Parade of new businesses

The Holiday Parade marches down Franklin Street this Saturday, starting at 10 a.m. in front of the post office. Here’s a list of businesses along the parade route that are new in the past year, and some that have closed:

Top This! opened in the former Jack Sprat Café spot. Insomnia Cookies opened where Clothes Hound had been. A Waffle House opened where YoFrutt used to be.

Tomato Jake’s left after less than a year in the space that had been Franklin Street Pizza & Pasta for years. Korchipi, a Korean fusion restaurant, took over the spot and within a few months was bought out by another Korean restaurateur, who changed the name to Chopsticks & More.

Pepper’s Pizza closed after 26 years. Owner Pepper Harvey said shorter lunch breaks on campus and new dining options offered by Aramark on campus ate into his business.

Carolina Pride closed. CVS Drugstore opened in the former Bank of America space.

Businesses began fleeing University Square once the Town Council approved the redevelopment of the lot to be known as 123 West Franklin. Glee Kids, William Travis Jewelry, Cynthia’s Tailor Shop and Chapel Hill Barber Shop all scouted out places at University Mall. Franklin Street Yoga moved to The Courtyard. The Eye Care Center moved across the street to 140 West. Ken’s Quickie Mart and Butternut Squash Café closed, as did 35 Chinese restaurant. Time Out got its lease extended until February. The fate of Peacock Alley, Fine Feathers and Kidzu Children’s Museum is up in the air.

140 West opened and began booking retail tenants. Lime Fresh Mexican Grill and Gigi’s Cupcakes were the first to open.

Tom Cat’s II massage parlor closed. Next door, Trilussa la Trattoria closed, too (we don’t believe there was a connection), and Mozzarella took over the tiny dining space.

Mellow Mushroom opened, with a new outdoor wall mural by Michael Brown, particularly satisfying given that Lantern owner Andrea Reusing painted over a Michael Brown mural on the side of her restaurant across the street, turning it into a solid black wall when she expanded into the space next door. Black fit better with the new décor, she said.

Kildaire’s Irish Pub closed and was succeeded by Fitzgerald’s Irish Pub.

Kipos Greek Taverna and Kalamaki Greek Street Food, the two latest George Bakatsias eateries, opened in The Courtyard.

The Chocolate Door closed; Al’s Burger Shack moved into the space.

Hampton Inn & Suites opened in Carrboro and welcomed its first retail tenant in ground-floor storefront space: Cameron Gallery, formerly of U Mall. Nice Price Books closed. A 500-space parking deck opened. Fireplace Editions moved to Chapel Hill, off Eubanks Road.

Plan to shop your way along the route. Local merchants appreciate your business.
– Nancy Oates

by on December 9, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Business, Downtown Chapel Hill, Economic development
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on December 9, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/12/09/parade-of-new-businesses/

An end, and a new beginning

Compromise, a concept not usually synonymous with Town Council, ruled the day during the approval of a plan for Central West. Council members did so many things right during last Tuesday’s meeting that it’s hard to know where to begin.

Town staff set the stage by reconfiguring the room to allow increased occupancy of 130; unfortunately the bleak weather and perhaps a defeatist attitude kept some community members away. And council members raised the 2-minute time limit per community member comment to 3 minutes, though most commenters already had only a 2-minute speech prepared. Dr. Arthur Finn voiced concerns that council members had already made up their minds about a plan for Central West well before the meeting began and were only humoring people as they had in previous development issues in which council discussion didn’t reflect that community comment had been absorbed.

Perhaps that pricked the conscience of council members, or information revealed in the Central West Steering Committee report did. In any case, what followed was the most fulsome discussion by council members I’ve seen in a long time.

And it ended in council approving a compromise version of a plan for Central West redevelopment that melded the steering committee recommendation with key points of the alternative plan proposed by community members.

Gene Pease, at his last public hearing before his term ends, was taken aback that the Central West redevelopment would be revenue neutral. The whole point of redevelopment was to bring in more tax revenue to relieve the pressure on residential property taxpayers. To ask town residents to make quality-of-life sacrifices without benefit of property tax relief missed the point, he said in so many words. Jim Ward agreed, going so far as to say that council wouldn’t be interested in reviewing any redevelopment plans that weren’t revenue positive.

Many on council expressed concern about deleterious effects of increased traffic, stormwater damage and stress on the schools without any revenue benefit. Ed Harrison suggested incorporating the Planning Board’s recommendations into the steering committee plan, thereby requiring studies for traffic and stormwater runoff, preserving the tree canopy requirements and providing a justification for redevelopment. And that’s what council approved, unanimously.

What really did my heart good was the quality of the discussion. There were at times strong disagreement among council members, but I didn’t hear a single snide remark, derisive snort or dismissive interruption. Newly elected council members Maria Palmer and George Cianciolo were in the audience. I hope they took notice.
– Nancy Oates

by on December 2, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
Posted by NancyDon on December 2, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/12/02/an-end-and-a-new-beginning/

Back of the line — again

What are you thankful for this Thanksgiving? For being able turn on your faucet and drink a glass of clean water that doesn’t taste funky and leave you worried about what sorts of toxins or carcinogens it contains? For never having to budget for pumping out the septic tank and remediation efforts when it fails?

If so, you don’t live in the Rogers Road neighborhood.

Those who live along Rogers Road have been waiting 40 years for the chance to be thankful for what those who live within town limits take for granted. For 40 years, Chapel Hill has promised to make it up to Rogers Road homeowners for siting the Orange County landfill right next door to them. For 41 years, they’ve put up with the odors and the contaminated wells, believing that the town will be true to its word.

Those of us who pay Chapel Hill taxes should be ashamed of ourselves for, year after year, letting our moral obligation slide. We talk a good game – last June, a task force came up with some recommendations and Town Council narrowed its funding options – but after last Thursday’s Council of Governments meeting, the decision-making deteriorated into squabbling and accusations between Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Hillsborough town officials left before the discussion began.

The task force recommended two options, both of which would cost $5.8 million and serve 86 homes; one plan would do the work all at once, and the other would do it in two phases. Both would require extending the town’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) to include Rogers Road so that the town could legally use taxpayer money to contribute its share. A 1972 landfill agreement laid out that Chapel Hill and Carrboro each pay 43% of the costs and the county pay the remaining 14%.

A third option would be to create a separate water and sewer district that would serve other Carrboro and north Chapel Hill areas, which would cost $17.6 million, paid for by each town and the county covering the costs within its respective jurisdiction.

In October, the town held a public hearing about extending the ETJ, which would clear the way for the town to pay its portion of the sewer system. The matter comes back before council on Jan. 14, 2014.

Even if the ETJ is extended and both towns and the county agree on a plan and who pays for what, we as a town have made no provisions for where we’re going to come up with the money. Ironically, Town Council tonight will vote on whether to donate more than $2 million worth of town land to a developer who aims to build affordable apartments, and whether to draw nearly $1 million from the general fund (the town’s savings account) to spruce up Town Hall, in part to make it more convenient for developers.

Not that either of those latter two projects isn’t worthy. But that the town moved with such alacrity on them while Rogers Road residents were once again pushed to the back of the line reveals our glaringly misplaced priorities.
– Nancy Oates

by on November 25, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Budget, Ethics, Spending, Taxes
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on November 25, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/11/25/back-of-the-line-again/

Loopholes and buzzkill

You’re more likely to behave yourself if you live next door to your landlord. Jay Patel of, well, a few different business partnerships, but known by Chapel Hillians as the owner of the Franklin Hotel, apparently ascribes to that theory. At tonight’s Town Council meeting, he will present a concept review of Franklin Student Housing, an apartment complex to be built on the parking lots behind the Franklin Hotel and where The Chapel Hill Herald office used to be.

Patel’s proposal is to construct a 6-story building for 55 apartments (177 bedrooms), and 121 parking spaces contained in two underground levels. His target market is students, and the only neighbors to the project are Patel’s hotel and other students. The project abuts the Cameron-McCauley Historic District, and those particular houses on Mallette Street are rented by students. If the students in his apartments get out of hand, the only neighbors likely to complain would be guests in Patel’s hotel. I would expect Patel to be run a tight ship with his tenants.

Downtown needs more residents. Because Patel has already invested in the property next door, this particular project seems a good risk. What seems odd is his description of his apartments as affordable.

Two terms that get council members all dewy-eyed are “coffee shop” and “affordable,” and developers have learned to push both terms in appearing before council for approval.

Council uses Housing & Urban Development calculations to determine affordability: A tenant should pay no more than 30% of the Area Median Income for housing. Chapel Hill’s AMI is quite high ($58,860 for a single person in 2011) compared to nearby towns. Town Council looks at affordability levels of 80% and 65% AMI. Monthly rent for a single person would be $950 at the 80% AMI level and $772 at the 65% level.

But – loophole alert – that is household size, not apartment size. Technically, a landlord charging rent by the bedroom, which is the norm for student rentals, could charge $3,800 a month for a four-bedroom apartment and still qualify as affordable at the 80% AMI level because each single student is charged no more than $950 a month.

Patel has asked for a density bonus because he plans to price rents to make them affordable according to HUD standards. He hasn’t specified what size units he will designate as affordable.

But – buzzkill alert – state law prohibits a landowner from “buying” favorable zoning in exchange for providing rent restrictions, which is what a density bonus is. For council to allow a density bonus for a promise of lower rents is to leave the town open to lawsuits.

Patel is not pulling a bait-and-switch, which is what some of us felt the Bicycle-turned-Lux developers did. He is being straightforward about his plans. These will be student rentals; the market rate for student rentals downtown is about $850 a month per bedroom. Patel is simply taking advantage of council expectations that have never been precisely committed to paper.
We’ve got two lawyers on council in addition to a town attorney. They should get together and figure out language that closes the loopholes.
– Nancy Oates

by on November 18, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Downtown Chapel Hill, Land Use
Tagged ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on November 18, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/11/18/loopholes-and-buzzkill/

Beside the tracks

Here’s what “Many” has to say:

Many years ago, when we lived in Boston, I remember what happened when the red line was put in through Cambridge/Somerville. At the time the corridor was filled with moderately priced rentals and housing for people that commuted into Boston by car or bus. The red line morphed those neighborhoods into +million dollar condos. The middle class was forced out to Bedford Ma. and southern New Hampshire, and that resulted in making the congestion and sprawl everyone claimed they were solving with the red line worse. Watching this devolution left a lasting impression of how badly wrong things can go. (http://www.policylink.org/site/c.lkIXLbMNJrE/b.5137373/k.E65E/Transit_Oriented_Development.htm)

Even if TTA were to build a successful LRT (unlikely as that is), the goal should be not to serve the wealthy but to serve the people that rely on Public Transportation. The areas proposed for LRT are already expensive. LRT will drive property values along that corridor through the roof. and as property values and rents increase it will force ridership to move further out causing even more issues as it did in the Cambridge Somerville case.

Does experience tell you developers will build along the corridor without parking? Even with the best of intentions, do you think the political climate would be able to hold that limited parking line against the force of economic development? I for one do not believe it for a moment and people will still drive to this new development and park or the development will fail.

Besides being ridiculously expensive, proposed LRT routes cut new swaths through watersheds rather than using existing routes. This has the effect of stranding existing development areas and further exacerbating issues with the Jordan Lake watershed simultaneously. This plan will also serve to economically abandon existing right of ways and businesses. Greenfield interconnection development is just a plan bad idea.

What attracts and maintains ridership is the look & feel and walkability of the stops as well as the convenience. UNC studied the issue and came to similar conclusions: (http://katana.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/TTA%20Final%20Report%20-%20PLAN%20823.pdf)

The preferred solution seems simple to me;

1) Use at least some of the monies generated from the transit tax to promote walkability and circulation through development zones county wide, and add major BRT stops there (e.g. Efland/Buckhorn, possibly fixing the issues along Estes and CW, definitely a stop by So. Village and Obey Creek, plan one for the Friday Center etc. and the UNC Hospitals – Hillsboro and Chapel Hill.). This is where land use supports transit and will drive ridership. Enable the use of this transit by providing free parking for BRT, especially for those commuting to work. Do this by placing other non BRT parking further away.

2) Connect these nodes using BRT over existing infrastructure, adding rail style platforms at the nodes and making sure BRT traffic flows through bottlenecks more smoothly than personal auto traffic does today. Go to places people want to go to (PLEASE serve the airport, don’t make the same mistake Charlotte did). Use local transit to provide “last mile” connections e.g. (http://www.npr.org/2013/11/13/243955769/how-a-free-bus-shuttle-helped-make-a-small-town-take-off?ft=1&f=1001)

3) Stop building public infrastructure (e.g. the Library) in places that are not served by public transit, it just adds to the problem. Start with the obvious; serve the medical corridor that is developing along 15-501 between Chapel Hill & Durham rather than bypassing it. Tie the places people want to go together using existing infrastructure. Start planning right of ways that parallel exiting routes and use land use/zoning to accomplish a path for future BRT routes.

by on November 13, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Transportation
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on November 13, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/11/13/beside-the-tracks/

Sorting out recycling

Does Wake County get a volume discount for recycling? It seems to be able to handle recycling at half the cost as Orange County. Then again, Wake County is a little more than twice the area of Orange County (857 square miles compared to Orange’s 401 square miles), yet it has nearly seven times the population (952,151 vs. 137,941 in 2012). As any pizza delivery guy will tell you, you can go door-to-door more efficiently if all the doors are close together.

At a Town Council work session on Nov. 6, council members looked at ways to save money with recycling. Town staff made a PowerPoint presentation comparing curbside recycling services by Orange County, Republic Service, Waste Industries and Waste Management. The four entities each had a different scope of service, so deciding which offered the best proposal was not a simple apples-to-apples comparison.

The recycling system through the county that the town enjoys now is one of the best in the state, according to the Orange-Chatham Sierra Club. Town staff would like to continue the service as is. But town staff’s boss, Roger Stancil, recommended that the town sign a 5-year interlocal agreement with the county that gives the town more oversight and sets the stage for potential cherry-picking of services. That could make the services the town doesn’t contract the county to do more expensive. And some Town Council members – Mayor Kleinschmidt, Gene Pease and Matt Czajkowski, as long as we’re naming names – said, essentially, not so fast, relevant because council is Stancil’s boss.

Among council’s objections was that continuing to have the county handle recycling was a way to get town residents to pay for convenience centers that benefit county residents more. Convenience centers do have their own line item in the budget, so technically, that argument has little merit, though the more revenue the county brings in through curbside recycling, the more it has to spend elsewhere in the budget, including convenience centers.

The issue was further muddied by the county’s deadline of year’s end to take advantage of a $75,000 state grant toward purchasing recycling roll carts that the county says would induce county residents in particular to recycle more, bringing in more revenue. (The county is paid for the recyclables it delivers to a processor.) Saving recyclables from going in the trash reduces the volume of garbage and saves on landfill tipping fees. Roll carts are more durable than bins (saving on replacement costs) and have the capacity to allow recycling to be picked up every other week, instead of weekly (lower operating costs).

Expect the recycling issues to be sorted out at the Nov. 21 Assembly of Governments meeting.
– Nancy Oates

by on November 11, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in County business, Spending
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on November 11, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/11/11/sorting-out-recycling/

Vote to be heard

In 2011, any candidate that broke 4,000 votes got a seat on Town Council. This year, it may take even fewer. Even though we are a town of about 50,000 people.

As in 2011, nine candidates are battling, albeit quietly, for four seats on council. This year I’ve heard some voters talk about writing in candidates, something I haven’t heard in previous elections. Presuming the same 7,500 or so voters turn out, as they did in 2011 (though early voting turnout fell to a record low this year), and each voter marks four candidates (though there is no rule that you have to exercise all four choices), the percentage of voters voting off grid, as it were, leaves fewer votes available to distribute among the candidates whose names are printed on the ballot.

To my knowledge, a write-in candidate has never won in Chapel Hill, and I don’t expect any surprise ending this year. Traditionally, incumbents have an advantage – they’re known quantities – but they can’t take their seats for granted. In 2007, Matt Czajkowski bested incumbent Cam Hill, and as a town we have benefited greatly from Czajkowski’s trenchant insights, pointed questions and dogged perseverance in getting his points across.

I don’t blame the low turnout for early voting on voter apathy. Far from it. The massive redevelopment that Chapel Hill looks forward to will affect not only how much we pay in taxes but our quality of life. I perceive more voters taking their ballot choices seriously, and they’re taking time to consider their options carefully. At the forums, every candidate sounds good, yet voters want to know how a candidate will act once in office.

A good way to get a fuller picture of what a candidate thinks is to go to forums presented to different target audiences – Friends of Downtown, Central West and Carol Woods, for instance – because human nature is to play to the crowd. A candidate’s consistent stand on an issue across demographics indicates the candidate’s true beliefs. But this year, it seems the forums have been very poorly publicized. The only people who know about a forum are the candidates and others specifically invited.

I hope for a good turnout on Election Day, because if we can’t rally ourselves to make our voice heard at the polls, I fear cynicism will have won: Voters believe the fix is in, their considered input doesn’t matter, council members will vote the way they always have, and the town can look forward only to more of the same.

Polls are open Tuesday, Nov. 5, from 6:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Prove your voice matters.
– Nancy Oates

by on November 4, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Elections
Posted by Nancy Oates on November 4, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/11/04/vote-to-be-heard/

Limits on listening

I never thought I’d say this, but I miss those all-nighter council meetings.

Town Council had a rich agenda for its Oct. 21 public hearing – a discussion of whether to add large swaths of land north of Chapel Hill, which included the Historic Rogers Road neighborhood, to the ETJ; Central West’s controversial proposal; and a first-ever density bonus to Timber Hollow – and many people in town had a lot to say.

Central West drew the most speakers by far, and it held the middle spot between the ETJ annexation and Timber Hollow. Council had the chance to try out its new rule: If more than 15 people sign up to speak, the time limit per speaker is reduced from 3 minutes to 2. Unfortunately, that was not communicated to the public, who thought that the first 15 speakers would get 3 minutes each, and those that followed would get 2 minutes. The blanket 2-minute limit wasn’t clarified until after the first speaker got cut off midsentence, which got the public comment period off on the wrong foot.

Tensions were running high already because town staff shunted all but the first 100 citizens into an overflow room, even though the posted capacity for the main meeting room was 185. Roger Stancil later said that due to the way the chairs were set up for the council meeting, the fire marshal scaled back the occupancy to 109.

The Central West matter finished up about 10:20, and Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt plowed ahead with the Timber Hollow matter, even though council would have to adjourn promptly at 11:15 because an alarm goes off in the Southern Human Services building if the doors aren’t locked by midnight.

By the time the staff and the developer had made their presentations and citizens had commented, council members had time to ask only two questions before the mayor gaveled the meeting to a close. Discussion will resume a month later, at the Nov. 18 public hearing. But as every pitcher caught in a rain delay will tell you, a break in the action quashes momentum. Several council members had raised their hand to speak. Will they still feel the urgency to get their questions answered a month after the presentations and public comments?

With the items on last week’s agenda, council has some serious decisions to make. Limiting the comments the public contributes reduces the amount of information the council has as it considers these important issues. And separating council discussion from the presentations and public comment likely will temper the probing questions council had begun to ask.

That’s what makes me long for the good ol’ days.
– Nancy Oates

by on October 28, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Politics
Tagged , ,
Posted by Nancy Oates on October 28, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/10/28/limits-on-listening/

Buybacks

Tell me I’m not the only person to have donated something to the PTA Thrift Shop, then a month later bought it back.

Town Council members know the feeling. They are asked to give away affordable housing as they vote to approve redevelopment projects, then scrounge for town resources to buy affordable housing somewhere else to replace what they’ve given up. And that inefficiency makes Matt Czajkowski, for one, angry.

