Mayor pro tem Strom announced that Mayor Foy and Council Member Ward would not be present at the meeting. 

Mr. Stancil gave an update on the Town facilities situation after the wind storm on Monday.  He said that the public works and public safety crews had been clearing trees and debris from the streets, while Duke Energy was working to restore power.

Chief Jones said that the main effects of the wind storm were downed trees and power outages, but no injuries were reported.   He said that they had received over 30 reports throughout the morning, with the majority occurring in the historic neighborhood.  He said that the power grid serving that section of Town had suffered damage, and Duke Power was still working on the repairs.   

Bill Letteri of the Public Works Department said that they had crews serving 33 locations and assisting with traffic signal problems.  

Interim Police Chief Brian Curran said that the police had been helping redirect traffic in Town due to the traffic signal power outages.  He said that half of the power outage problems had been restored, and Duke Energy was working on the remaining areas.

Mr. Stancil said that it took longer to remove downed trees that were entangled in power lines, because Duke Energy needed to be present to ensure a safe situation.

Mayor pro tem Strom announced that, in response to the tragedy that had taken place at Virginia Tech, students at the University of North Carolina were planning a vigil at the Pit that evening at 8:00 pm.  A minute of silence was held.

Mr. Poveromo stated that this public hearing was for a Special Use Permit application for a multi-family development, Chapel Watch Village, located on Eubanks Road, between the Park and Ride Lot and the Larkspur neighborhood.  He said that it was a 35-acre site, located outside the Town limits, but within the urban services area, and included 120 units, 189 parking spaces, and a recreation area.  He added that the units would be rental units, with 15 percent affordable units.  

Mr. Poveromo said that the applicant proposed to construct a portion of the greenways trail (Horace Williams Trail); to construct the road to Town standards; and to construct a central refuse recycling center.  He said that the applicant proposed that the road connecting Eubanks Road with Larkspur Neighborhood should be emergency access only.  He said that staff had recommended that this road be constructed as a public street with full access, but the applicant had proposed that it be emergency access only, while still serving pedestrians and bicycles.

Mr. Poveromo said that staff had initially recommended that the applicant construct and maintain the greenway.  But the applicant requested that the Town take over maintenance after construction, which the staff accepted.  He added that the staff recommended a pedestrian crossing at the Eubanks park and ride lot.

Mr. Poveromo stated that, regarding energy efficiency, there had been a stipulation that the project demonstrate a minimum energy efficiency savings of 20 percent relative to ASHRAE (American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers) standards.  He said that the applicant had objected to this standard, because it was a policy pertaining to rezonings, but there was no rezoning associated with this project.  Thus, staff no longer recommended that the energy stipulation be required of this development, he said.

Mr. Poveromo stated that staff recommended that the Town maintain the proposed greenways trail after construction, and therefore, only 50 percent of the greenway could be counted toward the recreation area.  He said that staff recommended a stipulation to clarify the amount of land disturbance proposed in the resource conservation district.

In response to a question from Mayor pro tem Strom, Mr. Poveromo stated that stormwater facilities were permitted in the Resource Conservation District, and that most of the disturbance would be associated with the construction of the greenway and the road crossing.

Phil Post representing the applicant, said that he agreed with the comments received thus far from staff and the Planning Board, with the exception of the access road between Eubanks Road and Larkspur Development.  He requested to make it emergency access only, in order to reduce the detrimental effects of cut-through traffic.

Mr. Post said that, in keeping with the Town�s Comprehensive Plan, the development conserved existing neighborhoods; it promoted affordable housing opportunities; it was located near a park and ride lot; and it contained numerous walkways, trails, sidewalks, and safe road crossings.  He added that 80 percent of the disturbance in the Resource Conservation District would be related to the greenway trail and the road crossing. 

Council Member Greene asked a question about the rates for the affordable units.  Mr. Post replied that he could not give the exact rates at that time, but that they would be affordable to 80 percent of the median income. 

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked about the target market for the market rate rentals.  Mr. Post said that these units would be rented at the market rate for those sized units, according to the existing rental stock in the community. 

