Bridgepoint

4 Comments

1. 

   Mark Marcoplos

    /  April 21, 2010

   I wonder what the life-cycle cost of a traffic light is – energy use, repairs, potential for lines getting knocked down? And it would be realistic to factor in some “ugliness” costs.

2. 

   steve lonegan

    /  April 21, 2010

   The developers of yet another development on Homestead Road will present their plan for the first time TONITE to the town’s “Community Design Commission” at Town Hall. 7pm and the public is welcome. This one dwarfs Bridgepoint in terms of size and parking spaces. It’s basically an undergrad student housing complex on 33 acres withe 1175 parking spaces. It would be directly across from Bridgepoint. Have a look at the plot, the notice, and a 16 page proposal here:

   Site plan, notice
   http://www.bit.ly/dbU7Kp

   16 Page PDF
   http://bit.ly/dyNbhz

3. 

   Bill

    /  April 21, 2010

   “this particular development falls in an area cited by the Northern Area Task Force as both an environmentally sensitive area and a Development Opportunity area. The objectives of each conflicted.”

   So, is there any place in Chapel Hill that someone does not consider “environmentally sensitive”??

   And, is there any real shock that a “task force” came up with such obviously conflicting recommendations? After all, it is another example of committee “groupthink”.

   I for one hope they build some commercial space there, it is sorely needed- a small store would make Weaver ext. more “walkable” which we all love, right?

4. 

   CitizenWill

    /  April 21, 2010

   Thank you Steve for getting the message out on that new project proposal. As far as use, the plan is not compatible with the original intent behind the NATF.

   Bill, one of the reasons that there is inherent conflicts between components of the NATF is that the process was somewhat “hijacked” along the way. That said, within any of these type plans – the comprehensive plan, NATF, Rogers Rd. small area, etc. – there should be a clear mechanism for discussing, measuring and evaluating trade-offs – not just for the community’s understanding but for developers sake. Clarity in process and purpose serves both the wider community’s interest and the desire by developers to understand if their proposals have a halfway decent chance of approval.