AGENDA #12c

MEMORANDUM

TO:	Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM:	J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator Kumar Neppalli, Engineering Services Manager
SUBJECT:	Homestead Twin Towns – Special Use Permit-Planned Development-Housing Application (File No. 9870-64-8194)
DATE:	May 21, 2007

INTRODUCTION

Tonight, the Council continues consideration of a Special Use Permit for a Planned Development-Housing for a multi-family development which proposes 72 units and 139 parking spaces. The 21.5 acre site is located on the south side of Homestead Road, just west of Seawell School Road. The Special Use Permit application also includes a proposal to subdivide an existing one acre lot on Rogers Road, and relocate two houses, located on the Homestead Road site, to the proposed subdivided lots. Both sites are located outside the Town of Chapel Hill’s corporate limits and in the Town’s Northern Joint Planning Transition Area (JPA).

Associated with this application is a proposal to rezone the Homestead Road site from Residential-2 (R-2) to Residential-4-Conditional (R-4-C). Prior to providing the applicant with a copy of the Council adopted Special Use Permit document, the Orange County Commissioners must take action on the Zoning Atlas Amendment application. Please refer to the accompanying memorandum for additional information on the proposed rezoning.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the information in the record to date, with the conditions in Revised Resolution A and the requested modification to regulations, if the property is rezoned to Residential-4-Conditional, we believe that the Council could make the findings required to approve the Special Use Permit application. We recommend that the Council adopt Revised Resolution A, approving the application.

This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:

Cover Memorandum: Introduces application, discusses key issues, describes process for review, and offers recommendations for Council action.
Attachments:Includes a copy of the April 17, 2007 Public Hearing memorandum, advisory board comments, and the applicant’s materials.

KEY ISSUES

We have identified eight key issues: 1) Homestead Road improvements: curb and gutter; 2) Homestead Road median; 3) Refuse collection; 4) Affordable housing; 5) Bus stop improvements; 6) Energy efficiency; 7) Annexation; and 8) Rogers Road recreation area.

1. Homestead Road improvements (curb and gutter vs. grass swale): The proposed project includes frontage along the south side of Homestead Road. We recommended at the Public Hearing that the applicant improve this portion of Homestead Road with curb and gutter. During the Public Hearing, the applicant objected to the recommendation for curb and gutter improvements along Homestead Road. The applicant stated that other portions of Homestead Road in this area do not include curb and gutter. The applicant is proposing a grassy swale along this frontage in place of curb and gutter.

Staff Comment: Subsequent to the Public Hearing, the Town staff, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the applicant, met on the site and revisited the issue of roadway improvements around the site. Based on discussions with the applicant concerning the staff’s recommendation for curb and gutter on Homestead Road, and the applicant’s offer to provide an off-site sidewalk connection along Seawell School Road between this site and High School Road, we believe greater public benefit is provided by installing the off-site sidewalk connection instead of curb and gutter. We have received comments from NCDOT supporting this recommendation.

Therefore, we do not recommend the installation of curb and gutter on Homestead Road, but instead recommend that the developer build a sidewalk on Seawell School Road between High School Road and Homestead Road. We believe this sidewalk is a critical component for pedestrian mobility on Seawell School Road. We summarize the revised recommendations for roadway improvements below:

That the applicant shall improve Homestead Road to provide two 12-foot wide travel lanes and a 4-foot wide bicycle lane along the site frontage prior to the issuance of first Certificate of Occupancy.
That the applicant shall improve Seawell School Road to provide two 12-foot wide travel lanes plus a 12-foot wide left turn lane, and 4-foot wide bicycle lane, curb and gutter, and a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk to be located a minimum of 3 feet behind the curb along the site frontage.
Final design to be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
That the applicant shall provide a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Seawell School Road, from the southern property line to High School Road. Final design to be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

Although we do not recommend curb and gutter on Homestead Road, we believe that curb and gutter may be necessary to facilitate the construction of some portion of this sidewalk. We recommend that the final plans for this improvement be approved by the Town and the State, and if determined necessary in order to facilitate the construction of a sidewalk, that portions of the Homestead Road improvement include curb and gutter.

Revised Resolution A includes these recommendations.

2. Homestead Road median: At the Public Hearing, Council members expressed concern over the sight distance issues on Homestead Road.

Staff Comment: Subsequent to the Public Hearing, the Town staff, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the applicant met on the site and revisited the sight distance concern along the Homestead Road frontage. As a result, we recommend that the applicant construct a median on Homestead Road. This median will prohibit left turning movement and will address concerns with limited sight distance. We included the following new stipulation in Revised Resolution A:

Homestead Road median: That the applicant shall construct a median on Homestead Road at the proposed street intersection to prohibit left-turns from and to Homestead Road. The detailed plans for design and construction must be approved by the Town and North Carolina Department of Transportation prior to the issuance of Zoning Compliance Permit. The median must be constructed prior to the opening of the site entrance on Homestead Road.

3. Refuse Collection: curbside vs. bulk collection: During the Public Hearing, the applicant objected to the staff’s recommendation for bulk refuse collection. The applicant indicated that staff’s recommendation is based on an interpretation of Town Code (8-35 Bulk containers for multiple residential units).

Staff Comment: Following the Public Hearing, we reviewed our recommendation for bulk refuse collection. Section 8-35 of the Town Code states that all new residential developments of six or more units per zoning lot shall provide bulk containers. The proposed development is a multi-family project with 72 units on a single zoning lot and therefore, in accordance with Town Code Section 8-35, must provide bulk refuse containers.

We note that the Town Code (Section 8-35) includes a condition that the Council may grant an exemption to the bulk refuse container requirement for multi-family development if the Council is presented with evidence supporting curbside refuse collection. We anticipate that the applicant may be presenting evidence supporting this request at tonight’s meeting.

We have concerns over the implications of the Town Council granting an exemption to bulk refuse collection. Consideration of provision of curbside refuse collection for this proposed multi-family development has significant policy and service implications. Potentially other similar multi-family developments could request exemption to the Town Code for curbside refuse collection. This could increase manpower needs and costs to provide equal service to other similar developments. We understand from Orange County Solid Waste Management that the development will be served with biweekly curbside recycling services. Once the neighborhood is annexed, the recycling service would change to weekly collection. We continue to recommend bulk refuse collection for the development, in conformance with Town Code 8-35. Revised Resolution A includes this recommendation. If the Council desires, we could return with further information about the potential financial implications of a change to provide curbside refuse collection to multi-family developments.

4. Bus Stop improvements: Following the Public Hearing, we revisited our recommendation with respect to improvements to the transit system. We have revised our recommendation to include a payment-in-lieu for transit amenities, including a pull-off and standard bus stop facility.

Staff Comment: Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation requiring a payment-in-lieu for a bus pull-off, and a bus stop including a pad, bench, and shelter. The exclusion of a transit-related stipulation on April 17 was an error. This proposal is located in the Urban Services Boundary and is expected to receive increased transit services over the years. A payment-in-lieu of the improvements will allow Town staff time to evaluate the best location for the improvements. The amount for the payment-in-lieu shall be determined by the Town Manager and submitted to the Town prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

5. Percentage of affordable housing units: Originally, the applicant proposed 20 percent of the units (1, 2, and 3 bedroom units) as affordable units. At the Public Hearing, the applicant offered eleven 3 bedroom and 2 bath units that will be priced at $120,000, which is affordable to households earning about 73 percent of the area median income.

Staff Comment: The Orange Community Housing and Land Trust has submitted a letter (Attachment 6) in support of this proposal. We have revised Resolution A to address the new proposal. Revised Resolution A includes the following stipulation:

Provision of a minimum of 15 percent of the proposed dwelling units as affordable dwelling unit(s) available to low and moderate income households with annual income at or below 73 percent of the area median income. A minimum of eleven affordable units will be three bedroom and two bath units.

6. Affordable housing homeowners dues: During the Public Hearing, the applicant objected to the recommendation that required a transfer fee as a mechanism to subside the homeowners association dues for the affordable housing units.