Mayor pro tem Strom suggested that the developer arrange a meeting with the Council Committee to address the inclusionary zoning and affordable housing matters.  Mr. Post agreed to this idea.

Mayor pro tem Strom said that he understood the applicant�s point that the energy efficiency stipulation was only applicable to rezonings, but he requested that the developer talk to NC Green Power about possibly pre-enrolling the units in the NC Green Power program.  He also asked the applicant to explain the planned energy engineering for each unit.  Mr. Post said that he would bring this information to the next meeting.

Council Member Easthom asked the applicant to bring more information about the buffer planned between the development and the Northwood neighborhood to the next meeting. 

With respect to the connector road between Eubanks Road and the Larkspur neighborhood, Rachel Crozier, Renuka Soll, Gary Waldo, Aayush Mahablesh Warkar, Aarohi Mahablesh Warkar, Amy Chute, and Jungsang Kim all spoke in favor of keeping the road as emergency access and pedestrian/bicycle access only.  They expressed concerns that if it became a full access road, then cut-through traffic would increase the risk to public safety in the neighborhood, in particular the children walking to and from the bus stop.  Mr. Waldo and Mr. Kim added that keeping it as emergency access only would encourage more social interaction between the neighborhoods.  Ms. Chute, speaking on behalf of Larkspur Safety First, said that Larkspur streets were not built to collector road standards, and that an increase in traffic, especially commercial traffic, would increase the burden on the roads. 

Council Member Hill asked staff to clarify if the roads under discussion did in fact qualify as collector roads.  Mr. Neppalli said that Old Larkspur Way was built to collector street standards, but that the other streets in that neighborhood were classified as local streets.   Council Member Thorpe asked what was meant by a "local street".  Mr. Neppalli stated that local street meant that it served the local residents and adjacent residential parcels, but it did not act as a connector road to other parcels in the area. 

Council Member Greene said that, if she remembered correctly, there was supposed to have been a sign at the Eubanks Road - Larkspur location which indicated that the road would connect in the future; but the Town never did provide the sign.  Mr. Neppalli confirmed that when the lots were approved by the Council, there was a stipulation to have a sign installed; but the sign was not installed.  Council Member Greene said that, from the Town�s perspective, there was a plan to connect the road at a later point; but in reality, it developed as a local road.  Mr. Neppalli said that the standards served as guidelines, but they were not required.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if it was possible to compare the traffic volumes with some comparable roads in other neighborhoods, which would help to determine how these kinds of connections actually worked or did not work, in order to help the Council decide on the issue. Council Members Ward and Hill said that they supported this idea.

Council Member Ward said that, in his view, the Town knew that it was designing Larkspur in a way that would safely provide connectivity to Eubanks Road.  He said that cutting off that connection may address the concerns of the particular neighborhood, but it may not address the greater good of the entire Town.

Council Member Easthom stated that she lives in Larkspur, but not on the roads affected by this discussion.  She said that she would like to know more about the history of these roads and intersections, to help her decide. 

Council Member Thorpe expressed a concern about the children�s safety, if the road was connected, especially where it concerned commercial traffic. 

Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO Recess the public hearing for the Chapel Watch Village Application for Special Use Permit to May 21, 2007.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO  refer the item to Manager and Attorney.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Ms. Culpepper stated that this was the opening of a public hearing to consider a Special Use Permit modification for the Freedom House Group Care Facility, located at New Stateside Drive and Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.  She said that the facility was originally approved by the county, and came into Chapel Hill�s jurisdiction through annexation in 1989.  She said in 1997, the Council had approved a rezoning and expansion to increase the facility�s floor area to 15,000 square feet. 

Ms. Culpepper said that the current proposal would add two new buildings and replace one building, to give an allowable floor area of 30,000 square feet.  She said that no changes were proposed to the number of resident beds, which was authorized at 44 in 1997.  She said that the staff�s preliminary recommendation was to approve the application with the conditions that were presented to the Council.  She added that there was a Transportation Board summary also distributed to the Council.

