The Chapel Hill Town Council held a public hearing last week regarding the potential mixed-use development, Aura. If approved, the project would build 400 housing units and include office, retail, and amenity spaces.
Chapel Hill residents voiced mixed reactions to the proposed development.
Aura has faced claims that it will increase traffic congestion and produce excess stormwater in town.
“Thousands of town residents will be hindered in getting to work, school and grocery,” said Julie McClintock, a member of Chapel Hill Alliance for a Livable Town and one of the most vocal opponents of the Aura development. She leads Estes Neighbors, a neighborhood group that has organized to oppose the development.
The group’s main concerns with the project are reduced traffic mobility, too many parking spaces, uncertain community benefits, environmental degradation and minimal aesthetic appeal.
Not everyone, however, agrees with McClintock and the Estes Neighbors group.
“I’ve heard so many complaints about Aura in my Estes community,” said Lake Forest resident Wayan Vota. “Signs along Estes, flyers in my mailbox, emails on my list serv. These complaints are from a few people and sound like hypocrisy to me.”
Vota said the complaints are from a small group of people who do not want progress in Chapel Hill. He approves of the project because of the new community it will bring.
“We want the people, we want the jobs, the commerce, the taxes, the culture that new people bring,” he said. “We want you, our elected representatives to represent us. Represent us as an open and welcoming Chapel Hill community.”
Those representatives, like Chapel Hill Mayor Pam Hemminger, said the Aura development is complicated because it’s difficult to accommodate all the new growth in town.
“It’s a prime corner in our community, it is on the Bus Rapid Transit, so that maybe warrants being a little more dense,” Hemminger said. “But can the traffic at that location handle it?”
Hemminger said the town will be making improvements along the Estes Drive and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard intersection beginning this summer, including a multimodal use path and a bike path.
The town will have its next public hearing on the Aura development on May 26.
If that corner on a major road with BRT can’t handle some new housing, then where else could? Let’s not pretend that the objections aren’t really about excluding new neighbors. “I got mine, so let’s stop there.” Personally I wish Chapel Hill regs required more affordable units, but it’s a good start.
The city seems to have encouraged development on this parcel – it’s on the BRT line in an area of MLK indicated for dense development in the long range plan. But in spite of the apparently clear intent, the last few proposals have all been struck down for one reason or another. This may be fine assuming that all of the projects each had some sort of flaw that we as a city wish to avoid.
But if this latest proposal is also objectionable, I do think that all involved (but particularly the city) need to be clear about expectations for what *would* be acceptable on that lot given the long term plans for the area. What density? What level of parking?
Estes does indeed have traffic problems that need to be addressed, but given the long term roadmap for the area this seems like a problem to be solved with the developer – and not a reason to serially reject all proposals with density.
Since the hearing, Mr Vota and I have had constructive conversation and there is room to continue our dialogue. Why doesn’t Chapelboro focus on the problem, not personalities? What would be a workable project for this busy corner? How about townhomes and fewer vehicles? The fact is that 3000 more car trips a day when added to additional development on Estes will have devastating impacts to existing congestion for all users of Estes Drive.
.
If that corner on a major road with BRT can’t handle some new housing, then where else could? Let’s not pretend that the objections aren’t really about excluding new neighbors. “I got mine, so let’s stop there.” Personally I wish Chapel Hill regs required more affordable units, but it’s a good start.
The city seems to have encouraged development on this parcel – it’s on the BRT line in an area of MLK indicated for dense development in the long range plan. But in spite of the apparently clear intent, the last few proposals have all been struck down for one reason or another. This may be fine assuming that all of the projects each had some sort of flaw that we as a city wish to avoid.
But if this latest proposal is also objectionable, I do think that all involved (but particularly the city) need to be clear about expectations for what *would* be acceptable on that lot given the long term plans for the area. What density? What level of parking?
Estes does indeed have traffic problems that need to be addressed, but given the long term roadmap for the area this seems like a problem to be solved with the developer – and not a reason to serially reject all proposals with density.
Since the hearing, Mr Vota and I have had constructive conversation and there is room to continue our dialogue. Why doesn’t Chapelboro focus on the problem, not personalities? What would be a workable project for this busy corner? How about townhomes and fewer vehicles? The fact is that 3000 more car trips a day when added to additional development on Estes will have devastating impacts to existing congestion for all users of Estes Drive.
.