“Viewpoints” is a place on Chapelboro where local people are encouraged to share their unique perspectives on issues affecting our community. If you’d like to contribute a column on an issue you’re concerned about, interesting happenings around town, reflections on local life — or anything else — send a submission to viewpoints@wchl.com.
Wither Development in Our Chapel Hill Neighborhood?
A perspective from Charles Berlin
A recent article in the News and Observer alerted surprised residents near this corner of our town of not one, but four proposed large-scale residential rental developments, which in aggregate as proposed would occupy 41 now mostly wooded acres, with 41 buildings, 1,094 rental units, and 1,896 parking spaces. These are arrayed close to each other along Old Chapel Hill Road from White Oak to Pope Road, and then up Pope Road a bit, near the intersection of 15/501 and I40. These proposals, which are requesting zoning changes from city council to proceed, appear to be on a very quick time course, coming before council in the very near future.
I can only hope that council pauses to think this through with wisdom and forethought before forging ahead and rubber-stamping this enormous amount of development, which dwarfs in size Wegmans at the other end of Old Durham/Old Chapel Hill Road.
Last year, UNC and the town commissioned a highly experienced urban planning consultant, Rod Stevens, to study the overall history and directions of residential development in Chapel Hill. His report concluded that the development trends of the last decade here had badly failed to meet the most important needs of this region, and were heading towards further failure without course corrections. More specifically, he noted that the proliferation of expensive market-rate rental buildings, and not much else, had resulted in shutting out first time buyers, young families, empty-nesters, seniors, etc, from planting roots here. The consequence has become that the vast majority of people who work in Chapel Hill have to live elsewhere, and paradoxically a big majority of Chapel Hill residents commute to elsewhere in the region for their employment. He noted that we’ve badly failed to meet the needs for “missing middle” housing. Stevens strongly recommended that rather than continuing to build large scale rental buildings with little connection to their surroundings, approved on a project by project basis (“the worst option”), that there should first be planning for neighborhoods as a whole, including community involvement.
So what concerns do these proposed developments along Old Chapel Hill Road present?
1) We would be getting the one thing that Stevens indicated we don’t need more of, which is primarily expensive market-rate rentals (with a smattering of nominally affordable rentals), rather than the “missing middle” ownable housing that is so important to the future vitality of this city.
2) We would be getting – especially from one of the above proposed projects, the White Oak proposal – another of what Rod Stevens referred to as “ocean liners” plunked down willy-nilly and jarringly in low rise surroundings.
3) We would be adding substantial traffic of 1,900 cars to the traffic on Old Durham and Old Chapel Hill. Despite current improvements of added sidewalks and bike lanes, this remains a two lane road, which is already struggling with frequent problems of back-up next to Wegmans at the Old Durham/15/501 intersection. And these additional cars will add to the slowly failing and clogged transit corridor of 15/501, while no clear solutions to this have been forthcoming to date from the “Reimagining 15/501” project.
4) Development in this small area was significantly predicated on the location of a light rail station contiguous to these proposed developments. Since the light rail project failed to come to fruition, and as local bus service is meager here, the notion of residents in these developments being able to go car-less seems to be highly unrealistic.
5) Loss of a significant amount of tree canopy and greenspace: 41 acres of mostly wooded property – a large, beautiful, and ecologically necessary environment which once allowed this city to be known for its trees, but is now rapidly disappearing from our city, will be significantly removed.
6) There has been, to my knowledge, Zero. Community. Engagement. by either the developers or the city about these proposals beyond the tiny notices of required upcoming board and council hearings buried deep in the city website.
On looking at the details of these proposals submitted to the city, at least three of these (Gateway, 5500 Old Chapel Hill Road, and Huse Street) appear to have made some efforts at preserving some green space, and keeping density and heights at a level not so jarring to the nearby neighborhoods (although still only offering rentals). Interestingly, these are all being put forth by regionally-based developers. The North White Oak Drive proposal however, from an Atlanta based corporation which announces on its website that it has developed/managed over 75,000 units nationally, and which had an Atlanta-based architectural firm put forward its proposed building here, has requested permission to build two massive high-rise buildings with parking decks, with the disappearance of much of the green space except for a protected stream in the middle, and with 50% more density of units than the nearby Huse Street proposal which has similar acreage. And while The White Oak project notes its adherence to existing city LUMO requirements, it appears to be significantly at odds with the spirit and recommendations of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) which the city has labored so long to refine, and which all three of the other nearby proposals note and appear to make efforts to take somewhat into account in their designs. Specifically the White Oak proposal appears to be at odds with the recommendations in this specially designated FLUM area which asks for town homes, a “harmonious transition” from higher density building heights to the adjoining single family adjoining neighborhoods where these abut, a maximum of 4 stories, “a greater contribution to the Town’s overall urban tree canopy,” etc.
So what should be done in the face of all this, which appears to be traveling down the path that Rod Stevens has declared to be the “worst option”?
1) I would strongly suggest that this is exactly the situation that calls for Council to initiate a small area study, with a moratorium on all of these projects until a more comprehensive plan for this small area is completed. Such a study could focus more directly on this area of the town – the overall neighborhood planning that Steven strongly recommends – and address the larger issues there (including the need for occupant owned rather than rented housing) that need to combine to make for successful local development that serves its citizens well, and let this guide how to assess proposed development.
2) Given that the White Oak proposal especially appears to be so much at variance with the needs of the neighborhood and the city’s citizens, I would strongly urge council to not allow this proposal to proceed.
3) I would urge the city to mandate that all of these developers engage the local community in dialog, and take this input seriously, in planning their proposals.
4) I would urge any interested citizen to get more information about the above, and communicate your reflections to our mayor and city council, who represent your interests, and do so quickly before council makes final decisions (tentatively May 4 for the White Oak project).
“Viewpoints” on Chapelboro is a recurring series of community-submitted opinion columns. All thoughts, ideas, opinions and expressions in this series are those of the author, and do not reflect the work or reporting of 97.9 The Hill and Chapelboro.com.
Comments on Chapelboro are moderated according to our Community Guidelines