Josh Gurlitz, Chairman of the Board of Freedom House, said that the facility had been providing substance abuse treatment in the Chapel Hill Community for 35 years.  He said it was founded by a group of local citizens, and started near UNC Hospital, then moved to the current location 30 years ago.  He said that the facility had expanded its treatment to include women and men, and to cover a range of addictive substances in addition to alcohol.  Mr. Gurlitz said that the current proposal was to modernize some buildings and to add some new structures to the campus.

Trish Hussey, Executive Director of Freedom House, explained that they had been serving the community at its present location for 34 years, and during this time, the program had been affected by changes at the state level on mental health and substance abuse treatment.   She said that, as a result of these changes, more staff were needed to provide additional services on the campus, which led to plans to replace the old detox building to provide more space for staff.  

Ms. Hussey stated that the facility�s expansion did not include an increase in the number of residential beds but there would be two additional beds at the detox facility, to meet state requirements.   She said that the residents at the halfway house moved into the community during the day to work; but they were not permitted to have cars, so they used the bus system.  She said that the facility had a current success rate of 70 percent, and they had recently won an Agency of Excellence Award in the Triangle.  She added that they had tried hard to promote understanding with the community next door.

John Hawkins, an architect for the expansion, gave an overview of the site layout.  He said that the existing site had five buildings, but the detox building and the women�s dorm would be demolished on completion of the new buildings.  He said that they proposed to build two new buildings, a group meeting center, and a residential treatment building to replace the existing detox facility.

Laura Moore explained the planned landscaping and buffer improvements for the site.  She said that the site had a lot of existing vegetation and natural buffers, and some plants that Freedom House had previously planted.  She said that they proposed shade trees for the parking areas; evergreen plants for the north and south buffers; and flowering trees along Stateside Drive.  She added that these plans were supported by the Planning Board and the Community Design Commission.

Council Member Harrison stated that the Transportation Board had stipulated that the project provide funding at 1 percent of the total project cost, to contribute to transit and traffic improvements.  He asked if that stipulation would be added.  Ms. Culpepper said that the staff were planning to discuss it and get back to the Council on May 20.  Ms. Hussey said that it would be difficult for the facility to raise these funds.

Lixin Yao, Chun Hu, Mg. Yin Turner, Qingai Chen, Ming Zen, Shu-Mang Feng, and Wen Yeo, all residents of the Parkside neighborhood near Freedom House, expressed concerns about the expansion of the facility.  They stated that it would adversely impact the safety and security of the neighborhood, and they requested that the Town not approve this expansion.  The speakers stated that when the facility was started, it was in an isolated area; but now it was a residential neighborhood, and therefore not an appropriate place for this facility.  They stated concerns that the facility would increase the level of noise and crime in the area, and that it was not suitable for families with children in the area.  They said that many families did not know the purpose of the facility when they moved into the area, but when they learned of its purpose, they moved out. 

Some of the speakers said that they supported the purpose of the facility, but they did not want it to be located in their neighborhood.  A concern was also raised about its location near the community park.  The speakers said that an increase in traffic from the expansion would cause safety concerns for children walking to and from the park.  Qingai Chen said that he was not informed of the meetings that the facility had held with the community.

Paula Harrington said that she was on the board of Freedom House, and she had also been a resident.  She said that, because of the services she received at Freedom House, she had kept nine years of sobriety; was able to raise her children; and was working as an administrative assistant at the University of North Carolina. 

Larry Coley said that he currently operated his own company, Larry Coley Building and Design, and he was serving on the advisory committee of Freedom House.  He said that before he received services from Freedom House four years ago, he was homeless, and had been in jail.  He said that if not for Freedom House, he would not be alive today, and in his  opinion, the facility needed to expand.

Council Member Greene said that she was on the Board of Directors at Joe Buckner Drug Treatment Corporation, and she had heard many stories of people�s lives that were transformed by these programs.  She said that if it were in her neighborhood, she would like to think that she supported it, and it was not a crime scene or a place where violence occurred regularly.  She said that perhaps the speakers did not know much about the facility because the facility was a good neighbor, and that it should continue to be a good neighbor after the expansion.  Council Member Hill agreed with this statement.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said that he had been a neighbor to Freedom House and he appreciated it.  He said he thought that the expansion was more about rehabilitating the facility than serving more people, and that, in his view, this would be an enhancement to the community.  He said he knew people who were served by the program, and he thought that the facility had the best interests of both the clients and the neighborhood in mind.

