chpac-staff AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Chpac-staff mailing list
List archive
- From: "Janet Kagan" <jkagan AT nc.rr.com>
- To: <chpac-staff AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: [Chpac-staff] Developers and the Contextual Plan
- Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:58:06 -0400
CHPAC
In light of our discussions about public art in private development,
and the potential obligation of any rezoning (new development or redevelopment)
to contribute to enhancing the community through public art, please find below
an article in Sunday's Herald Sun. It appears that Mayor Foy and Chapel
Hill developer and UNC Trustee Roger Perry agree on this important
dimension.
Janet
Developing new funds for buses
April 29, 2006
By ROB SHAPARD, The Herald-Sun
CHAPEL HILL -- Developers already expect certain infrastructure costs as
part of the price of doing business in a new project, from roads and
sidewalks to water and sewer lines.
But the Town Council also wants the chance to consider requiring
developers to put money into the public transit system, i.e. the buses,
when they're seeking approval for new projects.
Making it clear the town has the authority to make such a requirement is
one of the items the council hopes state legislators will pursue next
month. Orange County's legislators asked at a recent breakfast meeting
whether the council was sure it needed the state's OK to require a transit
contribution, and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos said he thought the town
would need legislation.
If a law ultimately was passed, the council still would have to craft a
local ordinance and go through the public hearing process before enacting
a requirement.
"The basic idea is that a town as built out as Chapel Hill is going to see
more infill development, redevelopment," Mayor Kevin Foy said. "That kind
of development doesn't need the same kind of infrastructure as the
development of open land.
"But what it does need is some kind of transportation mitigation," he
said. "For us, that means an investment in the public transit system."
Foy compared the proposal to the requirement the town already has for new
recreation amenities. Someone building a new subdivision or other
development in many cases has to provide facilities for recreation or make
a payment to the town, which then can put the money toward new parks or
other facilities.
Foy said that if the town eventually were to enact a transit requirement,
the money could go to things like buying new buses or operational expenses
for the transit system.
"In one sense, it's a matter of fairness," he said. "Why should someone
developing in one part of town have to pay for infrastructure, and another
not have to pay for any kind of transportation impact, when they're going
to have a transportation impact?"
At this point, the council's request for state legislation does not
distinguish between developments of raw land and projects that would
transform existing buildings into something different.
Chapel Hill-based developer Roger Perry has one of the latter types of
projects in the works -- a redevelopment of the Best Western University
Inn property along Raleigh Road/N.C. 54. His company will be at Town Hall
in a few days with an application for University Village, which would tear
down the motel and build new residences, shops, office space and a hotel.
Perry said Friday he hadn't heard about the council's interest in adding
some kind of transit requirement to its development process. But he didn't
have any objections.
"I have no problem with [the town] having the authority to do that," Perry
said. "To me, it is not good that you have to get legislative acts to do
specific revenue measures in a municipality. I think municipalities should
have the right to do that on their own."
When Perry's firm developed Meadowmont, it had to pay for a wide range of
improvements, such as about $4 million worth of work on N.C. 54.
"There's no question there is a cost from new development on all kinds of
infrastructure, whether it's roads, utilities, transportation," he said.
"The issue is getting a fair balance of what's equitable.
"What you need is the collective wisdom of the developer, the staff, the
elected officials," he said. "Quite frankly, I think that's worked pretty
doggone well in Chapel Hill. There are times when it's been pushed too
hard, maybe times when it wasn't pushed hard enough, but in general I
think it's been a pretty good equilibrium."
http://www.heraldsun.com/orange/10-729824.html.
April 29, 2006
By ROB SHAPARD, The Herald-Sun
CHAPEL HILL -- Developers already expect certain infrastructure costs as
part of the price of doing business in a new project, from roads and
sidewalks to water and sewer lines.
But the Town Council also wants the chance to consider requiring
developers to put money into the public transit system, i.e. the buses,
when they're seeking approval for new projects.
Making it clear the town has the authority to make such a requirement is
one of the items the council hopes state legislators will pursue next
month. Orange County's legislators asked at a recent breakfast meeting
whether the council was sure it needed the state's OK to require a transit
contribution, and Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos said he thought the town
would need legislation.
If a law ultimately was passed, the council still would have to craft a
local ordinance and go through the public hearing process before enacting
a requirement.
"The basic idea is that a town as built out as Chapel Hill is going to see
more infill development, redevelopment," Mayor Kevin Foy said. "That kind
of development doesn't need the same kind of infrastructure as the
development of open land.
"But what it does need is some kind of transportation mitigation," he
said. "For us, that means an investment in the public transit system."
Foy compared the proposal to the requirement the town already has for new
recreation amenities. Someone building a new subdivision or other
development in many cases has to provide facilities for recreation or make
a payment to the town, which then can put the money toward new parks or
other facilities.
Foy said that if the town eventually were to enact a transit requirement,
the money could go to things like buying new buses or operational expenses
for the transit system.
"In one sense, it's a matter of fairness," he said. "Why should someone
developing in one part of town have to pay for infrastructure, and another
not have to pay for any kind of transportation impact, when they're going
to have a transportation impact?"
At this point, the council's request for state legislation does not
distinguish between developments of raw land and projects that would
transform existing buildings into something different.
Chapel Hill-based developer Roger Perry has one of the latter types of
projects in the works -- a redevelopment of the Best Western University
Inn property along Raleigh Road/N.C. 54. His company will be at Town Hall
in a few days with an application for University Village, which would tear
down the motel and build new residences, shops, office space and a hotel.
Perry said Friday he hadn't heard about the council's interest in adding
some kind of transit requirement to its development process. But he didn't
have any objections.
"I have no problem with [the town] having the authority to do that," Perry
said. "To me, it is not good that you have to get legislative acts to do
specific revenue measures in a municipality. I think municipalities should
have the right to do that on their own."
When Perry's firm developed Meadowmont, it had to pay for a wide range of
improvements, such as about $4 million worth of work on N.C. 54.
"There's no question there is a cost from new development on all kinds of
infrastructure, whether it's roads, utilities, transportation," he said.
"The issue is getting a fair balance of what's equitable.
"What you need is the collective wisdom of the developer, the staff, the
elected officials," he said. "Quite frankly, I think that's worked pretty
doggone well in Chapel Hill. There are times when it's been pushed too
hard, maybe times when it wasn't pushed hard enough, but in general I
think it's been a pretty good equilibrium."
http://www.heraldsun.com/orange/10-729824.html.
- [Chpac-staff] Developers and the Contextual Plan, Janet Kagan, 05/01/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.