SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PUBLIC HEARING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2005, AT 7:20 P.M.
Mayor pro tem Edith Wiggins called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.
Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, and Jim Ward.
Council Member Bill Strom arrived at 7:50 p.m.
Mayor Kevin Foy was absent, excused.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland, and Deputy Town Clerk Sandy Cook.
Item 1 – Public Hearing on Proposed Rezoning of Portions of
the Horace Williams Property
Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt noted that tonight’s public hearing was to consider rezoning portions of the Horace Williams tract within Chapel Hill. She displayed a map indicating the location of the property. Ms. Berndt said that two separate actions were proposed for consideration:
Ms. Berndt stated that the University of North Carolina had submitted a valid protest petition concerning the Residential-2 (R-2) and Office/Institutional-2 (O/I-2) rezonings, shown as Attachment 10 in the materials. She noted that submittal of the valid protest petition required that approval for either rezoning actions would require seven of nine Council votes for approval.
Ms. Berndt offered a brief background on the proposed rezonings:
Ms. Berndt said there were three potential findings in the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO) for rezonings: to correct a manifest error; changed or changing conditions; and, to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. She said that two separate analyses had been provided, based on the third finding of achieving the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
Displaying a location map, Ms. Berndt said the first area for discussion was the Office/Institutional-3 proposed to be rezoned to Office/Institutional-2. She noted that the staff would offer arguments for and against in the analysis.
Analysis of O/I-3 to O/I-2:
Analysis of R-2 to O/I-2:
Ms. Berndt called the Council’s attention to a Zoning District Summary chart on page 3 of the materials, noting it was a summary of the various regulations in the three different zoning districts of O/I-2, O/I-3 and R-2. The key difference she wanted to highlight, she said, was the approval process in that O/I-3 zoning was approved by the Planning Board, and O/I-2 and R-2 were approved by the Council. Ms. Berndt added that there were also significant floor area differences in each district.
Ms. Berndt stated that the Manager’s preliminary recommendation was that the Council approve these two rezonings on the basis of achieving the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. She noted that the materials contained a recommendation from the Planning Board, and a recommendation from the Horace Williams Citizens Committee had been distributed to the Council this evening.
Randy Kabrick, Chair of the Horace Williams Citizens Committee, noted that the recommendation from the Committee the Council had received tonight was somewhat different from the recommendations from the report adopted by the Council. He said the Committee’s first recommendation was to rezone O/I-3 to O/I-2, and the second recommendation was to retain the current R-2 zoning that currently existed on the Horace Williams tract.
Michael Collins, speaking for the citizens group Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth, said they were dedicated to improving communication and cooperation among neighborhoods and pursuing forward-thinking solutions to problems and issues facing the community. He said they supported the rezoning of the O/I-3 areas to O/I-2, and leaving any areas that were currently zoned R-2 unchanged. Mr. Collins noted that was the Planning Board’s recommendation and they supported it fully.
Mr. Collins stated that the proposed rezoning meets not one but two of the criteria earlier noted. He said conditions were changing, in that the Horace Williams tract was no longer on the outskirts of Town, and it was nearly surrounding by residential neighborhoods. Mr. Collins noted that in 1994 the Council had voted to rezone portions of the O/I-3 to O/I-2 because it considered O/I-3 “inappropriate in consideration of future development proposals for this area.” He noted that was true then and remained true today.
Mr. Collins said the rezoning meets the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan goal of preservation of existing neighborhoods as an essential part of Chapel Hill’s vision for the future. He noted the impact Carolina North would have on the surrounding neighborhoods and the Town as a whole. Mr. Collins said that rezoning would help to preserve neighborhoods and it was imperative that citizens have a voice in how that development was conceived and implemented. He commented that the public process was required under O/I-2 but not under O/I-3.
Mr. Collins stated it “made little sense” to rezone the R-2 portion to O/I-2, as the University had stated and their development plans indicated that no plans exist for development of that area. He said in the interest of preserving that area, leave it zoned R-2. Mr. Collins said that it was proper to apply zoning based on present conditions, and urged the Council to adopt the recommendations of the Planning Board and the Horace Williams Citizens Committee to rezone only the O/I-3 portion of the tract to O/I-2, and leave the R-2 zoning in place.
Albert Burk, a resident of Northaven adjacent to the Horace Williams tract, urged the Council to rezone the O/I-3 portions to O/I-2, and leave the R-2 zoning in place. He said that would allow the Council to better protect the quality of life in Chapel Hill and the surrounding neighborhoods, adding that the size of the development would call for close attention to detail as plans moved forward.
Mr. Burk said the Town had an opportunity to help the University do a better job than the current “fund as you go” business model and “car focused” development, and to avoid unintended consequences like those on Mason Farm Road. He mentioned that Northaven was behind a University car storage facility, and the lights from that facility shine into their homes. Mr. Burk said the University had talked about that with the University, and they indicated that to place reflectors on those lights was cost-prohibitive. He asked the Council to pay attention to those types of issues so they can be solved during construction and not after-the-fact.
Del Snow said she was “horrified” that the University intended to create a development with 17,000 parking spaces. She said our air quality was worsening daily, and it was the Council’s responsibility to make decisions that would best protect Chapel Hill citizens. Ms. Snow said that by rezoning, she hoped unanimously, the O/I-3 portion to O/I-2 and leaving the R-2 zoning in place it would give the Town a more realistic “springboard” for future negotiations and deliver the message that the citizen’s needs must be taken seriously.
Ms. Snow said that UNC-Chapel Hill, the flagship of the State’s university system, should be “ashamed of itself.” She asked how could an institution dedicated to educating our future leaders propose a plan that called for 17,000 parking spaces. Ms. Snow said they should have considered the health and welfare of their fellow citizens before proposing such a “regressive, uncreative and misguided plan.” She said if it was the University’s mission to create a state-of-the-art research facility where great problems were to be solved, then they should not create one at the outset. Ms. Snow said the University was protesting the rezoning, but they needed to take a look at what role they had played in fostering the need for that rezoning.
Laurin Easthom recommended that the Town rezone the O/I-3 portion of the tract to O/I-2, noting that it would achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan to continue the Town’s involvement in future planning of the Horace Williams property. She noted that the Council needed full review and control, and needed to establish a dialogue with the University for the best plan for all.
Ms. Easthom recommended leaving the portion zoned R-2 the same, noting it would better protect neighborhoods. She said that portion of the tract was the most environmentally sensitive, and its use should not be increased by rezoning it to O/I-2. Ms. Easthom said she guessed that the airport may never close, guessed that UNC may begin to feel some internal as well as external pressure to begin development of Carolina North, and guessed they would have to “go back to the drawing board” to make revisions to the previous plans.
Ms. Easthom said if any of her “guesses” were correct, that the University projected to build north of the airport in the areas already zoned O/I-3 and R-2. She said if her guesses were not correct, then all the better, adding that zoning of O/I-2 and R-2 would provide the greatest protection given the greatest development the Town had ever seen. Ms. Easthom said the consequences were “just too great” and we must protect the Town and its neighborhoods.
Anna Wu, on behalf of the University of North Carolina and the UNC Health Care System, voiced opposition to the proposed rezoning of the Horace Williams property. She said the “professed intent” of the rezoning was to establish a dialogue with the University, adding that the rezonings were not necessary to achieve that goal because discussions could take place at any time without rezonings.
Ms. Wu noted that the Chancellor had indicated in an October 15, 2004 letter to Mayor Foy that it was his hope that the Town and the University would work cooperatively to develop Carolina North. She said that even though the rezonings have been proposed, it was their belief that the Town and the University could work cooperatively to discuss the future of the community and the University to create an appropriate regulatory tool for Carolina North.
Ms. Wu, referring to a letter dated March 16, 2005, from Vice Chancellor for Finance and Administration Nancy Suttenfield to Mr. Horton, outlined the specific reasons the proposed rezonings were not in accordance with LUMO, adding the letter began on page 42 of the Council’s materials.
Ms. Wu said it was their belief that a single zoning designation was the most responsible way to proceed with development of the property. She said that rezoning to O/I-2 encouraged a building by building approach to development and offered no comprehensive mitigation strategies for transportation, perimeter protection or environmental management. Ms. Wu stated that rezoning the property to O/I-2 was not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, was not in conformance with the 1998 JJR plan referenced in the Comprehensive Plan, nor was it necessary to the promotion of public health, safety, or general welfare.
In conclusion, Ms. Wu quoted the following from the October 2004 letter from Chancellor Moeser to Mayor Foy:
“The Town and the University worked cooperatively to develop the O/I-4 zoning, and I would hope that the same kind of cooperation would exist as we approach the development of Carolina North. We respectfully request that the Council not proceed with rezoning at this time. Instead, let us use this time to work together to further our mutual goal of building a better community and University.”
Julie McClintock, Chair of the Friends of Bolin Creek, communicated their support for rezoning the property from O/I-3 to O/I-2 and retaining the R-2 zoning. She stated that the Friends had worked hard to preserve the land around Bolin Creek, noting there was an unspoiled section of Bolin Creek that ran through the Horace Williams property. Ms. McClintock said that area had been identified by the State as an area worthy of preservation.
Ms. McClintock said a report had recently been prepared and sent to the State by a consultant who had studied the entire length of Bolin Creek. She said the report identified ways to preserve the area so that resource could be protected and preserved.
Ms. McClintock said there was a long history of attempts to reach a collaborative zoning for that property, but unfortunately it had not come to a good result. She said many years ago the Council had identified that area for rezoning, and UNC Chancellor Hardin had come before the Council and asked that the property not be rezoned and that a collaborative effort be undertaken. Ms. McClintock said the Council agreed and did not proceed with the rezoning, and a collaborative process was undertaken that lasted several years. But, she said, no conclusion was reached.
Ms. McClintock said that it was important to have “democratic input” by the public, and that was why the present zoning was deficient.
Barnes Bierch said there had been much talk about the Town and University working collaboratively, which he agreed should happen. But, he said, he did not understand why the University would be opposed to any zone as long as the outcome was a Carolina North that all the stakeholders could buy into.
Mr. Bierch said that Ms. Wu had stated the University was looking forward to “beginning” certain discussions about these issues, but noted that discussions on these issues had started so time ago. He said the University had been working on this for some time as had the Town, through the Horace Williams Citizens Committee. Mr. Bierch said it appeared that the two groups were working past each other. He pointed out that there was a process called “strategic environmental assessment,” more commonly known as “programmatic environmental impact assessment.” Mr. Bierch said the difference between the two was that an environmental impact assessment was usually done after the decisions had been made. With a strategic environmental assessment, he said, all stakeholders work together from “square one” with technical input to write a plan or process.
Mr. Bierch encouraged the Town and University, along with technical assistance, to sit down and formulate goals and objectives.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked Mr. Bierch if he had forwarded any of the references he mentioned in his handout to the University. Mr. Bierch responded no, he had only forwarded them to the Town. Mayor pro tem Wiggins suggested that he provide Ms. Wu with a copy, and Mr. Bierch agreed.
Dan Coleman stated his support for rezoning from O/I-3 to O/I-2, noting that no one lived closer to that section of the Horace Williams property than he did. He said he envisioned a future that looked like Chase Street and Mason Farm Road, and it was not pretty. Mr. Coleman said he was sure that someday there would be a document that promised his neighborhood would have adequate buffer, and that document may or may not be worth more than the paper itself. Mr. Coleman noted that the residents of the Gimghoul neighborhood had such a document that promised them adequate buffer, but did not believe they had received the expected value from that document.
Mr. Coleman said that whether or not the Council agreed with his assessment, and whether or not you agreed with the modification to the development plan for the main campus, an important process had taken place only because there was Council review of that modification. He said he believed it was critically important to rezone to a category that allowed the Council as the public’s representatives to speak for them.
Mr. Coleman said he had no ill will towards the University for the many problems they had caused neighbors in Chapel Hill through their various developments and expansions, but he believed that as the University looked at its needs it was difficult for them to understand the needs of the residents of Chapel Hill. Mr. Coleman said that was why it was critical for the Council to have review so that it could look out for all needs, which would lead to a true collaborative approach. He urged the Council to rezone the O/I-3 section to O/I-2.
Mr. Coleman, alluding to Ms. McClintock’s comments, stated it was unfortunate that the University had lodged a protest petition at this time. He said he had worked on the committee she mentioned, noting it was made up of University representatives along with members of the Council as well as citizens. Mr. Coleman said they had worked collaboratively and with good will to come up with a new zone. But, he stated, rezoning did not take place. Mr. Coleman said now, it was important that the Town take advantage of the protections it had by applying a zone that kept the Council at the forefront of any decisions made for the Horace Williams property.
Adam Smith, a resident of the Glen Heights neighborhood, said the University was one voice and one landowner. He said he was one voice and one landowner as well. Mr. Smith said that even though the University owned more land, they did not have more say than any other landowner, and did not get more votes than anyone else. He said their voice should not be heard more than any other landowner, even though they may have 40-60,000 guests on their property.
Mr. Smith said he was a host, because he owned land in Chapel Hill. He noted that the University had not always been a good neighbor and had not always been a good host, because they as landowners had to be hosts to all of their guests. As an example, Mr. Smith said that the beautiful forest on the Friday Center site was now a huge parking lot, and that maybe the University should have considered a parking deck rather than so much surface parking so that part of the forest was preserved, adding that would have been more reasonable.
Mr. Smith said that the University continued to do things like that which proved they were not good neighbors, and proved that they were not good hosts. He noted that if UNC proceeded to the NCAA championship games, look who would have to “clean up the mess” [referring to the downtown celebrations], adding he wondered how much that was going to cost the citizens of Chapel Hill.
Diana Steele noted she lived in the last remaining privately owned home on the north side of Mason Farm Road. She stated there used to be woods around her home, but now the University was not only in her back yard but were in her side yard as well. Ms. Steele said what had happened on Mason Farm Road was “desolation,” and she was afraid that would happen on the Horace Williams tract unless some limits were placed on it. She said she expected the Council to stand up for her and represent her as a citizen, and she looked forward to the Council standing up to keep some control over developments that sometimes seemed to be out of the control of its own developers.
Council Member Ward stated he agreed with many of the comments made tonight, and noted that he supported the rezoning of the O/I-3 portion of the Horace Williams property to O/I-2 as he believed the Council did as well. He said a critical value that action would provide the Council would be to mandate the involvement of the Council as well as the community in the development process for that property.
Council Member Ward said when all was said and done O/I-2 may not be the final zone that we end up with, but he believed it was important to have a zone in place that provided the community an opportunity for public discussion about any development that took place on that property.
Council Member Ward said in addition, he supported keeping the portion of the property zoned R-2 the same. He said he did not believe we should increase the density and intensity of the development opportunities on that section of the Horace Williams property at this time for the reasons expressed tonight as well as those mentioned in the Manager’s report. Council Member Ward said the University had not expressed any interest in developing the portion of the property that was closest to the existing residential neighborhoods to the east and north, and believed that a residential zone was the appropriate one to be maintained there.
In conclusion, Council Member Ward reiterated that he would support rezoning the O/I-3 portion of the property to O/I-2, and maintaining the R-2 zone as it existed now.
Council Member Kleinschmidt agreed with Council Member Ward’s comments. He said he wanted to emphasize what he termed “a great sadness” in the University’s submission of the protest petition, and the University’s failure to understand that bringing the Council to the table to rezone to O/I-2 was not promoting the general welfare, and he found that disturbing. Council Member Kleinschmidt asked how it could promote the general welfare when there was only one party sitting at the table under the current zone. We were not operating under any of the seven items listed in Vice-Chancellor Suttenfield’s letter, he stated, when there was only one person sitting at a table. Council Member Kleinschmidt said this action brings the second party to the table so we can ensure that negotiations would occur under the zoning.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said under the current zoning, and repeated current zoning with emphasis, the University could begin development without addressing their plans to any elected officials in the Town. That was not, he stated with emphasis, in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Kleinschmidt said “it really saddens me” that the University cannot seem to understand that. Every time he had brought up that point or said anything regarding his reaction to the University’s position, he said, he got “blasted” for being a “University opponent” or that he “hates the University”, or was somehow an “enemy” of the University.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did not ever want to hear that again. He noted “how dare anyone say that,” when he came to this Town because of his desire from the age of 10 to attend this University. He came to Chapel Hill because of his love for this campus, he said, stating it had brought him here and kept him here. Council Member Kleinschmidt stressed that he responded now out of “just a great sadness” that the institution that he loved so much could not seem to understand this very basic principle and interest of the people who also live here.
Council Member Strom, who arrived during this discussion, apologized for his delay. He stated he saw in the audience many citizens who had served on the Horace Williams Citizens Committee along with him and Council Members Kleinschmidt and Hill. Council Member Strom noted that the recommendation for the rezoning was a result of the dedicated work that the members of the Committee had performed, and was not a “whimsical” decision. He commented that it had been discussed at length, and it was a key, well-thought out and important part of the Committee’s recommendation.
Council Member Strom pointed out that the Town was in a “remarkably” different condition now than it was when O/I-3 was a zoning category that prior Councils were actively putting in place. He noted that was evidenced by the Council’s decision to remove O/I-3 zoning from the main campus and create O/I-4 collaboratively with the University. He said through his work on the Committee and with the Council, it was “very obvious” that O/I-3 was inappropriate given the amount of people living around the airport, what community lifeways were like, what the Urban Services Boundary had done to our growth, and what our transit had done to growth. Council Member Strom said rezoning “just made sense.”
Council Member Strom stated there was an opportunity ahead for us to work collaboratively toward an innovative solution that would accommodate the Town’s needs and the University’s needs, but that this zone was in the way. He said he believed the Council was acting in the public interest to receive comments and then proceed with a rezoning.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL 11, 2005. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 2 – Public Hearing on Proposed Larkspur Annexation Area
Mr. Horton noted they had been following the process spelled out in North Carolina law to consider annexation for this area, and tonight the Council was conducting the formal hearing required by that law.
Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland noted that the Council had called this public hearing on January 10, 2005 to receive comments from citizens, and from residents and owners of property in the proposed Larkspur annexation area. He displayed a map of the proposed annexation area in relation to the existing Town limits, noting that the Larkspur area was located northwest of the present Town limits and included the Larkspur subdivision Phases I and II.
Mr. Sutherland said that in order to be annexed by the Town, the proposed annexation area must meet urban qualification criteria of density and use as set out by State law. He noted that the proposed annexation meets the criteria required by law as follows:
· The area had a 25 percent shared boundary with the present Town limits, which exceeded the statutory 12.5 percent.
· Area: 39.9 acres (33 acres excluding the railroad right-of-way).
· 86 lots (at least 34 currently occupied).
· Density: 78 persons or 2.3 persons/acre, the minimum required by law.
· Proposed annexation area had one area in which 60 percent or more of the total number of lots and tracts were used for residential purposes, and 60 percent or more of the total residential undeveloped acreage consisted of lots and tracts less than three acres in size.
· Meets statutory requirements for Town-initiated annexation.
Mr. Sutherland stated that under North Carolina law the Town must set forth the method under which the Town planed to finance extension of services into the annexed area. He noted that on the effective date of annexation, the Town would provide each major municipal service on substantially the same basis and in the same manner as the rest of the Town. Mr. Sutherland said that given the small size and population of the proposed annexation area in comparison with the existing Town, services could be provided with existing personnel and equipment. He said that since the area was newly developed, the estimated cost for fiscal year 2005-06 was $29,130, which would primarily compensate the volunteer fire department for loss of service area and to provide sanitary and street maintenance services. Mr. Sutherland noted that Attachment 4 in the Manager’s memorandum illustrated the estimated units of service such as fire calls that might be generated by annexation of this area.
Mr. Sutherland said the Town had followed the statutory process for notification about this public hearing and the prior public information meeting that was held on March 3 by mailing notices to owners of property and by publication of notice in a local newspaper. He said the next step would be consideration of adoption of the annexation ordinance, scheduled for April 11, adding that the proposed annexation date would likely be June 30, 2005.
Mr. Sutherland concluded by saying the Manager’s preliminary recommendation was to enact the proposed annexation ordinance.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL 11, 2005. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Council Member Verkerk asked Mr. Karpinos to comment on the statutory requirement that 12.5 percent of the proposed annexation area had to be contiguous to present Town limits, adding that seemed an odd figure. Mr. Karpinos said the statute actually said 1/8, which calculated to 12.5 percent.
Item 3 – Public Hearing on Proposed Vineyard Square Annexation Area
Mr. Horton noted that this issue was similar to the previous issue, and that although much of the information may seem repetitive, it was important to follow the process for the public record.
Mr. Sutherland stated that Vineyard Square was located northwest of the present Town limits, and displayed a map indicating its location. He noted that the area comprised the Vineyard Square multi-family residential development and open space, plus two residential lots fronting Homestead Road, and an abutting railroad right-of-way. Mr. Sutherland indicated that to the north was the Parkside II neighborhood annexed in 2003, and to the east was the Homestead Community Park.
Mr. Sutherland said that in order to be annexed by the Town, the proposed annexation area must meet urban qualification criteria of density and use as set out by State law. He noted that the proposed annexation meets the criteria required by law as follows:
· The area had a 75 percent shared boundary with the present Town limits, which exceeded the statutory 12.5 percent.
· Area: 57.2 acres (44 acres excluding the railroad right-of-way).
· 142 lots (at least 107 currently occupied).
· Density: 246 persons or 5.5 persons/acre (2.3 minimum required by law).
· Included a railroad right-of-way on the west side.
· Meets statutory requirements for Town-initiated annexation.
Mr. Sutherland stated that under North Carolina law the Town must set forth the method under which the Town planed to finance extension of services into the annexed area. As with the Larkspur area, he noted that on the effective date of annexation the Town would provide each major municipal service on substantially the same basis and in the same manner as the rest of the Town. Mr. Sutherland said that given the small size and population of the proposed annexation area in comparison with the existing Town, services could be provided with existing personnel and equipment. He said that since the area was newly developed, the estimated cost for fiscal year 2005-06 was $69,555, which would primarily compensate the volunteer fire department for loss of service area, compensate the current provider of sanitary services for loss of service area, and to provide Town sanitary and street maintenance services. Mr. Sutherland noted that Attachment 4 in the Manager’s memorandum illustrated the estimated units of service such as fire calls that might be generated by annexation of this area.
Mr. Sutherland said the Town had followed the statutory process for notification about this public hearing and the prior public information meeting that was held on March 3 by mailing notices to owners of property and by publication of notice in a local newspaper. He said the next step would be consideration of adoption of the annexation ordinance scheduled for April 11, adding that the proposed annexation date would likely be June 30, 2005.
Mr. Sutherland concluded by saying the Manager’s preliminary recommendation was to enact the proposed annexation ordinance.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL 11, 2005. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 4 – Public Forum on the Renaming of Martin Luther King, Jr. Street
Mr. Horton said that tonight’s public forum was to consider a recommendation from the Council Naming Committee to rename the present Martin Luther King, Jr. Street. He stated the Committee was led by Mayor pro tem Wiggins, and included Council Members Greene, Strom and Ward.
Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, staff liaison to the Council Naming Committee, noted that this street would be renamed to avoid duplication with the renamed Airport Road, soon to become Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard. She said the Committee had worked to engage in the renaming process the residents of the Colony Woods West neighborhood. Ms. Lazorko stated that Housing staff members took three names suggested by neighborhood residents - Jackie Robinson, Garrett Morgan, and Harriett Tubman – and surveyed residents of Martin Luther King, Jr. Street. She stated that Jackie Robinson was chosen as their first choice.
Ms. Lazorko noted that the Council Naming Committee had invited the Orange County Office of Emergency Management and the Chapel Hill Postmaster to provide input on the potential name, adding that a representative of each was present at tonight’s meeting.
Janie Riggsbee, a resident of Martin Luther King, Jr. Street, said it was okay to rename the street since the name ‘Martin Luther King, Jr.” would not be lost. She noted, however, that she had lived on that street for 23 years and believed the new name should be of someone who had made an impact on Chapel Hill the way Reverend King had. Ms. Riggsbee said she believed the name “Jackie Robinson” would be the most appropriate.
Ms. Riggsbee noted that whenever residents of Martin Luther King, Jr. Street had found it necessary to call EMS, the Police or Fire Departments, they had not shortened their street name to “King,” but had called it by its full name. She asked that when the street was renamed, that its name not be shortened but called by its full name. Ms. Riggsbee added that by calling it Jackie Robinson rather than Robinson, it would not be confused with “Roberson.” She said when calling for emergency services, residents would use the full name and not shorten it.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins noted that a representative from the Orange County Office of Emergency Management and the Chapel Hill Postmaster were present, and asked had there been any further conversation with EMS about the suggested name of Jackie Robinson. Ms. Lazorko said there had been some follow-up, and asked Jack Ball of the Orange County Office of Emergency Management to address that.
Mr. Horton noted that Mr. Ball had recently visited with Town department heads, noting he was a relative newcomer to the community and was a person whom the Town would ultimately do a lot of work with in the area of emergency services. He said we were pleased to welcome him to the community.
Jack Ball, the Director of the Orange County Office of Emergency Management, stated that once they were contacted they had checked their street addressing guide and found no conflicts with the three proposed names. He said that any one of the three names would be appropriate and acceptable for emergency services.
BY CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL, THE PUBLIC FORUM WAS ADJOURNED AND COMMENTS OF THE PUBLIC FORUM WERE REFERRED TO THE MANAGER FOR A RESPONSE ON APRIL 5, 2005.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins determined that because the Council made no comments, that they were in favor of renaming the street Jackie Robinson Street.
Item 5 – Public Forum on the 2007-2013 Chapel Hill Transportation Priority List
Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Christ Berndt said this public forum was being held to develop a Chapel Hill Transportation Priority List for the development of a 2007-2013 Transportation Development Program. She said that because there were so many versions of the current situation, staff felt it was important to provide a history of where we were now in the program. Ms. Berndt said the process involved local governments, the regional Transportation Advisory Committee, and ultimately the State. Ms. Berndt said the State was proposing to change its process for developing a State Transportation Improvement Program, therefore tonight we begin the process of every two years on odd years preparing a new Transportation Improvement Program.
Ms. Berndt said the materials provided to the Council reviewed the following:
Ms. Berndt stated that even though the 2006-2012 Plan had not been completed, the State was asking that local governments start the local process for the new plan, which would be the 2007-2013 plan. She said tonight’s public forum was the first step.
Ms. Berndt said that Attachment 1 of the materials was the relevant document to be used for discussion, noting that was Chapel Hill’s last adopted Transportation Priority List given to the regional Transportation Advisory Committee for use in the 2006-2012 Plan. She said that the recommendation was that after tonight’s public forum, that a new list be prepared for the Council’s consideration on April 5.
Jason Smith, a resident of the soon to be annexed Vineyard Square, said he had been looking for options so that his daughter could walk to school. He said that most of the sidewalks were available for her to do that, except there was a portion where Weaver Dairy Road “T’s” into Homestead Road and the railroad track that does not have a sidewalk on it. Mr. Smith said there was a sidewalk on Vineyard Square down to Homestead Road, and another sidewalk that picked up on the other side of the railroad tracks. He said if she walked through Homestead Village and over to the high school, she could walk all the way.
Mr. Smith said he looked at the plan, which provided for bicycles and sidewalks from Seawell School Road and High School Road back over towards Carrboro. He asked the Council to consider putting that short stretch of sidewalk on the priority plan so that children from Northside, Parkside, Larkspur, and Vineyard Square could walk or ride their bicycles to school.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked the Manager if he was familiar with the stretch Mr. Smith had spoken of. Mr. Horton replied that he did, but did not recall if it was already programmed for a sidewalk. He indicated that staff would check on it and when the issue came back on April 5 they would respond to it. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said it may be on the Town’s Sidewalk Plan, which did not have to be a part of the Priority List. Mr. Horton replied that was correct.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed they had heard from a citizen about that same area about a year ago. Mr. Horton responded he believed it was the same area, which was why he wanted to check the status of it. He said they would communicate their findings to Mr. Smith, and asked him to leave his contact information with the Town Clerk. Mr. Smith indicated he had made his email address available.
Council Member Ward said that he felt the summary of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board’s comments were “on target” from his perspective. He said he did not know how to accomplish what they were asking, but it would involve trying to revise or somehow recognize those projects that are smaller in scope and as a result of their size don’t receive the points that put them higher on the Priority List. Council Member Ward said he would like to get the projects noted by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board somehow moved up on the Priority List to the extent that we would have some realistic hope that they would receive funding. He asked that a staff response be provided to the comments made by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board at their February 22, 2005 meeting.
Council Member Harrison stated he would like to have that response as well, noting he would also like to see how the list meshed with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan adopted by the Council. He said that plan involved a lot of work and we needed to execute it as best we could using federal funds when available.
Council Member Harrison said that some of the projects not funded were more likely to get funded if other jurisdictions join with us in supporting them. He said he would make the trip to Durham to ask for their support, so that Chapel Hill would not be the only one suggesting these projects. Council Member Harrison said the ones that needed coordination with Carrboro were making progress, and that was good to see, particularly Homestead Road, Seawell School Road, and the Morgan Creek greenway. Council Member Harrison said these projects would not happen unless multiple jurisdictions had them on the list, which would mean the State would take them more seriously.
Council Member Strom said it would be useful for more information to be included on the list. He said he knew it was difficult to ascertain what projects would cost, but some of the projects were huge dollar items, and some were significantly less. Council Member Strom said some were tens of millions compared to a few hundred thousand for others. He said we may not be able to do it now but asked that staff begin to develop that, noting that then we could create some hierarchical analysis of these priorities. For instance, Council Member Strom said, greenway projects could be grouped together somehow and possibly provide more flexibility in the ranking system.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins noted that regarding Item #4 on the Renaming of Martin Luther King, Jr. Street, she had neglected to forward to the Town Clerk information on Jackie Robinson having to do with his civil rights activities rather than his sports career. She asked that this information be included in the public record, and included when the item came back to the Council on April 5.
BY CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL, THE PUBLIC FORUM WAS ADJOURNED AND COMMENTS OF THE PUBLIC FORUM WERE REFERRED TO THE MANAGER FOR A RESPONSE ON APRIL 5, 2005.
Item 6 – Public Hearing on a Special Use Permit Application
for The Condominiums
Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper said this public hearing had been called to consider a Special Use Permit application to renovate and expand the Village Apartments building at 213 East Franklin Street. She said the building was located at the northeast corner of East Franklin Street and Robertson Lane and was located in the O/I-1 zoning district as well as the Franklin-Rosemary Historic District. Ms. Culpepper said the proposal would add just over 1,000 square feet of floor area, and change the number of dwelling units from 35 dwelling units to eight dwelling units. She said a number of key issues had been identified as the proposal had moved through the review process, noting these issues were identified in the materials supplied to the Council.
Ms. Culpepper said there had been a lot of discussion about Robertson Lane as a fire access road, and whether that one-way road should have a sidewalk. She said they had incorporated a recommendation by the Transportation Board and general comments from the Historic District Commission into the Manager’s preliminary recommendation, Resolution A. Ms. Culpepper said they recommended construction of a four-foot wide sidewalk within the existing 15-foot roadway and given that the roadway was one-way, they believed that would help to separate pedestrians from cars. She said that because the sidewalk would be within the existing 15-foot wide road it would have a minimal impact on the historic appearance of the existing building.
Ms. Culpepper said affordable housing was another issue. She said that with Special Use Permit applications the Council was asked to make four findings to approve the development, one of which was that the proposal was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Culpepper said a goal in the Comprehensive Plan called for 15 percent of dwelling units in a development be affordable. She noted that in this case the applicant had offered a single unit as an affordable rental unit, or a payment-in-lieu of providing on-site affordable housing.
Ms. Culpepper said that 15 percent of eight units equaled 1.2 dwelling units. She noted they had received correspondence from Orange Community Housing and Land Trust that provided an update on the amount needed to subsidize the provision of an affordable unit in this area. In this situation, Ms. Culpepper said, they believed that the payment-in-lieu approach was the most appropriate, and had included a stipulation in the proposed Resolution A to that effect for a payment for the 1.2 dwelling units.
Dan Jewell of Coulter Jewell Thames, representing the property owner, Joe Patterson, said the overriding goal of the project was to preserve the historic character of this structure because it was such an important part of the historic character in this area of Chapel Hill. To that end, he said, they believed it was extremely important to follow some key Town planning goals, quoted as follows:
Mr. Jewell said it was their understanding that in order for the Council to make a finding to grant the exceptions they were requesting that public purposes must be found. He said they believed they had many on this project:
Mr. Jewell noted the broad support for this project from many groups, naming the Downtown Economic Development Corporation, the Downtown Commission, the NC State Historic Preservation office, the Historic District Commission, the Preservation Society, and the property neighbors University Presbyterian Church and the Kappa Delta Sorority.
Mr. Jewell stated that the structure was built in 1937 as a dormitory with 35 units, had no sprinkler system, and had 23 on-site parking spaces. He noted that the structure was located in an historic district and was in the Downtown Small Area Plan Conservation Area. Mr. Jewell said the property was zoned O/I-1 and contained many nonconforming features.
Mr. Jewell noted the renovations that would require a Special Use Permit, stating that if existing building codes had not required an elevator, there would be no need for a Special Use Permit. The staff had determined, he said, that the addition of an elevator constituted a structural change to the building. Mr. Jewell said the Development Ordinance stated that when a structural change was made to an existing nonconforming building then the Special Use Permit process was required.
Mr. Jewell stated that because they had to go through the Special Use Permit process due to the addition of the elevator, they had decided to include some additional square footage in the existing attic space, but emphasized they were not expanding the existing footprint of the building. Mr. Jewell said that other than the small amount of additional square footage being requested, all of the nonconforming features were existing, and were the same as they were in 1937 when the building was built.
Mr. Jewell displayed pictures of the current building and elevation from different angles, noting the dormers on the roof and their importance to the elevation after the renovation. He displayed pictures of the paved driveway into the property from Robertson Lane, noting there was no landscaped area. Mr. Jewell said the entrance to the garage area was also paved with no landscaped area. He noted the garage was an historic structure and they would preserve it and add a few improvements.
Mr. Jewell said that the proposed renovations were as follows:
Mr. Jewell said they had received good support from advisory boards, although it appeared the Planning Board believed that the project was more student-oriented and may not be appropriate for that site. He said this development was “certainly not aimed at students.”
Mr. Jewell noted that when they had first begun meeting with staff regarding the project, they faced many issues that needed conclusion. Now, he said, only one issue remained that they had thought had been solved, but realized last week when they received the materials for tonight’s meeting that it had not been put to rest. He noted that issue was the issue of affordable housing, and asked Joe Patterson to address that.
Joe Patterson, the owner of the property, stated that the Comprehensive Plan nor LUMO required that affordable housing be provided as part of the renovation project. Since no rezoning was involved, he said, we were only encouraged to provide it by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Patterson said that an affordable housing component had been included in their application that gave the Town two alternatives, an affordable rental unit or a payment-in-lieu.
Mr. Patterson said because the Comprehensive Plan did not provide specific guidance, their attorney had advised that they model their approach to other projects accepted by the Council in the past, which set precedents. He noted that there had been no relevant changes to the Comprehensive Plan since these projects were approved.
Mr. Patterson noted that their affordable housing component was “essentially identical” to the Rosemary Village Condominium development approved by the Council in August of 2002, which was in turn modeled after the Chapel Ridge development approved by the Council in November of 2000.
Mr. Patterson said the method of calculation of the number of units in their proposal was identical to Rosemary Village, as were the governing stipulations they had proposed. He noted that the Manager had expressed his “pleasure” with the Rosemary Village structure in his memo to the Council for the public hearing on that project, quoting as follows:
“We are pleased with the applicant’s affordable housing proposal. It is based on affordable housing stipulations from the Chapel Ridge development, approved by the Council November 13, 2000. We believe that the applicant’s affordable housing proposal complies with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.”
Regarding their payment-in-lieu alternative, Mr. Patterson presented a brief description of payments-in-lieu of all residential projects approved by the Council in the past five years, referring to Avalon Park, Morgan Estates, and Wilshire Place. To establish a comparable payment for their project, he said, they established a per unit payment for the other projects, calculated an average, and multiplied it by the number of units in the project. Mr. Patterson said that the average payment-in-lieu of all the projects approved by the Council in the past five years was $4,192, and multiplying their eight units by that figure equaled $33,533. Their proposal, he stated, offered a payment-in-lieu of $34,000.
Mr. Patterson said they had presented Planning Director Roger Waldon with the “precise language” to be included in their application. After reviewing the proposal, Mr. Waldon wrote the following letter on November 19, 2004:
“We were able to consider your ideas at a meeting yesterday afternoon with the Town Manager, and I believe it is likely we will recommend conditions of approval similar to those that accompanied the recent approval of a multi-family development on West Rosemary. It is my understanding that this is one of the options you have been considering and would be consistent with the material you gave us yesterday.”
Mr. Patterson noted that it was in fact identical to the material they had included in their application. He stated that in his recommendation to the Planning Board, the Planning Director recommended the one rental unit option along with the other governing stipulations. Mr. Patterson said at the conclusion of his memo, the Planning Director stated that their proposal conformed with the Comprehensive Plan. Based on that, he said, they were confident that their proposal met the requirements and should be acceptable to the Council, and, would therefore be comfortable with moving forward with their application.
Mr. Patterson said the staff position was maintained throughout the advisory board reviews, and at little as two weeks ago they were led to believe that there would be no change in the staff recommendation to the Council. He noted that in conversations with some Council members prior to submission of their Special Use Permit application, they were advised that the Council relied heavily on feedback from Robert Dowling, Executive Director of Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, in evaluating affordable housing proposals and issues.
Mr. Patterson said that even though they believed they had an affordable housing component that was acceptable and approvable, they had “gone the extra mile” and met with Mr. Dowling over the last few weeks. Although Mr. Dowling preferred an affordable “for sale” unit as a matter of principle, Mr. Patterson stated, he had seen merit in their argument that the high condo association dues would likely make the unit unaffordable.
As an alternative to the rental unit recommended by the staff, Mr. Patterson said, Mr. Dowling felt that the community would be better served if they subsidized an affordable unit in Northside, which would be between $60,000 and $70,000 with an exact figure to be established at a later date. He stated they had agreed with Mr. Dowling that would be acceptable to them as an alternative to the rental unit, and asked that he propose that to the Council this evening. Mr. Patterson said that if the Council were agreeable, they would not be opposed to such a stipulation. Mr. Patterson stressed that the figure proposed as a subsidy was twice the amount paid by other developers in the past.
Mr. Patterson noted they were “stunned” to discover two days ago that the staff, without notice or consultation with them, had dramatically altered its position on their affordable housing proposal and its interpretation of the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that now, staff was saying that their proposal did not meet the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, and that two affordable units, or 25 percent of the project was necessary. Mr. Patterson said the staff had chosen to “preempt” Mr. Dowling’s proposal to the Council reclassifying as a payment-in-lieu instead of a substitute for the rental unit, and increased the amount of 20 percent. He added that the staff had been unwilling to provide any reason for the change.
Mr. Patterson said they find the “eleventh hour shift in position unfair, unreasonable, and unconscionable.” Relying in good faith on feedback from the staff that their affordable proposal was acceptable, he said, they had spent a year of their time and a considerable amount of money in pursuit of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Patterson said they would not have begun the project had staff taken the position of two days ago. He said to have the rules changed “arbitrarily and capriciously” two days before the end of the approval process was beyond the pale. Mr. Patterson said that barring changes in regulations, a developer must be able to trust the staff to be consistent in its interpretation of the rules. Otherwise, he said, no developer could or would conduct business in Chapel Hill.
Mr. Patterson said it should be remembered why they were here, that they were attempting to restore an historic residential structure in the downtown. He noted that solely because it predated land use regulations, it had nonconforming features, and because they must install an elevator to meet State building codes, LUMO required a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Patterson said that by undertaking the renovation they were accomplishing several high priority goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the Downtown Small Area Plan. He said they do not need affordable housing to justify the project, nor were they required in any way to provide it, but had tried to be good citizens by doing so. Mr. Patterson said they were unwilling to provide a payment-in-lieu greater than the amount they had agreed to with Mr. Dowling, which was twice what other developers had paid.
Mr. Patterson requested that the Council choose between the single rental unit originally proposed by the staff, or the proposal by Mr. Dowling to substitute a payment of between $60,000 and $70,000 to subsidize an affordable home in Northside. Further, he said, they requested that the Council approve Resolution A with appropriate modifications.
Ms. Culpepper said they received some updated information from Orange Community Housing and Land Trust which indicated that the cost of subsidizing a home in the general area of the project was $60,000 to $70,000. She said that had been incorporated into Resolution A taking into account that 15 percent of eight units was equivalent to 1.2 units.
Ms. Culpepper said that there were some differences between this application and others the Council had reviewed before, noting the Council was being asked to make a public purpose finding, that public purposes are being satisfied by allowing this proposal to expand to just over 1,000 square feet more than its present floor area. And, she said, that additional floor area increased the nonconforming features of that site.
Council Member Strom said he understood from the applicant’s remarks that there was no specific language regarding affordable housing calculations in the Comprehensive Plan. He said he had understood that the way we calculated payments-in-lieu was that it was the amount of money it would cost to make one unit in a particular development affordable. Ms. Culpepper responded that based on other projects that had gone through the process we do have language in LUMO that better defined how affordable housing was calculated in those particular situations.
Ms. Culpepper said that the Council had detailed discussions relative to rounding of numbers regarding those provisions in LUMO, adding that those provisions had to do with the size restricted provisions. She said that an applicant in certain situations would have to offer 25% size restricted units when proposing single-family or two-family type development. Ms. Culpepper said the applicant had available to them an option to request from the Council an affordable housing option or a payment-in-lieu of providing a smaller percentage of affordable housing, which was in line with the Comprehensive Plan goal of 15 percent. Ms. Culpepper said the Comprehensive Plan did not contain specific language that would spell out how to round up or down, noting it said 15 percent was the goal.
Council Member Strom said if we were talking about money, or payments-in-lieu, if these units were going to sell for half a million dollars we could find that it would take $400,000 of subsidy to make one of the units in that development affordable. Ms. Culpepper responded that she believed that was correct. She said if you read the language in LUMO you would come to that same conclusion.
Ms. Culpepper reiterated that the language was linked to the size restricted provisions that applied to single-family and two-family development. She said if you proposed more than five dwelling units in a single-family or two-family type development, not a multi-family development, then the provisions for the 25 percent size restricted do allow an applicant to offer 15% affordable or to offer and the Council may accept a provision for payment-in-lieu of 15% affordable housing.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he had understood that the amount that would be required as a payment-in-lieu was not necessarily tied to the development being proposed, but it was an amount that Mr. Dowling determined was necessary to make a unit affordable. He said he had not understood that it had to necessarily be within that development. Ms. Culpepper responded that if you look at the size restricted provisions which don’t apply in this particular case, that the language does speak to what would make a unit affordable in that particular development if we were applying the size restricted provisions, and if the applicant was offering affordable in lieu of providing size restricted. So, Ms. Culpepper said, there was some language that we could bring back in our follow-up report, but added that it related to size restricted provisions that were not in the Comprehensive Plan which was what they were talking about tonight.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was still confused about how the staff came up with a payment of $84,000. He said based on what he understood he would come up with $84,000 as well, but what he was hearing tonight contradicted that. Ms. Culpepper replied that Council Member Strom’s question related to the Comprehensive Plan provisions. She said what the staff had done was applied the Comprehensive Plan goal of 15 percent of eight units which equaled 1.2 units, and using Mr. Dowling’s guidance on what it would take to provide an affordable unit in that general area of $70,000, then 1.2 times the $70,000 amounted to $84,000.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said that prior to the rounding discussions the Council had held in recent months, we would have said that 1.2 be rounded to 1, which would amount of $70,000. He asked if we were continuing to round at this point. Ms. Culpepper said no, that based on the Council’s discussion regarding rounding of numbers for affordable housing, it applied to the size restricted provisions for single-family and two-family development. She said the Council’s recent discussions made it clear that they were not interested in rounding when it involved payments-in-lieu for affordable housing, but wanted the actual figure applied for the calculation.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked when had the Council made that decision, and when was this Special Use Permit application filed. Ms. Culpepper responded that the discussions occurred this past fall, but would provide specific information in the follow-up report. Council Member Kleinschmidt said it would be interesting to see exactly when those two events had occurred.
Council Member Greene said the recent discussions the Council had regarding rounding had to do with the number of houses a developer would have to provide if they chose to provide housing as opposed to a payment-in-lieu. She said the Council had already established a policy of not rounding when the developer chose to make a payment-in-lieu, noting that was decided about the time that the Creekside development was considered. Council Member Greene said her recollection was that policy was established prior to submittal of this Special Use Permit application.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked would that have been around 2002. Council Member Greene said it was somewhere around that time.
Council Member Hill said he believed their discussion regarding rounding took place in January, but in any case Mr. Patterson had stated that the applicant was led to believe that one type of approach, that being the payment-in-lieu of $70,000, would be adequate up until just a few days ago. He said it did seem unfair to change that at the last minute, and asked for an explanation. Ms. Culpepper responded that the recommendation that was initially sent to advisory boards came from the Planning Department, and now we had the benefit of the Manager’s preliminary recommendation tonight. As a result, she said, they had broadened their review and taken into consideration the Council’s recent discussion about affordable housing and rounding.
Mr. Horton commented that the short answer was that they had discovered the error during the last review.
Robert Dowling said he wanted to explain his rationale for the number he came up with as well as the approach he had taken because payment-in-lieu was not normally his first option. All along, he said, he had asked Mr. Patterson to provide an ownership unit, noting it was a condominium ownership project and he believed the affordable unit should be homeownership as well. Mr. Dowling said that as discussions continued, he had told Mr. Patterson that an affordable unit would be one in the range of $90,000 to $100,000. He said that even if Mr. Patterson were able to offer a unit at that price range, there were circumstances that would cause it to be not so affordable, one in particular being condominium association fees. Mr. Dowling said in his estimation these units would be luxury condominiums and the association fees would reflect that.
Mr. Dowling said that even if a unit was priced at $100,000 or less, with taxes and association fees the price may be $170,000 to $180,000 or higher, making the unit not so affordable. He said they would most likely end up selling the unit to a person or a couple who made between 75 percent to 80 percent of the median income. Mr. Dowling said he did not believe there was value to that. He said he would rather have the funds necessary to renovate a house in Northside that he could put a family in at 60 percent of the median income. That had more value, he said, than a luxury condominium across the street from the campus.
Mr. Dowling said when talking with Mr. Patterson, and because we were in the midst of discussions regarding renovating houses in Northside, he had indicated that such a renovation would cost $60,000 to $70,000, although he did not have exact numbers. But, he said, that was what it would cost to renovate one house. Mr. Dowling said that was why he supported the payment-in-lieu, and why he supported the $70,000 figure.
Council Member Verkerk reiterated Council Member Hill’s remarks, agreeing that it seemed unfair that two days before the public hearing the numbers changed. She said she understood why Mr. Patterson was frustrated. Mr. Horton replied that some other things had been changed at that time that Mr. Patterson found favorable. For instance, Mr. Horton said, at the same time we made the modification to the housing recommendation we eliminated a requirement that would have required dedication of additional right-of-way, removal and reconstruction of the wall, and construction of a sidewalk. He said that throughout the process, there had been changes that ultimately resulted in a number of disagreements being narrowed considerably. Mr. Horton said that just as there was a change that Mr. Patterson found unfavorable in the last few days, there were other changes that he found to be favorable.
Council Member Greene said she understood Mr. Patterson’s frustration as well, adding that she certainly supported the Council’s interest in affordable housing. She expressed her hope that a compromise could be found. Council Member Greene reminded the Council that there was a work session scheduled in April on inclusionary zoning and affordable housing, and if we had an ordinance in place that would have applied to a multi-unit building such as this one then we would not have this dilemma.
Council Member Strom said he wanted to accept Ms. Culpepper’s offer to provide information for further discussion on how we came to these calculations. He said Mr. Dowling made a good argument for how an affordable unit could become unaffordable in this situation. Council Member Strom said we had a good experience and had made it a priority to get developers to provide affordable housing so that Orange Community Housing and Land Trust could spend their time on other constructive things. Council Member Strom said there was a need for rental housing at a subsidized rate, noting that this community’s number one need was low-priced rental housing.
Council Member Ward said he agreed with Mr. Dowling’s comment that a payment-in-lieu was not his first choice. But in this case, he said, it may be the better choice. Council Member Ward said if the payment-in-lieu was unsatisfactory as currently proposed in the Manager’s recommendation and that he supported at this time, he would offer the opportunity for Mr. Patterson to have further discussions with Town staff and Mr. Dowling to see whether there were ways to address the long-term affordability of an ownership unit within the building. Council Member Ward said that would mean addressing the issues of homeowners’ dues and taxes, adding that would be an acceptable alternative for him.
Council Member Ward said an issue of lesser importance to him was the name of
the project. He said it seemed “peculiar” to name the project after a type of
housing. Council Member Ward said it would be the same as naming a development
“houses.” He noted it just appeared to him to be “odd.”
Council Member Kleinschmidt encouraged Mr. Dowling to work to get a more precise figure on the cost of renovating a house in Northside. He said quoting a figure of “$60,000 to $70,000” might lead to a figure of $72,000, but he could not make a jump from that figure to $84,000. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that if the figure was indeed $70,000 then it appeared that was acceptable, but if not then we need a more precise figure.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked Mr. Dowling if there were other units in the Land Trust that were subject to association or homeowner dues. Mr. Dowling responded that all of their townhomes and condominiums had association dues. Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked what was the range. Mr. Dowling replied from a low of about $100 up to about $142. Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked what was his experience with the homeowners’ ability to manage those fees. Mr. Dowling responded that the higher figure was a burden, because banks factored that into the monthly payment along with the principal, interest, taxes and insurance. He said that in any condominium or townhome, the association dues add more of a burden to the affordability of the unit. Mr. Dowling said the higher the dues, the more it would restrict the affordability.
Mr. Dowling said that based on the information given to him by Mr. Patterson, he projected that the association dues on these condominiums may be as high as $170 to $180. He said that would be the highest we had and would really narrow the window of affordability.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked what household income would be necessary to be able to afford one of these units with the homeowner dues. Mr. Dowling said he did not know exactly, but estimated it would most likely be in the 75 percent of median income range. He said for one person that may be about $35,000.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said based on that information, it was not inconceivable that a unit in this development could be affordable. Mr. Dowling replied that it would a “very narrow band” because the maximum for one person would be $39,900. He said that would mean a narrow band of people would meet the requirements. Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if the unit would be a one-bedroom unit. Mr. Dowling replied that was his understanding. Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked what was the maximum income for two people. Mr. Dowling responded it was $45,600.
Council Member Verkerk asked Mr. Dowling if the building’s proximity to the campus was a factor. She said when you are talking about $35,000 that would be about what an “Accounting Tech. 1” earned at the University, and that unit would be ideal for such a person. Mr. Dowling responded that they sell a lot of homes to employees at the Hospitals and the University and to school teachers who make between $30,000 and $40,000. He said this unit would be priced similarly to all these other homes, but it would have a higher monthly payment. Mr. Dowling said that meant we would be narrowing the availability of the one-person or two-person households that could afford the unit. He said he could almost predict that such a unit would be sold to a single woman who made around $37,000 and it would be “wonderful” for that person. In his judgment, Mr. Dowling said, a three bedroom, two bath home in Northside was what we needed.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked Mr. Dowling would he rather have the money. Mr. Dowling replied he would rather have a house.
Mr. Patterson said that under current ordinances and policies and because they were not requesting a rezoning, they were only encouraged to provide affordable housing and that was what they were doing. He said there was nothing that indicated how to calculate the payment-in-lieu. Mr. Patterson said from a legal point of view, all they could do was use what had gone before, and they were doing that. He said their original proposal that had been accepted by the Town Manager had calculated the payment-in-lieu on the same basis as Rosemary Village, and he did not believe that they should be treated any differently.
Mr. Patterson reiterated that their offer of $34,000 as payment-in-lieu was exactly the same as had been accepted for other developments. He said he did not know how it was possible to begin applying things that don’t exist in the Comprehensive Plan, and asked how they could predict a year and a half into the future what the Council might be thinking and now apply that to their plan. Mr. Patterson said they had used what had been approved before, it was accepted and recommended to the advisory boards by the Town Manager and Planning staff, and now it was unacceptable.
Mr. Patterson said they believed they had gone the extra mile by contacting Mr. Dowling, and it seemed they were getting “hit by a stick” for doing so. He reminded the Council that the Comprehensive Plan said nothing about calculations for payments-in-lieu, that it only encouraged developers to do it and that was what they were doing.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked Mr. Patterson to make sure that the Council had copies of the letters he had mentioned, from the Town Manager and Planning staff. Mr. Patterson noted the letter he referred to was from the Planning staff, dated November 19.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECESS THE PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL 11, 2005. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Item 7 – Public Hearing on Installment Financing Contract for
The Town Operations Center
Finance Director Kay Johnson stated that tonight’s public hearing was being held to receive public comment on the proposed installment financing for the Town Operations Center up to approximately $25.5 million. She said the Public Works and Transportation facilities currently located on the Horace Williams property would have to vacate by December 31, 2006. Ms. Johnson stated that the Council was aware of planning to construct a new Town Operations Center, and to proceed with financing the next step would be to hear from citizens in regard to that.
Ms. Johnson said that the financing related strictly to the Public Works portion of the project. She said they had examined the financing and the streams of cash the Town had available relative to the Transportation facility and believed that no part of that facility would need to be financed.
Ms. Johnson said they had prepared a budget of $25 million, but would request a slightly higher figure in order to provide some flexibility. She added that they would not be required to finance any more relative to the bid that was actually received.
Ms. Johnson then described the next steps:
April 5 Council scheduled to adopt a resolution approving the Certificates of Participation and the financing documents.
April 6 Application for financing submitted to the Local Government Commission.
May 3 Receive bids; receive Local Government Commission approval for financing.
May 9 Council scheduled to approve bids for the Town Operations Center building construction.
May 11 Sale of Certificates of Participation.
May 26 Closing of Sale and receipt of funds.
Ms. Johnson said they recommended that the Council proceed with the financing of approximately $25.5 million in Certificates of Participation for the Town Operations Center.
There were no citizens present who wished to speak on this issue.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO APRIL 5, 2005. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m.