Council Member Hill said that, in his mind, if Freedom House was at that location before the neighborhood residences, then it had the right to remain.  He said that if the facility was for diabetes or tuberculosis, then neighbors might be applauding its presence.  He said that in his view, it was a public perception problem, and he supported the expansion.

Council Member Easthom said that she lived in the neighborhood, and she asked if there were plans for traffic calming measures to alert vehicles on Stateside Drive about the presence of the park.  She expressed a concern about the proposed number of 54 parking spaces, which would exceed the Town�s proposed ordinance.

Council Member Ward said that he was supportive of Freedom House�s mission and grateful that it was serving the community.  He said that perhaps the concerns expressed at the meeting were based on the unknown rather than concrete information.  He wondered if it was possible to know the actual incidence of violations by residents over the years.

Ms. Hussey said that Freedom House had held two meetings with the neighbors and two public information meetings.  She said that they had requested information and reports from the police department on incidents that had occurred; but the police could not find any reports of incidents that had happened on the campus of Freedom House.  She added that the center was well supervised, with a good number of staff members, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  She said that residents did not typically go through the neighborhood on their way to and from the campus; they always used the bus stop. 

Mayor pro tem Strom stated that he agreed with the other Council members� comments, and he requested to hear more information about the parking spaces.   He said that the Council would refer the comments back to the staff, and would continue the public hearing on May 7, to take action at that time.

Council Member Jim Ward MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Cam Hill, TO Recess the public hearing for the Freedom House Application for a Special Use Permit Modification to May 7, 2007.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Council Member Jim Ward MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Cam Hill, TO  refer the item to Manager and Attorney.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Mr. Poveromo stated that Homestead Twin Towns Development requested a Zoning Atlas Amendment and a Special Use Permit.  He said that the property was located outside the Town�s limits, which meant that the rezoning would require approval by the Orange County Commission, so the application was scheduled for the Joint Public Hearing.  He added that they had received a recommendation from the Transportation Board.

Mr. Poveromo said the rezoning proposal was for a 21-acre site at Homestead Road and Seawell School Road, requesting to rezone the property from R-2 to R-4, in order for the applicant to have enough floor area proposed in the Special Use Permit application.  He said that under the R-2 zoning, the maximum floor area would be 66,000 square feet with 86 dwelling units, but under R-4 conditional zoning, they would have 159,000 square feet with 215 units.  He added that the applicant was only proposing 72 units.

Mr. Poveromo said that the conditions associated with the proposed rezoning were to limit the number of units to 72; to limit the amount of floor area to 150,431 square feet; to provide 20 percent affordable units; and to demonstrate site planning, landscaping, and a structured design that maximizes energy conservation.

Mr. Poveromo stated that he understood that the Council was considering an amendment to the energy efficiency policy at their meeting on April 23.  He said that, based on the action that the Council might take on April 23, the energy conservation condition in this project would be amended to reflect the new policy.  He said that the staff�s preliminary recommendation was to rezone the property from R-2 to R-4C.

Mr. Poveromo said that the Special Use Permit application was for a multi-family development on the 21-acre site on Homestead Road, and the subdivision of a one-acre lot into two lots on Rogers Road.  He said that the existing residential structures on the property would be relocated to this one-acre site on Rogers Road.

Mr. Poveromo stated that seven of the 21 acres were in the resource conservation district.  He said that the site design was similar to the Chapel Watch Development, and was for 72 units and 139 parking spaces.  He said that the applicant proposed that the roads bordering the site would be public streets maintained by the Town.  

Mr. Poveromo said that the Transportation Board had recommended that the improvements requested for Homestead Road did not require the construction of curb and gutter.  He said that staff recommended the construction of curb and gutter, but the applicant was opposed to this.  He said that the Transportation Board recommended a payment in lieu for transit improvements; but the staff�s preliminary recommendation was not for a payment in lieu, although this recommendation may change before the next business meeting. 

Mr. Poveromo said that, with respect to refuse collection, the project was considered to be a multi-family development due to the Special Use Permit application, so the Town code required a central bulk refuse collection system.   He said that the applicant was objecting to this, and requested to have curbside collection.

Mr. Poveromo said that the staff had initially recommended that the applicant provide a transfer tax of 1 percent associated with the homeowners association dues for the affordable housing units; but the applicant said it would not be appropriate for this project and was prepared to offer an alternative.

Council Member Thorpe asked why the applicant objected to installing curb and gutter, as it would be good to do this when the property was under development.

Robert Dowling from Orange Community Housing and Land Trust said that he had met with the applicant, who proposed that the affordable units comprise 20 percent.  Mr. Dowling said that he had suggested constructing larger units to target families.  However, when they settled on the larger units, they determined that the price of the units would require a substantial subsidy from the Town, he said.  He explained that since the Town was already struggling to provide subsidies for existing affordable housing, it did not make sense to add on new deals requiring additional subsidies.  He said that after discussion, the applicant agreed to provide better pricing for the units, but to have a lower number of units at 15 percent.  Mr. Dowling recommended this arrangement.  He added that he also recommended that the affordable units be spread throughout the development.

Council Member Hill said that he endorsed the affordable housing proposal, and he agreed that a lower number of units with no subsidy required was a better deal for the Town. 

Council Member Easthom said that she supported the spread of affordable units throughout the site, but she was concerned about the site distance on Homestead Road.  Mr. Post said that they had met with the NC Department of Transportation on this issue, and they had determined that the best entrance into the development, for site distance and safety, was the one being proposed.  He said that the improvements to Homestead Road would include removal of some trees, which would improve the site distance.   Mayor pro tem Strom asked the staff to confirm the site distance at this location for the next meeting. 

Council Member Greene said that she agreed with the affordable housing plan, and that she preferred using swale to a curb and gutter.  She expressed concerns that the development would resemble a cookie cutter design, and wondered if they could stagger the set-back of the houses.  Mr. Chupp stated that there were structural problems with this.

Council Member Ward raised a concern about tree removal for the planned improvements on Homestead Road, and asked if there were there any concerns raised by the staff on this issue.  Mr. Poveromo stated that there would be generally less tree clearing associated with installing a sidewalk, than with using swale, but otherwise no concerns were raised. 

Council Member Ward asked the staff to explain why they recommended dumpster collection, as he thought that curbside collection would facilitate better recycling efforts.

Council Member Ward said that he wanted to make sure that the energy efficiency statement regarding the project was properly worded to incorporate any revisions that the Council may implement at the April 23 meeting.  Mr. Poveromo confirmed that the revisions would apply to this project and would therefore be reflected in the energy efficiency statement. 

Mayor pro tem Strom said that he supported the other Council members� comments, and said that the rezoning in this case would mean a significant change.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said that he agreed with Council Members Hill and Greene on the affordable housing proposal. 

Mayor pro tem Strom stated that the proposal would return to the Council for consideration on May 21, so they would recess the hearing until May 21 and refer the comments to staff.

The applicant, Eric Chupp, said that they had held three meetings with the Community Design Commission and two concept plan reviews, and the Planning and Transportation Boards had each voted to approve the project. 

Mr. Chupp outlined several reasons why he thought that the project met the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.  He said that the project would provide 490 square feet of open space, which was double the ordinance requirements; and it would support stream preservation, as all of the development was moved to the north side of the stream.  He said that they had entered into a land swap with the joining neighbors to provide access along Seawell School Road, and they had preserved many of the existing trees on the property.

Mr. Chupp said that when they had started the project, they had volunteered to provide 20 percent affordable housing, with moderately priced housing for the remaining units.  He said that, after discussions with Robert Dowling of Orange Community Housing, they had decided to construct three-bedroom units for affordable housing.  Based on the recommendations from Mr. Dowling, they had decided to reduce the number of affordable housing units to 15 percent, but to reduce the unit price to 80 percent of the median income, he said.

Mr. Chupp said that, regarding the 1 percent transfer fee, their project was more like a single-family development, where they would know the homeowners� dues before marketing the homes.  He therefore proposed having a two-tiered dues system, where the affordable unit dues were significantly lower than the market-rate unit dues.

Mr. Chupp said that the target market for the development would be young families with children to take advantage of the schools.  He said that they proposed to extend the sidewalk past their site by 1,000 feet, so that it would connect with the schools.  He said that all urban services were already existing on the site.

Mr. Chupp said that they offered to install curb and gutter along Seawell School Road, but not along Homestead Road.  He said that there was no curb and gutter along the other residential projects, and that from an aesthetic standpoint, it would be more pleasing to maintain the grass swale, rather than curb and gutter.

Mr. Chupp said that, regarding refuse collection, this was the first site to be required to use dumpster collection, when compared with similar residential sites.  He said that they had met with Public Works and Solid Waste Collection on the issue, and the streets would be public streets, thereby reducing impediments to curbside collection.
   
Mr. Chupp said that, regarding the issue of energy efficiency, they were continuing discussions with the Town staff on this issue.

Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO Recess the public hearing for a zoning atlas amendment for the proposed rezoning to May 21, 2007.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO Recess the public hearing for the proposed Special Use Permit to May 21, 2007.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Jim Ward, TO  Refer the Zoning Atlas Amendment and Special Use Permit items to Manager and Attorney.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Ms. Culpepper stated that this public hearing was to consider a rezoning application from the proposed Orange County Animal Services Public Use Facility.  She said it concerned a six-acre lot located in the joint planning transition area, adjacent to the landfill, and that the proposal would rezone the property from a Residential One Zoning District to an Office Institutional One Conditional Zone.   She said that if the rezoning was approved, development projects would require Council approval of a Special Use Permit application.

Ms. Culpepper said that the Animal Services Facility�s Special Use Permit application would hopefully come before the Town Council in June 2007, and that the rezoning application would come before the Council at the joint planning hearing on April 26.  She said that action to approve a joint planning area rezoning was required by the County Commissioners and by the Town Council, and the staff�s preliminary recommendation was to approve the zoning change.  She said that both the Special Use Permit application and the rezoning application were anticipated to come jointly before the Council on September 10.
 
Tony Whitaker, speaking on behalf of the applicant, said that Orange County operated animal sheltering and control services in three separate locations across the county, but they now wished to consolidate into one location.  He said that the reasons for the rezoning application, as detailed in the proposal, were in line with the Town�s Comprehensive Plan recommendations to encourage regional cooperation with Orange County and Carrboro, and to address the provision of services and infrastructure in the Northwest Area. 

Council Member Kleinschmidt said that the rezoning application needed more justification in his view.  He said that the proposal did not meet the Comprehensive Plan�s requirements to encourage regional cooperation simply by engaging the three entities in consideration of property.  He said that the proposal did not specifically address the provision of services in the Northwest Area by locating the facility in that area, and it was not clear what specific benefits the shelter would provide to the residents of that area. 

Mr. Whitaker said that there were other justifications provided in the proposal, such as the transition of land usage in the area.  He added that the county had conducted an extensive search to determine the best location for this facility, and had selected this site. 

Judy Nunn-Snipes said that her family had owned 200 acres of the property in this area since the early 1900s.  She said that the changes in the area over time had severe impacts on the family and their property.  She said that some of the property was taken by Duke Power; other portions were sold for the Town Operations Center and to private industries; and the property had been devalued by the installation of landfills in the area.  

Ms. Nunn-Snipes said that the family had given up much of their land, but had received little consideration in return.  She said that she had tried to communicate with the applicant, but with little success until this meeting.   Ms. Nunn-Snipes said that the family had paid for a private road on the property, named after a family member, and requested that the applicant maintain this road.  She said that she had been granted a Special Use Permit to build a house in 1993, but could not finish it due to illness.  She requested that, with the change in zoning, she be permitted to complete the subdivision of her family�s property. 

Mayor pro tem Strom announced that the public hearing on this issue would be recessed until September 10, and all comments would be referred to staff.

Council Member Jim Ward MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt, TO Recess the public hearing for the Orange County Animal Services Building Zoning Atlas Amendment to September 10, 2007.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).

Council Member Jim Ward MOVED, SECONDED BY Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt, TO  Refer the item to the Manager and Attorney.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (7-0).