Staff Comments: The applicant has agreed to setting and continuously maintaining the homeowner’s association dues for the affordable homes at a level not to exceed 50 percent of the dues payable from market rate homes. The reduction is generally consistent with the smaller square footage of the affordable homes. Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation that the homeowner’s association dues for the affordable homes will be set and continuously maintained at a level not to exceed 50 percent of the dues payable from market rate homes.

7. Dispersal of affordable housing units: During the Public Hearing, the Council expressed concern over how the affordable units were dispersed throughout the development.

Staff Comment: With respect to the distribution of units throughout the development, Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation that six of the eight affordable units along Homestead Road be relocated to the southern portion of the site, adjacent to the Resource Conservation District.

8. Energy Efficiency: The staff’s recommendation to the advisory boards and Council included a stipulation that requires the applicant to submit energy models showing a minimum energy efficiency savings of 20 percent relative to ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers) Standard 90.1-2004.

The applicant has offered to incorporate the “Energy Star” energy efficiency program into the plans for each home built at the proposed “Homestead Twins” development. Each home will be inspected by a qualified engineer who will submit the results of the inspection to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for certification. Each home must obtain the EPA certification. Once certification is granted, each home will qualify for a reduction in their Duke Energy bill.

All community facilities that are to be owned by the homeowners association and receive electric power from Duke Energy shall participate in the NC GreenPower program administered by Duke Energy. Each month, the association shall contribute a minimum of twenty blocks (100-kilowatt hours per block) to the NC GreenPower program. During the sales process, the applicant will encourage each new homeowner to sign up for the monthly contribution of one block to the NC GreenPower program by providing each homeowner with information about NC GreenPower.

Staff Comment: At the April 23, 2007 meeting, the Town Council adopted a resolution specifying the Council’s expectations for energy efficiency and an energy management plan for applicants seeking approval of conditional use rezoning applications. In response to the Council’s action at the April 23, 2007 meeting, we have included the following stipulations:

That the Final Plan for the Special Use Permit will incorporate a “20 percent more energy efficient” feature relative to the energy efficiency standard of the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), as amended and in effect at the time of building permit issuance; and
That other comparable standards generally recognized as applicable to building energy consumption, as amended and in effect at the time of building permit issuance, may be used by the applicant when incorporating the “20 percent more energy efficient” feature into their Final Plans; and
That the applicant include an Energy Management Plan in the Special Use Permit Final Plan application, to include consideration of utilizing sustainable energy, currently defined as solar, wind, biofuels, and hydroelectric power, in the proposed development; and
That the Energy Management Plan would include consideration of the purchase of carbon offset credits and green power production through coordination with the NC GreenPower program; and
That the Energy Management Plan shall provide for an acceptable level of increased energy efficiency that ensures indoor air quality and adequate access to natural lighting, and allows for the proposed utilization of sustainable energy in a development.

7. Annexation: At the Public Hearing, a Council Member requested information regarding future annexation of this area.

Staff Comment: The Town’s general policy, as reflected in annexation decisions in the last 20 years, has been to annex areas when they qualify under State law and when the Town can practically extend and finance municipal services to the qualifying areas. The area could be annexed when it has been developed for urban purposes and meets the NC General Statutes for annexation of density and population. The property owner could also petition the Council for annexation. The earliest consideration is likely to be after the development has been substantially completed and occupied.

8. Rogers Road recreation space requirement: The applicant is required to provide 1,075 square feet of recreation space for the proposed two lots on Rogers Road. Initially, we believed the applicant was providing for the required Rogers Road recreation space at the Homestead Road site. Subsequent to the April 17 meeting, the applicant is now proposing to satisfy the requirement by providing a tot lot at the Rogers Road site for the two new lots.

Comment: We understand the applicant presented a revised plan to the Parks and Recreation Commission showing the tot lot. Staff and the applicant agree that providing the recreation space for the Rogers Road site at the Homestead site is undesirable. However, we do not believe a tot lot for two isolated large lots is appropriate and recommend that the applicant provide a payment-in-lieu for the required recreation space for the Rogers Road site. We believe that the payment-in-lieu would be approximately $13,000. Revised Resolution A includes a stipulation for the payment-in-lieu to be made prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit application involves consideration of four findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit. Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether it can make each of the four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit. If, after consideration of the evidence submitted at the Public Hearing, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, the Land Use Management Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit shall then be approved. If the Council decides that the evidence does not support making one or more of the findings, then the application cannot be approved and, accordingly, should be denied by the Council.

Tonight, based on the evidence in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based on the four findings of facts that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit. We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

Finding #1: That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following point from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

“This community will promote all of the elements of public health, safety, and general welfare. Having a family oriented community located within actual walking distance of all three primary public schools is a situation seldom found anywhere but land planning books. Having the homes so close to school that children attend is a safer situation for the children who will not have to be transported by bus or worse yet drive themselves to school.”[Applicant’s Statement]

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #1.

Finding #2: That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3 and 5, the applicable specific standards in the Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6) and with all other applicable regulations.

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification:

“When the proposed conditional rezoning is approved, Homestead Twins will comply with all required regulations and standards of this chapter, including all applicable provisions of Article 3 and 5 and the applicable specific standards contained in Article 6 and with all other applicable regulations.” [Applicant’s Statement]

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #2. For discussion on the applicant’s proposed modification to regulations, please refer to the Modifications to Regulations section in this memorandum.

Finding #3: That the use would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity.

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification.

“Homestead Twins is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain and enhance the value of contiguous property. Homestead Twins will be an asset to its neighbors and the Chapel Hill Community in general. The proposal’s provisions for affordable housing under the land trust and moderately priced housing overall within walking distance to all three public school and a multitude of public facilities will serve the community well.” [Applicant’s Statement]

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #3.

Finding #4: That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of this finding includes the following points from the applicant’s Statement of Justification.

“The Homestead Twins proposal will conform to the general plans for physical development of the Town as embodied in this Chapter and in the Comprehensive Plan. ” [Applicant’s Statement]

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #4.

We anticipate that further evidence may be presented for the Council’s consideration as part of the continued Public Hearing process. Please see the applicant’s Statement of Justification for additional evidence in support of the four findings.

MODIFICATIONS TO THE REGULATIONS

The Town staff recommends modification to the regulations in the Land Use Management Ordinance for the issue identified below. The Council has the ability to modify the regulations, according to Section 4.5.6 in the Land Use Management Ordinance, as follows:

“Where actions, designs, or solutions proposed by the applicant are not literally in accord with applicable special use regulations, general regulations, or other regulations in this Chapter, but the Town Council makes a finding in the particular case that public purposes are satisfied to an equal or greater degree, the Town Council may make specific modification of the regulations in the particular case. Any modification of regulations shall be explicitly indicated in the Special Use Permit or Modification of Special Use Permit.”

Detailed requests for modifications to regulations are below followed by staff comments:

Floor Area Limitations: Town staff recommends a modification to regulations in Section 3.8 of the Land Use Management Ordinance to allow the two Rogers Road single-family homes to be expanded at a later date without being subject to floor area limits.

Staff Comment: We believe that it is reasonable to allow these two homes to be expanded at some point in the future without being subject to the floor area limits of the Special Use Permit. We believe that the Council could make a finding that public purposes are satisfied to an equivalent or greater degree in order to provide consistency of the regulations.

SUMMARY

We have attached a revised resolution that includes standard conditions of approval as well as special conditions that we recommend for this application. With these conditions, we believe that the Council could make the findings regarding health, safety and general welfare, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The Manager’s recommendation incorporates input from all Town departments involved in review of the application.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on our evaluation of the application and the information in the record, our recommendation is that, with the stipulations and modification to the regulations in Revised Resolution A, the application complies with the standards and regulations of the Land Use Management Ordinance.

Planning Board

The Planning Board met on April 3, 2007 and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit, with the following changes to the staff’s recommended stipulations:

· Percentage of affordable housing units: That the applicant provides a minimum of 20 percent affordable housing units.

Staff Comment: The applicant’s original proposal includes providing 20 percent affordable units. At the Public Hearing the applicant revised the affordable housing plan to include 15 percent affordable units. For additional discussion on this matter please refer to the Key Issues section in this memorandum.

· Affordable housing and homeowner association dues: That the recommendation for a one percent transfer fee is deleted from the resolution.

Staff Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. For additional discussion on this matter please refer to the Key Issues section in this memorandum.

· Refuse collection-curbside vs. bulk collection: That the development may be served by private curbside refuse/recycling collection until such time that town services are available following annexation.

Staff Comment: Revised Resolution A incorporated a stipulations permitting private curbside collection. For additional discussion on this matter please refer to the Key Issues section in this memorandum.

· Energy efficiency: That the applicant will incorporate a 20 percent more energy efficient feature or other comparable standards, into their plans.

Staff Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. For additional discussion on this matter please refer to the Key Issues section in this memorandum.

· Wetlands verification: That the applicant identify any wetland during final plan review.

Staff Comment: During the Planning Board meeting, staff stated that because of the Resource Conservation District, the proposed development site may include wetlands. A stipulation requiring that the applicant submit Final Plans which show the location of State or federally regulated wetlands on the site has been incorporated into Resolution A.

A copy of the Summary of Planning Board Action is attached to this memorandum.

Transportation Board

The Transportation Board met on April 13, 2007 and voted 5-1 to recommend Council approve the Special Use Permit application, with the following changes to the staff’s recommended stipulations:

· Homestead Road improvements: That the improvements to Homestead Road shall not include curb and gutter.

Staff Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. For additional discussion on this matter please refer to the Key Issues Section in this memorandum

· Transit improvement payment-in-lieu: That the project provides a payment-in-lieu for transit stop improvements.

Staff Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. For additional discussion on this matter please refer to the Key Issues section in this memorandum.

A copy of the Transportation Board Summary of Action is attached to this memorandum.

Community Design Commission

The Community Design Commission met on April 18, 2007 and voted 10-0 to recommend Council approve the Special Use Permit application, with the following changes to the staff’s recommended stipulations:

· Provision of affordable housing: That the condominium fees and utilities for the affordable units shall not exceed 50 percent of the homeowners’ dues for the market rate units.

Staff Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. For additional discussion on this matter please refer to the Key Issues section in this memorandum.

· Homestead Road improvements: That Homestead Road is constructed without curb and gutter, and the grass swale is maintained by the homeowner’s association.

Staff Comment: The recommendation to construct Homestead Road without curb and gutter has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. We do not recommend that the homeowner’s association be responsible for maintaining the grass swale. For additional discussion on this matter please refer to the Key Issues section in this memorandum.

· Energy efficiency: That the applicant will incorporate a 20 percent more energy efficient feature, or other comparable standards, into their plans.

Staff Comment: This recommendation has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. For additional discussion on this matter please refer to the Key Issues section in this memorandum.

· Stormwater detention facility responsibility: That the homeowners’ association be responsible for the maintenance of the stormwater detention facilities.

Staff Comment: Requiring a homeowners’ association to maintain the stormwater detention facilities is a standard stipulation that was omitted from the preliminary resolution. This recommendation has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A.

· Curbside refuse/recycling collection: That the applicant may contract with a private refuse/recycling service in order to have curbside collection.

Staff Comment: The recommendation to allow the developer to contract with a private collection company for curbside collection has been incorporated into Revised Resolution A. For additional discussion on this matter please refer to the Key Issues section in this memorandum.

· Recycling services: That the applicant is not required to have multi-family type recycling services from Orange County Recycling.

Staff Comment: We believe that the Community Design Commission believed that the phrase “multi-family type recycling services” mandated bulk recycling services. Bulk recycling services is not required by Orange County Solid waste. Revised Resolution A includes a modified stipulation that removes the phase “multi-family type recycling services” from the stipulation

A copy of the Community Design Commission Summary of Action is attached to this memorandum.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board met on April 24, 2007, and voted 8-0 to recommend Council approve the Special Use Permit application, as recommended by staff. A copy of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Summary of Action is attached to this memorandum.

Parks and Recreation Commission

The Parks and Recreation Commission met on April 18, 2007, and voted 8-0 to recommend Council approve the Special Use Permit application, as recommended by staff. A copy of the Parks and Recreation Commission Summary of Action is attached to this memorandum.

For additional information on Advisory Board recommendations, please refer to the matrix in this memorandum.

Revised Staff Recommendation

We recommend that the Council approve the Special Use Permit application with the adoption of Revised Resolution A. Following Advisory Board review and the April 17 Public Hearing, the following stipulations have been added to the staff’s recommendation:

Homestead Road frontage improvements: That Homestead Road frontage may be constructed with a grassy swale.
Homestead Road center median: That the applicant construct a concrete median along the Homestead Road entrance to prevent left turn movements from entering and exiting the site.
Affordable housing percentage: That the percentage of affordable units be reduced from 20 percent to 15 percent; and that the applicant provide a minimum of eleven (3 bedroom/2 bath) affordable units available at 73 percent of the median income.
Affordable housing dispersal of units: That six of the affordable units proposed along Homestead Road be relocated to the south side of the internal street, adjacent to the Resource Conservation District open space area.
Affordable housing homeowners association fees: That the homeowner’s association dues for the affordable homes will be set and continuously maintained at a level not to exceed 50 percent of the dues payable from market rate homes.
Energy efficiency and management plan: That the final plans require a 20 percent energy efficiency savings as described by an energy management plan.
Transit improvements payment-in-lieu: That the applicant provides a payment-in-lieu for a bus stop, pad, bench, shelter and a bus pull-off.
Rogers Road recreation space: That the applicant provides a payment-in-lieu for 1,075 square feet of required recreation space for the Rogers Road site.
Stormwater detention facility maintenance: We added the standard stipulation that the homeowners association be responsible for the maintenance of the stormwater detention facilities.
Recycling specialist: That the phrase “multi-family type recycling services” is deleted from this stipulation.

We believe that the proposed Special Use Permit with conditions in Revised Resolution A and proposed modifications to regulations would comply with the requirements of the Land Use Management Ordinance, the Design Manual, and that the proposal conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. Resolution B would deny the application.

ATTACHMENTS

Planning Board Summary of Action (p. 28).
Transportation Board Summary of Action (p. 29).
Community Design Commission Summary of Action (p. 30).
Bicycle and Pedestrian Board Summary of Action (p. 31).
Parks and Recreation Commission Summary of Action (p. 32).
April 16, 2007 letter from Orange Community Housing and Land Trust. (p. 33).
Letters from citizens (p. 31).
Affidavits from Sabrina Oliver and Catherine Lazorko postponing April 16 Public Hearing (p. 36).
April 17, 2007 Public Hearing memorandum with attachments (begin new page 1).

Homestead Twin Towns Special Use Permit

DIFFERENCES AMONG ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

ISSUE	Manager’s Revised	Planning Board	Transportation Board	Community Design Commission	Parks & Recreation Commission	Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Board
Homestead Road frontage	Grassy swale	*	Grassy Swale	Grassy swale with maintenance by HOA of swale	*	*
Homestead Road median	Median	*	*	*	*	*
Transit Stop Improvements	Payment-in-lieu	*	Payment-in-lieu	*	*	*
Affordable Housing	15% affordable w/3 bdrms available to 73% median income	20 % affordable and delete transfer fee supplement	*	HOA fees not to exceed 50% of nonaffordable HOA fees	*	*
Energy Efficiency	Energy Management Plan & 20% energy efficiency rating	20% more energy efficient	*	“Energy Star” rating for buildings	*	*
Refuse Collection	Bulk Refuse collection	Curbside collection	*	Curbside collection	*	*
Recycling	Curbside recycling	*	*	Curbside recycling	*	*
Rogers Road Recreation Space	Payment-in-lieu	*	*	*	*	*

* Issue was not discussed at this particular meeting.