Staff Writer
CHAPEL HILL — For those trying to build a four-story residence for 140 students at the corner of Rosemary and Church streets, the third time is a charm. Those opposed to it say they don’t feel so lucky.
A site along the south side of Rosemary Street now occupied by three small buildings is the third site the Wesley Foundation has proposed as home to a residence hall it has been trying to locate in downtown Chapel Hill for several years.
A previous proposal near the foundation’s center on Pittsboro Street was met with opposition by its neighbors and town council members and a proposal to swap the Pittsboro Street center for university-owned property on East Franklin Street was turned down by UNC officials.
An initial concept plan for Wesley House, reviewed by the town council in November, calls for a four-story, 79,770-square-foot building with about 5,000 square feet of retail space on the ground floor. Initial parking plans were for 35 spaces under the building.
According to Nick Didow, Wesley Foundation board member and point person for the project, the new site has great potential for being an integral part of downtown.
“We see this as having tremendously positive influence on downtown,†Didow said Tuesday. In addition to adding more residents to the heart of downtown, he said, the foundation plans to include community engagement and service programs for the students in residence.
“I would like those that oppose this project to consider that this may be one of the best things to happen to downtown in a very long time,†said Didow, a professor with UNC’s Kenan-Flagler Business School and a former school board chair.
Didow said that the foundation has received some criticism, but that nearby businesses are for the most part happy to see additional residents downtown.
But for Chip Hoppin and his immediate neighbors along Short Street, the prospect of 140 students added to the neighborhood and a four-story building going up just over the fence to his backyard means the beginning of the end of a dream. His wife, Kim Stein, has lived in the house since 1993. After they got married and had a daughter, they decided to stay put and enjoy life downtown.
“We weren’t planning on moving for another 25 years,†Hoppin said. While Hoppin said he empathizes with the Wesley Foundation’s desire to find a place for its students and programs, he said the project will so drastically alter the landscape that his family and others will be effectively forced out.
“It’s a square peg in a round hole,†he said. “It’s a really nice square peg, but it still doesn’t fit with this neighborhood.â€
One major concern is the plan to have limited parking onsite and satellite parking elsewhere.
At a recent meeting with neighbors, Hoppin said that an updated plan was for 29 underground spaces and the rest at a satellite lot in Chatham County and a shuttle service in between. “That just doesn’t seem practical,†he said, especially considering the neighborhood’s historical parking woes.
The foundation has looked at sites in Chatham County for a retreat center, Didow said, adding that the number of spaces onsite and other parking concerns have not been settled and he expects the town to have very specific stipulations on parking for the project.
Estelle Mabry, a longtime resident on Pritchard Avenue, doesn’t think the parking plan is realistic.
“They’re pie-in-the-sky on parking,†she said.
Mabry said traffic patterns and lack of parking are likely to further congest the area. She also is worried that the project isn’t a good fit or a good move for the town.
“One concern I have is that it will take property off the tax rolls,†she said. “We can’t afford to have any more property come off the tax rolls.â€
It is unfortunate that Mr. Ross begins his article with inaccuracies before moving on to imply, with photo included, that Wesley Campus Ministry is nothing if not a dream-wrecker or a neighborhood destroyer.
Change is hard. For everyone. Having said that, I want to lift up some of the positives of this project and encourage the residents of Short Street and the Northside neighborhood to consider positive ways to address change.
Positive: the facility will be substance free – residents will commit to living in a drug/alcohol free space. To have a residential facility like this in the midst of what University officials describe as a “student weekend war-zone” – this is no small thing. It might even save lives.
Positive: the programs for residents will include service-learning in partnership with the Northside neighbors to help honor and preserve the great history there in the midst of change.
Positive: the programs for residents will include interfaith living-learning, to provide students with the chance to engage differing world views. Our hope is that they will change the world when they leave Chapel Hill.
Positive: the building which will be MUCH smaller than the original concept will, in fact, be a buffer for the Short Street residents from the 9-story building going in on the south side of Rosemary.
Positive: there will be one parking space per unit.
Now I know the parking has people unhappy. But here’s an idea. Rather than oppose a project that really will be an asset to the neighborhood, what about the neighbors banding together to petition Town Council to change the parking regulations so that no one can park on the street EVER without a proper permit, and those permits are available only to the residents on those streets and apportioned one per unit?
That’s just one positive way to stand up in the face of change – not to oppose it but to get what you need from it. I’m sure there are other ideas out there. We’d like to hear them.
Jan Rivero,
Executive Director
Wesley Campus Ministry
Ms. Mabry’s comment that Wesley is “pie in the sky” on parking is what is truly unrealistic. Satellite parking works very well at UNC – most students park their cars in remote satellite parking lots and take Chapel Hill Transit to retrieve them. If that system is already working for so many students on a campus where there is also historically limited parking, why would it not work in this case? Most residents of the building would also not need their cars very often because UNC is within walking distance. I see traffic only increasing during move in and move out, just like it does everywhere in Chapel Hill.
The idea of getting the parking regulations in the neighborhood changed is a very good one, and has the potential to solve parking problems with or without the addition of students in the neighborhood.
140 students seems like a large number. But Wesley isn’t putting in a sorority house or a fraternity house where raging parties will occur. After construction is completed, life would go on in the Northside neighborhood, and would probably be better.
Think about this – the Northside neighborhood is in a particularly tight spot. It is virtually adjacent to two of Chapel Hill’s biggest attractions – Franklin Street and UNC. With UNC adding more students every year but no more dorms, those who cannot find a room on campus have to go somewhere. If Wesley is not allowed to build, these students will continue to help gentrify the neighborhood as people looking to make money buy up the inexpensive housing and rent it to students. Those students WILL have all night parties, WILL have all of the friends drive over and take up parking, WILL NOT take care of their property most likely, and WILL NOT give back to the community.
The choice is yours – have a bunch of renters taking up precious housing, or build a building for 140 students living in a substance free environment. Parking is awful everywhere in Chapel Hill, so my challenge is for someone to come up with a better reason than the parking. Parking is just an excuse.
Catherine Garner / Chapel Hill
Has anyone computed the loss in Chapel Hill tax revenues now being paid for the existing three buildings, two of which are not particularly small and all of which are considerably more charming than the proposed tax-exempt new building? Town services will be needed by this fairly substantial development. Want to guess who will be paying for them as well as making up the loss in current tax revenues?
Last I heard, the proposed student housing was in addition to non-substance-free condominiums/apartments as well as commercial/office space to be developed on the site. What is the tax-exempt Wesley Foundation doing in the commercial and residential real estate development business?
Where are you Tea Partiers when you could actually be doing something constructive in opposing this development which will require additional town services as well as higher taxes to make up for the revenue lost because of this project?
Full disclosure: the writer has lived two blocks north of this project since 1987 in the density-controlled (by the town) Northside neighborhood, appreciates the dwindling number of remaining older buildings which exist downtown and believes that downtown Chapel Hill streets lack the capacity for the increased traffic which will result from further high-density residential real estate development.