spacer spacer
 August 28 Meeting

At the meeting on August 28, the university presented an overview of potential infrastructure scenarios on the UNC-owned property. University officials sought community feedback on topics such as water, sewer, and energy options for the site.

Below are comments responding to information presented at the meeting, arranged by topic. Email if you'd like to add a comment.


  • I am impressed with the care that is being given to collecting community input. I am also impressed with the evidence of the university's commitment to sustainability.
  • Demands on OWASA infrastructure...need to be included in fiscal equity evaluation.
  • Could mission statement mention off-site environmental concerns, too?
  • In spite of the fact that over the years we have experienced droughts and are now in the same drought situation and face continued drought, this has not been mentioned. What discussions have there been concerning drought and that impact on building Carolina North and in connection with continued growth within the larger community?
  • Need to get over Town of Chapel Hill's "no property may be lowered in market value by new development." (Is this only for residential?)
  • Address concerns related to off-site impacts (stormwater, air quality) and university's acknowledgement of their associated responsibilities.


  • Important point made to stress cost-effective building plans along with energy-efficient building plans.
  • If collaboration and creating some space where colleagues from multiple disciplines can come together are important goals, we should plan for a multi-use building that provides for social, dining, and recreational interaction. There are buildings that combine student union, dining, and recreational services under one roof.
  • Could building heights toward future geographic center of Carolina North be graduated toward height increases with trees along MLK to buffer that boulevard?
  • Institute for the Environment (Centers first III building?) could/should be an example building, same as the Oberlin Building was when that was constructed.


  • Are utility tunnels for conducting water or are energy-related utilities integrated? How much does OWASA have to upgrade their system (in millions of dollars) as the various phases are constructed?
  • Clearly identify effort to make OWASA-operated facilities accessible to adjacent land uses (existing and future).
  • You can show all the cool water reclamation and stormwater technologies you want, but how will specific technologies be selected and implemented? For example, when the School of Public Health research building is built, will there be a reclamation/stormwater master plan and specific infrastructure that it fits into, or will it need to be designed with its own specific innovative (or not) technologies from scratch? Infrastructure and guidelines need to be provided. Don't put design and implementation burden on each particular building—make it easy for them to be "good." Perhaps this is the intention—it wasn't clear to me from the presentation. Good=sustainable (so require dual piping systems from the get-go, for example).
  • Expand vision for use of geothermal beyond just residential buildings (also for office uses).
  • Consider use of off-site PV energy production (for example, main campus, Friday Center).


  • Transportation and parking are still major issues despite wonderful water and energy plans. I oppose use of current rail corridor for a train or bus route. Alternatively, the rail corridor should be converted to a bike path.
  • Build transit and non-auto alternatives into the first-fifteen-year plan as the basis of the plan, not a future "add-on."
  • Location of future E-W road intersecting Seawell School Road just east of railroad crossing looks too close/dangerous; therefore, move further from railroad tracks.
  • Wish [there would be] some action to MLK for good transit between Carolina North and several segments of existing campus...maybe an elevated train or bike path?


  • Phase I should provide the locations of possible bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway infrastructure that connect CN to the wider community, such as Seawell School Rd. We should not have to wait for build-out for these connections.
  • Develop greenways in first 15 years.
  • Phase I should provide landscaped, shaded sidewalks along MLK, Jr. Blvd. on west side from Critz Drive to Estes Drive.
  • If the Innovation Center moves forward at Municipal Drive location, sidewalks must connect it along MLK to existing sidewalk network.

   To top

(919) 966-1571
Email Us
Additional Contacts

   To top
Honey Honey