNB Plaza).
Also, I understand that the Mar. 2006 RAM Development Planning documents included a 3DS model of their development. When I get my hands on that, I’ll go ahead and update the Downtown.
Please feel free to use the material. If you should get the topology %100 before I do, please send me a copy ( campaign AT willraymond.org ).
The Downtown Development Initiative is a steamroller (in more ways then one). Check out this summary of comments from Nov. 20th’s public hearing. A little light and less nuanced than the opposition comments I recall. Good thing there’s a video record on-line.
So why introduce the following bias?
Potential Advantages of the Project
-Mixed use adds life to downtown
-Residents downtown year-round desirable
-Will stimulate other private development
-Residential development is the key to revitalization
-Will visit cultural facilities, businesses, increase tourist dollars
-Need diversity of pubic spaces and flexibility for uses
-Proposal could be a model for other developers
-Project embodies sustainability principles: economic, environmental, social
-Improves quality of life
-Reduces dependence on automobile
-Improves ability to work where live
-Helps prevent sprawl and retain rural buffer
-Removes surface parking
-Provides significant public open space
-Improves tax base
-Commend LEED certification and energy efficiency
-Improves public safety downtown
-Provides affordable housing
-Consistent with Downtown Small Area Plan
-Is right place for a taller building
-Downtown needs a multiple use center to attract people
-Quality of the design is high
-Public art will be center stage
-Supports vibrant, walkable, liveable community
-Economically a good deal for the Town
-Indirect public benefits make deal even better
-It is the right place for the project; keeps out of neighborhoods
-Will provide more people downtown to sustain retail downtown uses
-If we want to retain the rural buffer, we need more density in Town of Chapel Hill
-Thanks for keeping the affordable housing in the proposal
Concerns Noted Regarding the Project
-Make design fit in with Chapel Hill
-Financial risk too great for the Town
-Wrong place for this development; put in neighborhoods?
-Ruins spirit of Chapel Hill
-Principle of revenue neutral investment not being met
-Take more time to consider project
-Latest “magic bullet†that will not improve quality of life
-Will units be quiet and have firewall construction?
-Will it be family housing?
-Incorporate solar technology and be a model for energy conservation
-Is commitment to local businesses being met?
-What happens if the developer goes bankrupt?
-99-year lease is too long
-Buyout of rights in 50 years could be a concern for Town down the road
-Make sure underground parking is well-lit
-Make sure condominium association dues are reasonable for the affordable units
More questions about the Town’s and RAM’s Lot 5 development (DDI) plan?
Well, there’s been a dearth of specifics, so there should be a wealth of questions.
Add to the throng of “those who want to know” Council member Laurin Easthom.
With tonight’s pre-vote presentation on DDI looming (not a public forum)), Easthom weighs in with her questions in what is the most public analysis by one of our elected officials of the “new” RAM development deal.
She’s not against development but is looking for solid answers to questions that should’ve been answered over the days since Nov. 20th:
There undoubtedly has been much written and discussed about the redevelopment of Parking Lot Number 5. Here are my feelings. I think that redevelopment of this site for residential and commercial use is important for being an impetus for more good redevelopment downtown in the future.
More here.
The Town’s stale site (as of 12/04/06) on the Downtown Development Initiative (DDI).