At last Wednesday’s council meeting, Donna Bell and Sally Greene presented the recommendations of the Mayor’s Affordable Rental Housing Task Force. One of their proposals was to donate about $4 million of town-owned land, several as-yet-unused acres of the town cemetery near the Blue Cross Blue Shield building, to a developer to build low-income apartments on. The rentals would reduce the affordable rental deficit brought about by the redevelopment of the Ephesus Church/Fordham area that would erase the 300 low-income rentals of Colony Apartments. The new owners of the 100-plus acres of which Colony Apartments is a part have stopped accepting Section 8 vouchers toward rent, and from the way town staff and the urban design consultant, and even some council members, have been heralding the massive urban renewal project, the annihilation of Colony Apartments appears to be a done deal.

Politicians can’t appear to be against affordable housing or “progress” in the form of urban renewal, so of course the affordability report was very well received by many of those on the dais. Developers will load their projects with high-end features to charge the maximum rent the market will bear, Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt noted, and the report recommendations included incentives to entice developers to preserve some organically affordable rentals. Laurin Easthom asked how the town could ensure that those units would stay affordable after the town gave incentives. State law prohibits landowners from “buying” favorable zoning in exchange for providing reduced-rent housing.

When a member of the newly formed Orange County Affordable Housing Coalition charged that new owners of aging apartment complexes were taking away affordable units, Czajkowski countered that the town has allowed that to happen with every rezoning it approves that will replace affordable rentals with luxury apartments or expensive student housing.

The discussion grew impassioned as tenants and nonprofits threw in their opinions. Beneath the drama, the exchanges revealed thought-provoking questions.

If you think there are surefire easy answers, chances are your bias is showing. But the robust discussion at last week’s council meeting was a good start to seeking solutions.

Watch it at http://chapelhill.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=1943. Click on Discussion Item 6: Recommendations from the Mayor’s Committee on Affordable Rental Housing.
– Nancy Oates

by on October 21, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Council Members, Economic development, Ethics, Housing, Land Use, Politics, Spending, Taxes
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on October 21, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/10/21/buybacks/

ETJ and trust

At its Oct. 21 meeting, Town Council will preside over a public hearing to consider expanding the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction north of town. The proposed plan would incorporate the historic Rogers Road area, the old landfill, Northwood and a large chunk north of Eubanks Road into the ETJ. Accepting this proposal would allow the town to have sole decision-making power over rezoning decisions.

At present the land is subject to joint approval by the town, Orange County and Carrboro. And from the way the redevelopment process has played out with the Central West and Fordham/Ephesus Church areas, getting a second opinion on what the redevelopment will yield would be a good idea. Especially if that opining voice has the authority to vote a project up or down.

Town staff seems to be enamored of a trendy concept called “new urbanism,” a plan that dots a coffee shop and a hotel in the midst of some apartment buildings and deems it a “walkable community,” as if none of the residents in those apartments would ever have need to leave the complex to, for instance, go to work or worship or buy groceries or visit friends who didn’t live in the same building.

The zeal with which town staff and a ruling cabal on council embrace the concept of new urbanism seems akin to the enthusiasm in the 1970s for urban renewal. At the time, it seemed like a good idea to tear down dilapidated houses and replace entire neighborhoods with institutional, in many cases cheaply built, apartment buildings. Within 30 years, municipalities began tearing them down.

We have a similar situation today in the redevelopment plans presented so far. The overriding concern appears to be: Can the developer and his investors make enough profit? Town staff ignore whether the project functions effectively for the people who live here.

Considering how ineffectual middle- to upper-middle class residents have been in getting town staff to pay attention to quality of life issues in the Central West process, do we really want to turn the town loose on an area whose residents don’t have the money and may not have much experience in fighting town hall?

Take a look at the map, and see what you think: townofchapelhill.org/index.aspx?page=2291
— Nancy Oates

by on October 13, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
Posted by Nancy Oates on October 13, 2013

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/10/13/etj-and-trust/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »