Gym jumps through hoops

Chapel Hill now has two town-owned buildings that can’t be rented out due to overdue maintenance. The Chapel Hill Museum building at 523 E. Franklin St. was shuttered in June 2011 because the town did not have the approximately $800,000 to do the repairs. And last week, Orange County Gymnastics learned it would have to close because it can’t move back into the building it leased on Homestead Road because the town does not have the resources to pay $165,000 to ameliorate the mold and asbestos problems it found there.

To be fair, the town did not know about the maintenance problems when it leased the building to Tim and Jessica Baker, the gymnastics business owners. The building had been rented for 30 years to another gymnastics business, and that tenant did not report any problems. Mold is not always apparent, and asbestos is only a problem if it is disturbed and becomes airborne. So no one acted in bad faith.

The Bakers bought what used to be known as Sport Art Gymnastics in mid-December and renamed it Orange County Gymnastics. When they began to do some renovations, they found water damage in the building that had ruined some equipment. The town agreed to make the repairs and clean up the mold, and the Bakers signed a two-month lease at University Mall in the space that had been leased by Kerr Drug but had been empty for more than two years. While doing the work, the town discovered the expensive-to-remove asbestos.

When the town canceled the Bakers’ lease on the Homestead Road building, the Bakers considered approaching University Mall about extending their lease. The relocation had proved a good fit, more convenient for many of the 260 families whose children take classes at Orange County Gymnastics, and it brought more customers to browse the children’s shops the mall has added in the past year. Wanting to avoid more surprises, the Bakers called the fire marshal to make sure there were no problems with the U Mall space.

On Feb. 17, Fire Marshal Matt Lawrence gave the Bakers bad news: The space the mall had rented to them was up to code for mercantile use, but not for assembly use, the category for the gymnastics business, which mall management should have known to check before offering the temporary lease, given that it had been through the process with the library and Deep Dish Theater.

To meet the requirements for the assembly use code, the mall would have to build a firewall between the gym and the mercantile businesses flanking it, add a fifth exit, bring the bathrooms up to ADA standards and make other upfits. The mall declined to make that investment, preferring to look for a mercantile tenant.

Tonight the Bakers are petitioning Town Council to come up with the money to make the Homestead Road building habitable again. Given that the building lease is $14,000 annually, it would take the town 12 years to recoup the cost of the repairs. But think of all the money the town has saved over 30 years of virtually no maintenance. What council directs the town manager to do will reflect whether the town is open for a gymnastics business.
– Nancy Oates

by on February 27, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Business, Economic development, Library, Spending
Posted by Nancy Oates on February 27, 2012

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2012/02/27/gym-jumps-through-hoops/

Hope springs eternal

A developer walked into a Town Council meeting, armed only with a PowerPoint presentation and high hopes.

Does this joke sound familiar? You’ve heard it twice in the past couple months, first with Shortbread Lofts and most recently with Charterwood. So you know how it goes. Neighbors will object to the building height and density and the influx of students that will change their quiet, quaint lifestyle. Council members will object to too much parking or not enough, or too much vehicular traffic or too much pedestrian traffic. Or the tenants will use the transportation infrastructure too much, or not enough. As if trapped in an abusive relationship, developers will spend years trying to make council members happy, only to be dumped in the end.

But there’s never a shortage of people confident that they can tame the bad boy, and last night Trinitas stepped up to try. The Atlanta-based developer specializes in high-density student housing within a walkable distance of campuses. Trinitas has partnered with local architect and engineering firms to come up with a project to replace what used to be called Northampton Terrace, more recently known as Central Park Apartments.

Trinitas has proposed replacing the three one- and two-story buildings with four five- to seven-story buildings that would put 285 units, a total of 700 bedrooms, in the 9-acre spot. The developer asked for a variance in height (90 feet maximum, as opposed to the 60 feet LUMO allows) and only half the parking spaces LUMO requires.

The gist of the complaints from nearby homeowners along Hillsborough Street was that so many students coming to the neighborhood would be noisy, increase traffic and interfere with their views. One woman said she wouldn’t be able to see the sun set if the project were built.

Some council members were skeptical that Trinitas would be able to get students to abide by the walkable/bikable/busable mindset. But Trinitas has had experience doing so and has a plan. Tenants would have three options: rent a parking spot from Trinitas, show proof of renting a spot elsewhere or sign a contract that they would not have a car anywhere in the county. Violaters risk having their lease terminated.

To keep everyone happy, Trinitas could put further restrictions on tenants. Make this project for shy people only. Surely there are at least 700 introverts on campus who would prefer to live surrounded by other quiet, studious scholars, students who are too busy working or studying or training to party hard on the balconies.

UNC is by far the town’s biggest employer, or it would be if middle-income people could afford to live here. But still, we need to make some accommodations to welcome the students who keep the university and downtown businesses alive. Renting only to students with high GPAs, or on an Olympic sport team or hold down a work-study job would fill a market niche.
– Nancy Oates

by on February 21, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Downtown Chapel Hill, Housing, Lifestyle, UNC
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on February 21, 2012

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2012/02/21/hope-springs-eternal/

Speak up on cell phone ban

Tonight Town Council will hold a public hearing to debate whether Chapel Hill moves one step closer to becoming an exclusive community. The ordinance up for discussion proposes that Chapel Hill ban some drivers from talking to certain people on a cell phone while driving on selected streets in town.

Study upon study and layers of anecdotes from police who respond to accidents show that driving while talking on the phone, whether or not you’re using your hands in the call, is as dangerous as driving drunk. So the town has agreed to entertain a law to reduce that risk, in some places and for some people. The proposed ordinance would ban cell phone use only for drivers who:
 are unmarried; or
 have a spouse of the same gender, and the marriage is not recognized by the State of North Carolina; or
 choose not to have children; or
 are unable to have children; or
 do not have a living parent; or
 are wealthy enough to afford a car with a hands-free mobile phone.

The ordinance aimed to make the streets safer for all of us by banning cell phone use while driving makes exceptions for people talking to a spouse, parent, child or legal guardian or talking on a hands-free device. I suppose you could make the argument that who really listens to their spouse or kids or parents anyway, but I don’t get the exemption for the hands-free technology.

A report from the Chapel Hill Police said that a law against people talking on hands-free devices would be difficult to enforce, but so would a law that specifies exemptions based on whom you’re talking to. The law, which imposes a $25 fine for violaters, is an after-the-fact law, anyway. Police have far too much to do to pull over drivers talking on the phone and asking who they’re talking to, unless the phone user has just caused an accident. And if you’re driving while distracted and stray over the center line or mow down a pedestrian or bicyclist, are you absolved as long as you can prove you were on the phone reminding the kids to do clean out the litter box or asking hubby to pick up some broccoli on the way home from work?

I hope council will pick apart the ordinance with the same intensity they applied to the Peace and Justice Plaza ordinance. And once the state passes a law that allows Chapel Hill to enforce a ban on cell phone use by drivers on all streets in town, I hope the council enacts a law to ban all drivers from talking on the phone, regardless of whom they’re talking to. Tonight’s your chance to speak up.
– Nancy Oates

by on February 20, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Lifestyle, Roads, Technology
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on February 20, 2012

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2012/02/20/speak-up-on-cell-phone-ban/

Who belongs?

Yet another Town Council meeting ended after midnight last night. That’s late for the members of the deliberative body making decisions about what’s best for our town. I believe all nine council members hold some type of job other than to represent us. I doubt they serve on council solely to support themselves. When you amortize their pay for council across the time it takes to review sometimes more than 100 pages of documents before each meeting, not to mention meetings that run long enough to qualify for a second shift, they’d be better off, from an earnings standpoint, delivering pizzas.

By the time council took up the question of whether Chapel Hill taxpayers should subsidize housing for people who don’t currently live or work in Orange County – 16 minutes before midnight – most council members had already put in the equivalent of two days’ work since they got up that morning. The issue had been slid in among the consent agenda items, but given that it was a policy-making decision, Matt Czajkowski asked that it be pulled for discussion.

Robert Dowling, executive director for the Community Home Trust, was pretty much the only person left in council chambers not sitting on the dais once the debate began. Contrast that with the start of the council meeting, when groups made their pleas for a dwindling supply of Community Development Block Grant and HOME Program funds. (CDBG money is down 22 percent and HOME funds have shrunk by 48 percent this year.)

Community Home Trust is having trouble selling some of its affordable units and wanted permission to sell to qualified buyers who did not (yet) work in Chapel Hill and who lived outside of Orange County. Czajkowski pointed out that the purpose of the taxpayer subsidies was to enable people who work in Chapel Hill to live here. He wondered whether affordable units lingering on the market meant the affordable housing market had been saturated.

Dowling explained that while some units were not selling, others had a waiting list. The market slowdown was a consequence of tighter lending standards shrinking the pool of qualified buyers and people’s reluctance to purchase homes that could conceivably go down in value. Owning a home has long been part of the path to build wealth, but that only works if real estate values continue to rise. When resale prices fall, as they have precipitously in recent years, people of limited means are particularly reluctant to take on so much debt for an investment in which they might lose money.

Council voted to allow Community Home Trust to sell to buyers who work outside of Orange County, as long as the organization had actively marketed the property to Chapel Hill employees for 120 days first.

Other towns nearby have affordable housing options. Homebuyers who choose to live in Chapel Hill most likely will contribute to the community, even if they don’t work here. We run into a catch-22 when we limit commercial opportunities, then prevent people from living here if they don’t already work here. A more effective restriction might be to require buyers to shop in Orange County stores whenever possible. Patronize the Hillsborough Walmart, not the one in New Hope Commons. Buy groceries at University Mall Harris Teeter, not Costco in Durham. In fact, that’s a commitment all of us could make.
– Nancy Oates

by on February 14, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Housing
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on February 14, 2012

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2012/02/14/who-belongs/

4 cups

Immediately following the disappointing vote against Charterwood last week, Town Council voted to allow food trucks in Chapel Hill. Council had to strike a balance between local restaurant owners who were unhappy with the prospect of additional competition in a tight economy, and local foodies who wanted an inexpensive meal out, and local kitchen entrepreneurs ready to fill that market niche.

Several council members had been supportive of allowing food trucks from the start. But one of the concerns raised by residents during the public comment period was whether food trucks would be held to the same hygiene standards as brick-and-mortar restaurants. They are, of course, but because they move around and are open outside of regular business hours, inspecting them to make sure they comply could be problematic.

In approving food trucks, council embraced town manager Roger Stancil’s recommendation that food trucks be inspected monthly, that a second-shift inspector be hired and that the fees for a food truck business be high enough to make a dent in the cost of the inspections. Council approved the $118 zoning compliance fee, $50 privilege license and $600 fee for code compliance inspections. All three are annual fees, totaling $768 a year, or $64 a month.

Rather than rejoice at the opening of a new customer base, some food truck vendors griped that the fees were high enough to dissuade them from doing business in Chapel Hill. Frankly, I’m relieved that the fees weed out trucks that operate on such a slim profit margin that $64 a month – and to use a comparable commonly cited by Chapel Hill residents, the equivalent of four lattes a week – would not make business worthwhile. If about $2 a day in profits is the make-or-break line, what shortcuts would they take to make up for a day when business was bad?

One of the owners of 3 Cups opined that a food truck might take in $600 a day and would have to deduct overhead – ingredients, serving vessels, gas, insurance and employees’ salaries, for instance – and those would add up, as any restaurateur could attest. But if sacrificing $2 a day in profits is the deciding factor on whether to do business in Chapel Hill, the ordinance has done us all a good service.
– Nancy Oates

by on February 8, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Business, Downtown Chapel Hill, Economic development, Food Trucks
Posted by Nancy Oates on February 8, 2012

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2012/02/08/4-cups/

Tavern Talks

“Chapel Hill is a small town that lives large,” someone wrote as part of the 2020 visioning process early on.

And at one of the Tavern Talks last night, a large poster-board chart propped on an easel had all sorts of ideas for how the town could live larger still. There was no column for who’s going to pay for this.

I told Don I was going to the Tavern Talks on business. He referred to it as my “pub crawl,” though my parking meter expired before I made it to Kildare’s. Truth be told, I went to the West End Wine Bar last night to see whether mixing alcohol into the visioning process was as bad an idea as it sounded. I had visions of community members, their enthusiasm overflowing like the head on a pitcher of beer, bellying up to the bar and spouting plans for the future of the town that seem brilliant after a couple margaritas but less so the morning after. I was somewhat disappointed that the conversations I had were serious without being pedantic or dull and that everyone was animated but sober.

Though the Tavern Talks have a set time frame, they are informal drop-in events. The tables were covered in newsprint with one question per table: How can we encourage more growth downtown? Would you be supportive of national chains locating to Chapel Hill? How can we encourage local entrepreneurs? People could pick up markers and pen in their replies and build on the ideas of others. Then you could leave, or stand around and exchange ideas with some of the planning board staff, graduate students from UNC’s urban planning and development program, or even the mayor, if you timed it right. Or order a glass of wine and a plate of cheese fries and make a night of it.

The turnout fell short of the 200 or so that event hosts hoped for. I couldn’t help but think some folks were discouraged by the council’s vote on Charterwood Monday night. Enough council members put their own feelings or personal interests before the good of the town, ignoring the planning department professionals and all of the advisory boards, whose members council appointed, that Charterwood was voted down. If council wouldn’t listen to their own experts, why would they pay attention to the ideas of everyday residents? Especially ideas formulated in a bar?

In a conversation about what went wrong with the vote on Charterwood, someone I spoke with said, essentially, “Council has no architect or engineer on it.”

But that’s exactly why the town has advisory boards. And council can handpick the members, stuffing boards with people sympathetic to their causes. So why not listen to what those boards advise?

More Tavern Talks are scheduled, for Feb. 16 at Caribou Coffee and The Crunkleton, and on March 1 at Jack Sprat and WXYZ Lounge at the Aloft Hotel. Even if you don’t have any ideas going in, you’ll have some by the time you leave.

Now if only council will listen.
– Nancy Oates

by on February 3, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in CH2020, Downtown Chapel Hill, Economic development
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on February 3, 2012

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2012/02/03/tavern-talks/

Roger’s job gets tougher

At Monday night’s Town Council meeting, Town Manager Roger Stancil gave his periodic update on the state of the town budget. His PowerPoint presentation showed that the town is way behind in development fees this year from what it expects – some $200,000-plus.

So what did the council do? Kill the Charterwood mixed-use project off MLK Blvd., a project that was projected to pump $500,000 a year in tax revenue into the town’s coffers.

This was a rezoning special-use permit hearing, and for approval the project needed a super-majority – eight council members showed up for work last night, so by the rules the project needed six votes to pass. It garnered five votes.

And why did the project fail to draw enough council votes? According to Lee Storrow, it had a restriction that did not allow anyone under 21 to live there, so he voted against it. According to Laurin Easthom, there was not enough affordable housing included in the plan, so she voted against it.

I won’t even mention Ed Harrison’s objections, which were based on “stipulations.” Ed was in a bad mood Monday night, and he took it out on the developer’s representatives by scolding them for last-minute additions to the proposal. Ed had a point there, so he voted against it, but talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I’m no friend of developers, as Nancy can attest. I’d much rather see an extensive area of woods than brick and asphalt. But I also believe that those who follow the rules should be rewarded. And when a developer bends over backwards to cross every “t” and dot every “i” of the town’s development restrictions and has the approval of the Town Staff and the Planning Board, then the council should heed that advice instead of heading off in counter-productive tangents that help no one and make Roger’s job even more difficult.

This town is making a big deal about its 2020 “visioning” efforts, trying to get input on how we all can enjoy life in Chapel Hill in less than a decade. Well, one way is to get developers to put up smart, environmentally conscientious projects, which by all accounts Charterwood was. The rules are in place, and there are developers who are brave enough to try to pass them. The town should not put developers through such a gauntlet and then refuse to approve on petty grounds.

You may not like development any more than I do, but it will come because that is the way of the world. We can control it or we can let it control us. Or we can talk about controlling it at special town sessions that ultimately lead to more contradictions and reshuffling and ignored policy.
–Don Evans

by on February 1, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Budget, CH2020, Economic development, Housing, Taxes
Tagged ,
Posted by Don Evans on February 1, 2012

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2012/02/01/rogers-job-gets-tougher/

Train wreck

A penny placed on the track can derail a train, and three pennies laid on the track of progress derailed Charterwood last night.

Donna Bell was absent last night, so Gene Pease moved that her absence be excused so that her empty chair did not count as a “yes” for every vote council took that night. That being accomplished, Matt Czajkowski wondered if Bell’s absence would put the Charterwood applicant, requesting a rezoning and special use permit approval, at a disadvantage. A protest petition had been lodged against the project (anyone who knows the whys and wherefores of protest petitions, please chime in), thus requiring any votes to reach a three-quarters majority to pass. Town attorney Ralph Karpinos looked it up and said that Bell’s absence wouldn’t affect the vote – with her, 7 of 9 votes would be needed; without her, 6 of 8.

After more than three hours of PowerPoint slides, community members speaking for and against the project, legal arguments and hastily added stipulations, council voted 5 to 3 in favor of allowing a rezoning, one vote shy of the six needed to pass.

Laurin Easthom voted against it, perhaps because state regulations prohibit rent control, so the town could not designate a certain percentage of the 154 rental units affordable. Or maybe she objected to developers leaving a voicemail message for her, trying to win her vote. The developers met with Karpinos from the outset to learn how much contact they could have with council members outside of official meetings, and the developers stayed scrupulously within those limits.

Lee Storrow voted against it. He objected to developers restricting rentals to those under 21 years old. Developers put in that stipulation to appease homeowners of the single-family houses in an adjacent development who objected to undergraduate students moving into the rental units.

Ed Harrison voted against it, maybe because he was having a bad day. He seemed churlish throughout the meeting, and as I look over my notes, I can’t see any concrete objection he had, other than the developers made oral stipulations that had to be put in writing, a time-consuming ploy that Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt admonished them for.

So once again we have a mixed use project (which council says it wants to see more of) that was years in the making, that had been approved by every advisory board weighing in, that had worked diligently with nearby neighbors to win their support, and that would fill a market need in the town. And enough short-sighted members of council attended the meeting to quash it.

Why do investors even bother?
– Nancy Oates

by on January 31, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Economic development, Housing
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on January 31, 2012

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2012/01/31/train-wreck/

Food for thought

Good thing January has five Mondays, otherwise council members wouldn’t have stumbled out of last week’s meeting until the break of dawn. Tonight’s meeting is a continuation of last week’s meeting that Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt called time on after midnight. Fortunately for all of us, he had committed to participate in the homeless census that mustered in the middle of the night, enabling the rest of us who have beds to sleep in them for several hours before getting up for work again.

The items left for tonight should engender much public input and council debate. The quickest item on the agenda is likely to be Roger Stancil’s financial update. What will really bring out the commenters will be the next three topics: whether to allow food trucks, how the Good Neighbor Plan for the men’s shelter on Homestead Road is coming, and the developer’s latest iteration of the Charterwood proposal.

Council should be prepared to vote tonight on the food truck issue, which has strong voices for and against. Some of the strongest voices opposed to food trucks – downtown restaurant owners – have the least amount of time to hang out in council chambers waiting for a turn to be heard. Here’s where Twitter might be useful: Town attorney Ralph Karpinos could invoke a Twitter break in which council members would turn on their smartphones and scroll through tweets from people whose jobs are the busiest during the evening hours that council is in session.

The town is proposing a get-tough strategy of making food truck regulations part of the Town Code, instead of the Land Use Management Ordinance, thus enabling swift enforcement and immediate citations and fines. The permits fees are still ridiculously low – $118 per vendor, plus a $50 privilege license, and $118 per property owner to allow the vendor to operate on private property. Fees that low make it economically feasible for me to sell my famous World Peace cookies out of the back of our Honda Civic. An additional $600 annual fee paid by vendors to cover the cost of monthly inspections by the town hopefully may discourage amateurs from entering the food-truck field.

And if restaurant proprietors can’t take off work to filibuster in council chambers tonight, and council approves the extra competition from food trucks, let’s demand council members will go restaurant-to-restaurant along Franklin Street to apologize – and order a meal.
– Nancy Oates

by on January 30, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
Posted by Nancy Oates on January 30, 2012

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2012/01/30/food-for-thought/

The Roger Stancil Show

Town manager Roger Stancil is a completely different person in daylight than he is tucked away at the end of the dais during Town Council meetings at night. As guest speaker at the Friends of Downtown meeting Thursday morning, he was relaxed, gregarious and funny.

Stancil referenced signs that have popped up around town since he released his report on the Yates building incident. The signs demand, “Who’s Roger?” – in an uncomplimentary way. Looking every bit the conservative bureaucrat, Stancil introduced himself with, “I’m Roger.”

During his presentation at The Franklin Hotel, Stancil proved an able ambassador for the town, addressing a small crowd that truly wants Chapel Hill to be “open for business.” He was as lively and entertaining as anyone can be while harnessed to a PowerPoint presentation. With the help of bar graphs and pie charts, he explained where the town gets its money (nearly half of it from residential property taxes) and what it spends its revenue on (transportation was the largest slice of the pie).

What came across was how judiciously Stancil, as the town’s CEO, spends taxpayers’ money. He recognizes the folly of dipping into the town’s savings to pay its operating expenses. “When I charge my rent to my credit card, I’m in trouble,” he said, “and that’s what we’re doing.”

The town has used some of the bond money to cover its operating expenses, he said, and has adopted a pay-as-you-go philosophy to pay its retired employee pension and benefits bills. The town used to set aside $400,000 a year in supplemental funding toward its liability, as well as pay-as-you-go funding, but suspended the supplemental payments because of the tight economy.

The town might consider selling some of its assets, but each sale would have a trade-off. The town can’t afford the $800,000-plus it would cost to repair 523 E. Franklin St. to the point that it would pass a safety inspection. The conservation easements council slapped on the property to preserve its classic architecture would severely limit exterior changes to the property, and the parcel would require rezoning for any use other than a residence. The town would have a hard time finding a buyer even if were to sell the structure as is.

As a lowly freelance writer living in a town that is fast becoming a resort community, I am adept at stretching my dollars. It was gratifying to see that Stancil has a similar mindset and capabilities.
– Nancy Oates

by on January 27, 2012  •  Permalink
Posted in Budget, Business, Downtown Chapel Hill, Economic development, Spending, Taxes, Transportation
Tagged
Posted by Nancy Oates on January 27, 2012

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2012/01/27/the-roger-stancil-show/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »