Mebane’s city council, minus one member who had a conflict of interest in the matter, narrowly approved a rezoning request last week that significantly changed a dormant plan that had been approved in 2022 for 217 apartments into an 86-unit townhouse development on the site of the former Kingsdown mattress factory in downtown Mebane.
Council member Katie Burkholder, who had been criticized in some quarters for voting last month on a rezoning request involving one of her real estate firm’s partners, which passed on a 2-1 vote, had a more direct conflict of interest this time and asked to be recused from the discussion and vote inasmuch as she will handle marketing/sales for the townhouse project.
Her request to be recused drew a rebuke from one fellow councilman and a defense from another. [See separate story in this edition.]
Request for recusal sets off council spat: https://alamancenews.com/realtor-council-members-recusal-sets-off-public-tiff-between-other-councilmen/
Meanwhile, Mebane mayor Ed Hooks cast his first tie-breaking vote in his six years as mayor, ultimately voting to approve the project after about two hours of discussion after the four council members deadlocked on whether to approve the project.
Hooks actually voted twice that night, first to break a tie against a motion to deny the rezoning and subsequently in favor on a motion to approve it.
In addition to Hooks, voting in favor were council members Montrena Hadley and Tim Bradley. Opposed were councilmen Jonathan White and Sean Ewing; Ewing had also voted against the apartment project for the same property three years ago.
On White’s original motion to deny the rezoning, he and Ewing voted in favor, while Bradley and Hadley voted against, joined by the mayor.
Council members expressed great consternation and regret over the developer’s change of heart regarding the so-called Cotton, or Cotton Exchange, building at the corner of Washington and South Third streets.
Several council members pressed developer David Allen over his company’s conclusion that the building, which three years ago was slated to be preserved and repurposed as an event center in the apartment version of his project, has now been determined to be unsalvageable.
Allen acknowledged that he “had great ambition to save the building” three years ago but had now bowed to the financial and logistical realities that the building could not be saved – at least not at an affordable price and not in its current form.
White expressed the view shared by others, “It’s a crying shame [that the building cannot be saved] but it may be reality.”
Bradley said that the original plan which preserved the Cotton building had made the “original [2022 plan] more palatable to some of us.”
“How did we go from preserving it [and using it as an event space in the apartment version of the plans] to concluding that it can’t be saved?” Bradley asked.
Allen said after more engineering and architectural study, it was concluded that only two sides of the façade could likely be saved and even then at an astronomical cost of $5 million or more.
[Story continues below photos of the Cotton Building.]
“Even if we saved it,” Allen told the council last week, “it wouldn’t look like it does today.” The shell of the two-story building is the only remaining vestige of the several Kingsdown manufacturing buildings that had stood on the two-block area in downtown Mebane for many decades. He had told planning board members earlier this month that even the expense of examining the options had cost half a million dollars.
Allen said he would try to re-use some of the bricks from the Cotton Building’s façade in other dimensions of the townhouse project, mentioning specifically signage and a sidewalk.
White was also critical of the placement of the open space with a gazebo in the developer’s plans. The location is along West Holt Street, on the edge of the project, beside other existing residences. “It’s tucked in and hidden,” he described the location. “I don’t think people will use it,” he repeated several times.
At one point, the developer offered to widen the open space by having one building with five units “pivot” to face 90 degrees, in line with other townhouses, and thus provide greater space.
However, subsequently the developer’s engineer questioned whether that change would accomplish the desired effect, due to the need for parking spaces. So the final revision offered by the developer was to remove one townhouse (the easternmost) facing Washington Street, which would widen the open area from 20 feet to 40 feet.
Allen put the overall cost of the townhouse project at $42.5 million. He said the three-story design will provide three bedrooms, three-and-a-half baths, and two-car garages. There will be a bedroom and full bath on the entry-level floor; two other bedrooms on the third floor. The main living area and kitchen and a half-bath are on the second floor.
The townhouses will have 2,003 or 2,100 square feet, each with a covered porch, and an option for an elevator. Allen described upscale finishes, including GE appliances and quartz/granite counter-tops. There will be nine-foot ceilings throughout and two master suites on the top floor.
[Story continues below architectural rendering of the layout and design for the proposed townhouse development.]
The two-car garages will also have a “pad” in front of the garage that can accommodate two additional cars, for a potential total of up to four cars per townhouse.
Allen explained why his company had decided in favor of fewer units, 87, for townhouses, rather than the original 217 apartments.
He said that building costs have escalated dramatically since council’s October 2022 rezoning approval of the apartment complex plans. Allen said building costs are up 35 percent since then, which contributed to revising the outline of the project. He also cited higher interest rates and less bank interest in financing for rental multi-unit housing projects as opposed to owner-occupied projects (except in large urban markets like Raleigh and Charlotte).
He had told the planning board earlier this month that the estimated price point for each townhouse would be between $600,000 to $650,000.
Much discussion also focused on Allen’s plans for 4,800 square feet of retail space and another 3,000 square feet for a restaurant – on opposite corners of Washington and Third streets.
The renderings shown to the planning board earlier this month and to the council last week showed grassy areas.
Bradley pressed as to whether actual retail or a restaurant would ever be built or whether the space might end up being empty and unbuilt.
Allen ultimately agreed to a suggestion from Bradley as a condition for its rezoning that the two retail buildings would be built by the time the project was two-thirds finished. That was variously put at 59 or 48 townhouses having been completed.
The developer also assured the council that the two retail buildings would have brick facades.
Allen also said he is hopeful of attracting a “national restaurant” to Mebane, teasing the possibility of a Starbucks.
The commercial space in the project has gone down dramatically from that approved in 2022. Back then, it was expected to have 9,396 square feet, with another 4,200 square feet for community space (in the Cotton Building). The new plan calls for one building to have 4,800 square feet and another to have a 3,000 square foot restaurant (in place of the Cotton Building).
Allen also pointed to higher rental rates, now approaching $50 per square foot, as having deterred interest in commercial space.
In addition, the developer promised to keep a previously-agreed upon contract with the Mebane Methodist Church to lease parking spaces in their lot along Holt Street, which is designed to accommodate the retail and restaurant spaces; it is not intended for residents’ use, Allen previously explained to the planning board. It will not be available on Sundays or Wednesday nights, when it will be needed for church services.
During about a half-hour comment period, several Mebane residents spoke in opposition to the project.
Gene Jester, who lives on West Holt Street directly across from the proposed project, questioned whether anyone would actually pay $600,000 or more for a mere 2,000 square foot townhouse.
Jester had also opposed the apartment project three years ago.
Jim Shaw, a former resident of Holt Street, emphasized that the townhouses were “not in harmony” with the largely single-family residences in the neighborhood. “I don’t know that it’s the right fit,” he said.
Mike Baptiste, a downtown merchant, also said the townhouses were not consistent with the downtown vision plan for the city.
Mary McFarland questioned whether the townhouses along South Third Street were “excessively close” to the street. She also questioned why the dog park amenity of the apartment project had been eliminated. She said a dog park should be included.
On the final vote, mayor pro tem Bradley said that while he understood and shared some of the concerns about whether the townhouse project was harmonious with the single-family residential character of area, he said the townhouses “were no less harmonious that the apartments” that had already been approved by the city council in 2022.
While he termed it a “tough decision,” Bradley said the reduced density, coupled with a reduction in traffic, made the new project more reasonable than the apartments. He also felt the reduction in height from some of the apartment buildings being four story to all three story buildings was another improvement.
For his part, Hooks said, “This adds a lot to the downtown area.”
Hooks noted that his predecessor, Glendel Stephenson, had been mayor for 35 years and had said he cast only three votes during that time. Hooks has been mayor for six years and cast the tie-breaking vote twice last week.
