Draft land use map for South MLK Jr. Boulevard
The Town Council is considering a series of new land use maps that was to have been discussed at the May 22nd council meeting. That date has changed.
When the 2020 Comprehensive Vision Plan for Chapel Hill was developed, the then sitting council did not develop a land use map based on that vision. What the town said it wanted was left in limbo.
After holding a number of public input meetings in 2018 and 2019, the Town Council is nearing a final draft of maps that are meant to capture the current Council’s vision for future development.
Stay tuned for when these will be brought to the Council for further discussion.
CHALT has followed this long process, and sent this letter to the Council in early May.
May 2, 2019
Dear Town Manager Jones and Staff:
CHALT did not make formal comments on the FLUM blueprint at the May 1st Council meeting. However, we believe major adjustments are needed before the FLUM blueprint plans are taken back to the Council for further discussion. At the Council’s urging, we are sending the following comments to you, the staff, directly:
1. Setbacks. The staff asked the Council whether buildings should be placed close to the street or set back with trees. We strongly prefer generous setbacks, along with wide sidewalks and large shade trees to ensure pleasant walking and pedestrian activity. Some council members explicitly called for this last night.
Trees will not have adequate growing room if buildings are pulled forward to the street. Tall buildings near the street create an unpleasant canyon-like ambience, particularly when the height of the building exceeds the width of the street it fronts. Excessive height close to the street blocks sunlight from reaching the sidewalk, interferes with sight lines for motorists, and eliminates more trees. To absorb carbon and keep our city green, the Town should mandate tree canopies along our roadways to reestablish Chapel Hill as a leafy green city. We think the public has been clear about what kind of streetscape they want — they have expressed a clear preference for setbacks and trees. Relatedly, the Blue Hill form-based code should be amended to prevent any further loss of street trees along Elliott Rd.
2. Human scale buildings. We don’t understand the staff’s persistent push for large tall buildings when the town residents have consistently expressed a preference for smaller, more human scale development. Moreover, Mike Nichols, a Raleigh-based architect specializing in sustainable building, notes that buildings can be carbon neutral up to a height of four stories, but not if they are taller. There are thus both aesthetic and environmental stewardship reasons to limit building height to four stories throughout most of Chapel Hill. Four stories is the maximum height that will allow Chapel Hill to meet our commitment to the Paris Climate Accords and ultimately save the planet.
- 54 East: Aloft hotel and the 54 East complex already exist and we will have to live with them, but most residents would have preferred more trees and wider setbacks, such as we see in Meadowmont and the office buildings located to the east of the hotel. There were huge objections to it when it was built—until the Berkshire came along, it was the most disliked new development in town. Fake awnings and a sidewalk do little to encourage pedestrian use. The point was well made during the Council discussions last night that people don’t enjoy walking next to a six-lane road. UNC property contains wetlands and many environmental constraints have not yet been noted in the plans.
- MLK South: The corner of Hillsborough and MLK should not be rezoned to permit six or eight–story office buildings. The modest retail center currently in that location works well and will continue to do so into the future.
- MLK North: This area has seen a large amount of redevelopment already and is particularly pedestrian unfriendly. Significant areas of apartment development up to 8 stories has not brought affordability. Of note, is the recommendation for an 8 story apartment building on the Charterwood (Evolve) property, site of the Booker Creek headwaters. A map of environmentally sensitive areas would preclude impervious surface in this location which contributes to the downstream flooding.
3. Southern Gateway. How is the Southern Gateway defined? What area are we talking about? Purefoy Road is already a dangerous area for drivers and walkers and cannot safely accommodate any more development. During the Obey Creek discussions in 2015 DOT had not decided how to deal with this area, and still has not. No changes should be recommended in land use until it’s clear that they can be accommodated without endangering turning movements in the area (currently this is not a safe place to walk.) In addition, the Council needs to hear the results of the public meeting before discussing land use south of Southern Village.
4. Require Concurrency. Town staff continues to press for greater density in focus areas far from downtown with the rationale that these are good places to encourage more economic development. However, it is important to recognize that planning development on a transit corridor will not in itself bring increased bus service to these areas because we have limited capacity due to federal and state cutbacks. Council should insist that adequate infrastructure—in this case a high level of bus service—be in place before planning more density on our transit corridors or on the land use map. Traffic congestion is already high on our major corridors and without better mass transit, it will only get worse. We can’t assume the infrastructure will be there unless we have planned for it and paid for it. The focus areas themselves were planned without the transit to support them.
5. Timeframe for Land Use Map. The 30-year timeframe makes little sense given that the Town is required to redo the Comprehensive Land Use Map every 5 – 10 years. When a new Comprehensive Plan happens in the future, a new land use map can be prepared then. We understand that a zoning map will also be prepared and approved by the Town Council. We think the 30-year horizon causes confusion about what we want in the more immediate future, that is, in the next 5 – 10 years.
6. Stormwater management. Consider how many millions of square feet of impervious surface have been built and approved to determine the effect of downstream flooding. How will future flood conditions in low lying areas be affected as the already permitted projects are constructed? We support the call for town-wide maps of environmental conditions (as requested by Council member Hongbin Gu and Mayor Pro Tem Anderson). Land-use planners know to look first at the sensitive areas and make sure those are protected from intense development before deciding where densities belong. Waiting too long to provide these maps will lead to poorly informed land use decisions.
7. We encourage a more transparent process. The public are not well served by holding these important land use discussions at Economic Sustainability Committee meetings. While votes are not taken, understandings are reached, and thus there is a certain amount of buy-in and consensus among Council members that occurs outside the view of the public. These meetings should be videotaped or held at town hall.
8. UNC continues to exacerbate the town’s affordable housing shortage by keeping on campus rentals high and reducing the stock of on-campus student residences. The Town is absorbing the additional costs of services for students living off-campus as well. Dialogue with UNC is critical.
9. Staff needs to explain why they are planning for a huge increase in the Chapel Hill population when the annual population growth rate is likely to remain less than 1%, as it has been for most of the past decade.
The David Schwartz letter is attached that was shared earlier and contains specific comments on the northeastern part of town. The main points are:
- Limit heights to 4-5 stories and maintain consistency with the 2011 Small Area Plan for Ephesus Fordham (Blue Hill)
- Do not encourage land use intensification in flood prone areas, and
- Make land use decisions based on environmental constraints and on what can reasonably be served with transit so that growth does not exceed infrastructure capacity
We respectfully disagree with Ms. Rogers’s statement last night that the Town of Chapel Hill always follows our plans. The 2011 adopted Ephesus Fordham Small Area Plan was ignored when the Form Based Code was written. The approved Code bore no resemblance to the 2011 plan approved by public consensus and adopted by the then Council. The FBC permitted 7 story buildings to the lot line, while the 2011 plan called for parks, setbacks and maximum heights of 3 – 5 stories, as well as transit. Do check it out! Many other recent examples could be given of the Town government failing to honor formally adopted plans.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Julie McClintock for
CHALT