On April 17, Town Council members agreed that the concept plan for 1000 MLK was the wrong project for the busy Estes/MLK intersection. The owner had proposed a concept plan with 269 rental dwelling units with minor amounts of retail and office, and two parking garages. Residents presented a letter with 151 signatures citing traffic, stormwater, and design and use concerns. Thanks to all who supported our call for responsible, attractive development at this important intersection that will not stall traffic on Estes.
All but one Council member agreed the concept was not a good plan. As there is no vote in a concept plan review, Council members cited a variety of concerns. When we have listened to the video tape we will provide a summary of those comments. In summary, we heard council critiques of the project plan for the following: (1) adding more congestion to Estes Drive with 1100 vehicles and unsafe access points; (2) an unimaginative design that lacks a community feel and does not have much retail nor community amenities; (3) too much impervious surface with reduced tree canopy; and (4) much too much parking for 1100 – 1300 cars to be considered transit friendly.
Council member Hongbin Gu spoke out strongly in favor of the 3-year waiting period. Council member Oates advocated to put the 3-year waiting period on an agenda in the near future so that council could discuss it publicly.
Hearing council comments, we discerned that most Council members favored a different plan that would benefit the Town, such as lower density office or retail, not more rental apartments causing difficult traffic conditions. Council Member Donna Bell said she believes the town still needs more rental units.
Several council members pointed out that putting a bus stop in front of a new development hardly discourages auto use. Unless parking is limited, residents won’t leave their cars behind to take one of our free buses. That is what we would call the opposite of transit oriented development, a much-promoted planning concept which has merit if parking is limited.
Theresa Raphael Grimm presented a powerpoint about desirable new development from the Central West Plan. She said the area is not at all walkable. She cannot even walk safely across Estes Drive to the YMCA near her house. Jon Mitchell talked about how nice it would be to walk to a coffee shop on the corner and meet his neighbors. Rudy Juliano, a resident of Coker Hills, cited the limited capacity of Estes Drive to handle more traffic, which would compound existing difficult conditions for commuters and drop-offs at the two near-by schools. The MLK/Estes intersection already scores low for safety. One of the worst sight lines is going westbound on Estes at MLK. It is very difficult already to see to the right up MLK when crossing the intersection and this means shorter times to see a car violating the intersection heading south on MLK. Putting big buildings in that sight line near the street as suggested will make the problem far worse.
Pictures from Central West Small Area Plan
Chapel Hill invested thousands of dollars in consultants and staff time in developing a Small Area Plan for Central West. While not binding, given the town investment and volunteer citizen contributions of time, there is good reason for Town leaders to follow the most compelling elements of the plan.
In addition, UNC and the Town spent years on the Carolina North design guidelines. During those discussions it was basically set forth that the east-side of MLK, Jr.’s development would mirror that of UNC’s Carolina North with setbacks and buffers. This proposed concept plan is the antithesis of these design guidelines.
UNC and/or the Town is going to eventually build a multi-modal transit center on the northwest corner of MLK/Estes. The proposed concept plan is not compatible with the investment that will be made in that transit center.
More information of the Council discussion can be found in the newspaper article or you can listen to the video of the Council discussion:
- Tammy Grubb’s article in the N&O on the Council discussion on this topic is here.
- To view the tape of the council go here. This agenda item is at 3:27:36- 4:56:11