F.   LAND DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION ITEMS (any item pulled from the land development consent agenda for discussion [item B.2. on this agenda] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda)

Staff discussed Rezoning Petition 06-REZ-09, Crossroads Activity Center Overlay District Amendment, and Activity Center Concept Plan 06-AC-01, Piney Plains, simultaneously in one presentation. All discussion on both items follows Activity Center Concept Plan 06-AC-01, Piney Plains.

1.   Rezoning Petition 06-REZ-09, Crossroads Activity Center Overlay District Amendment
Consideration of adoption of an ordinance to rezone land. The property is located at the intersection of Piney Plains Road and Stephens Road and contains approximately 16 acres. This is a Town-initiated zoning to amend the Crossroads Activity Center Overlay District (ACOD) Boundary. The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval. Due to a valid protest petition, five affirmative council votes are required to approve this item. Council may take action. (Mr. Ricky Barker)

1.  Background Information

Current Zoning:  Residential 40 (R-40)

Town-Initiated Zoning:   Amendment to the Crossroads Mixed Use Overlay District Boundary

Conformity with Land Use Plan Designation:  Yes.  A Comprehensive Plan Amendment is not required for an ACOD rezoning request.  The associated activity center concept plan land use is consistent with the high to medium density residential designation (12 units per acre limit) on Cary’s Land Use Plan.  The Land Use Plan has an alternative designation of Office and Institutional.  The proposed residential uses are consistent with those recommended for this Regional Activity Center.

Acreage:  Approximately 16.00

Location

The property is located along Piney Plains Road, northwest of the intersection of Stephens Road and Piney Plains Road.

Applicant

Town of Cary

Town of Cary Case Manager

Ricky Barker, Associate Planning Director

316 N. Academy Street, Cary, NC 27513

(919) 469-4085

ricky.barker@townofcary.org

2.  Summary of Requested Rezoning

The Town is initiating an expansion of the Crossroads Regional Mixed Use Overlay boundary to include the entire property associated with the requested activity center concept plan for a high density development (refer to 06-AC-01 Piney Plains Activity Center Concept Plan).

Transportation

Piney Plains Road

Existing Roadway Section:  2 to 5 lanes, 70’ to 100’ right-of-way (ROW)

Future Roadway Section: 4 lane median divided, 100’ ROW

Schedule: Widening to a 5 lane undivided section underway

Sidewalk Requirements: Both sides

Stephens Road

Existing Roadway Section: 2 lanes, 50’ r/w

Future Roadway Section: 3 lanes, 70’ r/w

Schedule: With development

Sidewalk Requirements: Both sides

Traffic Impact Analysis

A traffic impact study has been prepared by Town of Cary traffic consultant HNTB dated February 2006 for the associated Activity Center Concept Plan request.  The study recommends a westbound right turn lane at the intersection of Dillard Drive and Walnut Street.  All intersections will operate at level of service “D” or better.

Parks & Greenways
According to the approved Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Facilities Master Plan, a proposed Town of Cary greenway bisects the site. This greenway will connect with the Kids Together Park and the US 1/64 Pedestrian Bridge to the west as well as with the proposed Tryon Road Park to the south.  Because the housing type for this project is proposed to be apartments, there will be no required park land dedication.  The applicant will be responsible for constructing the public greenway that extends through the site since the project is located within an activity center.  The PRCR Advisory Board will review this project at its June 5, 2006 meeting.

Feedback at Town Council Public Hearing:

Concerns from people that spoke were primarily focused on the associated Activity Center Concept Plan (See 06-AC-01).

Staff Observation and Recommendation on Rezoning:

This is a logical extension of the Regional Activity Center Boundary.  The rezoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan and the uses allowed within the Overlay District are supported by the Land Use Plan designation for multifamily at a density of no more than 12 units per acre.  Staff recommends approval of this request.

Planning and Zoning Board Motion:

Approval Motion:

The Planning and Zoning Board voted 10-0 to recommend the adoption of the ordinance to approve to amend the Land Development Ordinance Map related to this request for the reasons stated by staff.

Town Council Motion Options:  (Ordinances are at the end of this report)

Reference Information

Meeting Schedule

Town Council Public Hearing

Date:  April 27, 2006

Action: Forwarded to the June 19, 2006 P&Z Board Meeting

Planning & Zoning Board

Date: June 19, 2006

Action: Recommended for approval

Town Council Action

Date:  July 27, 2006; tabled until the August 24, 2006 Town Council meeting.

Schools
The school information is being provided for your review; however, the Wake County
Board of Education controls capital projects for school capacities.

Current Enrollment and Building Capacity is based on the 20^th day of the school year for 2005-2006 as supplied by the Wake County Public School System.  School assignment will be determined at the time of development.

*The Projected Number of Additional Students is only a rough approximation.  The actual number of students will vary depending on several variables, such as dwelling unit type, number of bedrooms, dwelling size, and other factors. For example a site with 299 two-bedroom units could yield 58 additional students, while 299 three bedroom units could yield 225 students.  The basis for making this calculation is based on multipliers provide from Wake County Schools Office of Student Assignment.  At rezoning, student yield can not be accurately determined due to unknown variables.

Development Plan Issues

The purpose of a rezoning is to evaluate the appropriateness of this land use for these parcels of land.  Specific development requirements related to the technical aspects of land development, such as access, stormwater management, road improvements, utility line placement, road connectivity and landscape plantings, are not considered during the rezoning process.  However, all of these development issues must be addressed for compliance with existing requirements spelled out in the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) when the site or subdivision plan is submitted. 

Ordinance for Consideration:

06-REZ-09 Crossroads ACOD Amendment

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF CARY TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 15.93 ACRES LOCATED along Piney Plains Road, northwest of the intersection of Stephens Road and Piney Plains Road

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CARY:  

Section 1:  The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended by rezoning from the area described as follows:

Section 2:  That the rezoning from Residential 40 (R-40) to Residential 40 (R-40) with a Mixed Use Overlay District is hereby authorized subject to all the requirements of the Cary Land Development Ordinance (LDO) and other applicable standards, policies and guidelines.

Section 3:  This property will be perpetually bound to the uses authorized and subject to such zoning, unless subsequently changed or amended as provided for in the Cary Land Development Ordinance.  

Section 4:  Any violations or failure to accept and abide by the requirements of the Land Development Ordinance shall be subject to the remedies provided in the Cary LDO

Section 5:  This ordinance shall be effective on the date of adoption. 

2.   Activity Center Concept Plan 06-AC-01, Piney Plains
The property is located at the intersection of Piney Plains Road and Stephens Road and contains approximately 30.30 acres. The current zoning is Office and Institutional and Residential-40; the request is to establish an activity center concept plan. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial (majority vote). Due to a valid protest petition, five affirmative council votes are required to approve this item. Council may take action. (Mr. Ricky Barker)

1.  Background Information

Existing Zoning

Office and Institutional (OI), Residential 40 (R-40)

Requested:

Approval of an Activity Center Concept Plan (ACCP)

Comprehensive Plan Amendment

Cary’s Southeast Area Land Use Plan calls for high to medium density residential (HDR) development, between 8 and 12 units per acre on the property.  The Land Use Plan has an alternative designation of Office and Institutional. The requested ACCP has a density of 9.84 units per acre which is consistent with this aspect of the Land Use Plan. However, the boundary of the Crossroads Regional Activity Center Overlay District needs to be amended to include approximately 16 acres of the property associated with the concept plan (associated Rezoning 06-REZ-09).

Location

The property is located along Piney Plains Road, northwest of the intersection of Stephen Road and Piney Plains Road.

Acreage:  Approximately 30.30

Applicant

Dave Ransenberg

Gateway Homes

11121 Carmel Commons Blvd, Suite 260

Charlotte, NC 28226

(704) 752-8550

dave@gatewayhomes.biz

Applicant’s Contact Person

Glenda Toppe

Jerry Turner and Associates, Inc

905 Jones Franklin Road

Raleigh, NC 27606

(919) 851-7150

gtoppe@jerryturnerassoc.com

Town of Cary Case Manager

Ricky Barker, Associate Planning Director

316 N. Academy Street, Cary, NC 27513

(919) 469-4085

ricky.barker@townofcary.org

2.  Summary of Requested ACCP

The revised concept plan shows 299 dwelling units.  This includes a mixture of multi-family units.  All buffers and streetscapes are consistent with the activity center design guidelines and Land Development Ordinance.

A.  Transportation

Piney Plains Road
Existing Roadway Section: 2 to 5 lanes, 70’ to 100’ r/w

Future Roadway Section: 4 lane median divided, 100’ r/w

Schedule: widening to a 5 lane undivided section underway

Sidewalk Requirements: both sides

Stephens Road

Existing Roadway Section: 2 lanes, 50’ r/w

Future Roadway Section: 3 lanes, 70’ r/w

Schedule: with development

Sidewalk Requirements: both sides

B.  Traffic Impact Analysis

A traffic impact study has been prepared by Town of Cary traffic consultant HNTB dated February, 2006. The study recommends a westbound right turn lane at the intersection of Dillard Drive and Walnut Street. All intersections will operate at level of service “D” or better.

C.                  Parks & Greenways

The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department have reviewed this rezoning request and recommend the following conditions:

·                     A payment-in-lieu fee will be required for any subdivided residential units of housing developed within this site.

·                     According to the approved Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Facilities Master Plan, a proposed Town of Cary greenway bisects the site. This greenway will connect with the Kids Together Park and the US 1/64 Pedestrian Bridge to the west as well as with the proposed Tryon Road Park to the south.

·                     A 30’ wide greenway easement for the future Piney Plains Greenway will be required through this proposed development.  If the greenway is placed in a buffer and if this buffer is designated as a 100’ buffer, the greenway easement can be located within Zone 3 of the buffer.  If the buffer is designated as a 50’ wide buffer, the greenway must be located outside of the buffer. Any greenway easement that is provided will be credited towards the required payment-in-lieu of park land dedication.

·                     The applicant will be responsible for constructing the public greenway that extends through the site since the project is located within an activity center to meet the activity center design guidelines for pedestrian circulation. The location and length of greenway to be determined at site plan review.

·                     6’ wide paved private connection(s) (to be constructed by the developer) will be required from the housing to the public greenway. These will be determined at the time of site plan review.

-                      The Greenway Committee reviewed this rezoning request at their May 2006 Committee Meeting and unanimously approved staff’s recommendation.

-                      The PRCR Advisory Board reviewed this project at its July, 2006 meeting and also approved staff’s recommendation unanimously.

3.  Feedback at Town Council Public Hearing:

Several people had concerns about storm water run-off, the maximum number of units, traffic and road connections.

Changes since Town Council Public Hearing

The applicant has reduced the number of dwelling units from 350 units to 299.  The applicant has also provided additional buffer on the north east side of the development.  The applicant has conditioned the plan that: “There shall be no net increase in peak storm water runoff flow leaving the site from pre-development conditions for the five year design storm.”

4.  Staff Recommendation:

The information shown on the plan is consistent with the land development ordinance and the Land Use Plan.  Staff recommends approval of the Concept Plan with the conditions for the parks and greenways listed above.

5.  Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation:

The Planning and Zoning Board voted 6-4 to recommend denial of the ordinance to amend the Land Development Ordinance Map related to this request.  Those Planning and Zoning Board members supporting the denial voiced concerned regarding storm water issues of the adjacent neighborhood, adequate transition of the development to the adjacent low density residential uses and traffic congestion. 

6. Changes since the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting:

The applicant has changed the plan to add the following conditions:

A. There shall be no net increase in peak stormwater runoff flow leaving the site from pre-development conditions for the ten year design storm.

B. The impervious area on this site shall not exceed 56% with initial or future development as defined by Town of Cary ordinances.

7.  Reference Information

Meeting Schedule

Town Council Public Hearing

Date:  April 27, 2006

Action:  Forwarded to the June 19, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board meeting

Planning & Zoning Board

Date: June 19, 2006

Action: Recommended denial 6-4

Town Council Action

Date:  July 27, 2006; tabled until the August 24, 2006 Town Council meeting

Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted February 27, 2006

(Please note that the following statement is that of the applicant and does not necessarily represent the views or opinions of the Town of Cary)

1.                   The tract is 30.30 acres and includes 20% open space.  A broad corridor of forested wetlands and floodplain lie at the northern end of the property.  The tract is of an ample size to accommodate the requested development, preserve sensitive natural resources, and achieve the Town’s goals as specified in the Southeast Area Plan.

2.                   This proposal is compatible with the comprehensive plan; i.e., the Southeast Area Plan (SEAP).  The project meets the Guiding Principles (Section 1.2, p. 4) of the Plan as follows: 

a.                   The project’s requested density of 12 units to the acre conforms to the planned upper-end of ‘High Density Residential’ (HDR) as shown on the SEAP Future Land Use Map.  Road improvements on Piney Plains are near completion, which will facilitate the additional traffic expected to be generated from this project.

b.                   The improved Piney Plains Road, pedestrian sidewalks, and a greenway easement traversing the property will facilitate multi-modal movement and linkages to off-site parks and greenways.  The project is near access to Cary Transit (C-Tran) at the Centrum.

c.                   The project focuses a high-intensity use (HDR) within the Crossroads Regional Activity Center, and provides both a needed housing type (condominiums) and home ownership opportunities for employees of businesses and services located within this major commercial node.

3.                   The benefits to the owner are realized through the development of the tract in compliance with the comprehensive plan.  The presence of homes next to the auto storage facility may be a detriment to marketing the condos.  Neighboring residents are well-buffered from the visual impact of this proposal.  Landowners on Benedum and Catherwold Place will be adjacent to undisturbed, forested buffers, and the latter street will be shielded by a broad expanse of forest.  The Keller residence is located more than 100’ away from the boundary of the proposed development.  Residents along Stephens Road may experience more traffic waiting to turn onto Piney Plains, but most drivers will likely use the northern access directly onto the thoroughfare to get to Walnut Street, U.S. 1/64, and points beyond.

4.                   The proposed uses are compatible with the Activity Center concept, and provide an appropriate ‘transitional use’ between the heavy commercial uses (car storage facility, big box retailers) and the single-family detached residential at Wellington and on Stephens Road.

Schools
The school information is being provided for your review; however, the Wake County
Board of Education controls capital projects for school capacities.

Current Enrollment and Building Capacity is based on the 20^th day of the school year for 2005-2006 as supplied by the Wake County Public School System.  School assignment will be determined at the time of development.

*The Projected Number of Additional Students is only a rough approximation.  The actual number of students will vary depending on several variables, such as dwelling unit type, number of bedrooms, dwelling size, and other factors. For example a site with 299 two-bedroom units could yield 58 additional students, while 299 three bedroom units could yield 225 students.  The basis for making this calculation is based on multipliers provide from Wake County Schools Office of Student Assignment.  At rezoning, student yield can not be accurately determined due to unknown variables.

Staff’s power point presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit J.

Ms. Dorrel askef for clarification about increased building height and increased units. Mrs. Toppe stated there is a condition for a maximum of three stories, and by increasing to the 10-year storm there will be a reduction in the number of units to accommodate the 10-year storm.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked why the concept plan was submitted. Mr. Barker stated the Land Development Ordinance allows a concept plan in conjunction with expansion of an overlay district. He stated seeing both simultaneously allows the council to have more information to help them make a decision.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated Raleigh’s development adjacent to this site contains a lot of apartments. He stated a staff member informed him that Cary didn’t take this into account. He is opposed to eliminating O&I on this parcel.

Mr. Roseland asked for a comparison of the impervious surface that could be provided with the existing zoning vs. the new condition. Mr. Barker stated 70% impervious is the maximum in the watershed area. He stated if the area were zoned for office it would more than likely have more impervious surface.

Mrs. Robison asked if the current concept plan is based on the two-year flood. A representative of Withers and Ravenel stated the plan was prepared prior to the 10-year storm condition being added. He stated the final design will accommodate the 10-year storm. He stated the Best Management Practices will remain in the same general location and will be larger.

Mrs. Robison asked if detention ponds qualify for encroachment into the riparian buffer. Mr. Barker stated they may encroach into the the outer 50 feet of the riparian buffer.

Mr. Roseland asked if the homeowners’ association or neighbors have formally provided the applicant with a housing mix or land use mix that they could support. Mrs. Toppe stated they have not presented a formal proposal. Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated the residents have stated they would prefer to maintain the O&I designation.

Ms. Dorrel stated the neighbors have indicated a desire to develop the property at the base zoning, which is O&I and R-40; she doesn’t see this as a give and take on their part.

Mayor McAlister stated he doesn’t want to approve the overlay extension if the concept plan isn’t going to be approved, and he noted that the council must first act on the overlay extension. Mr. Barker stated with the overlay on the R-40 property, the applicant would have more options than he currently has and he could develop the entire property with another concept plan at a later date for entirely office or a combination of office and residential if the current concept plan proposal is denied. Mrs. Robinson asked if the overlay would prohibit lower densities. Mr. Barker stated to activate the overlay they’d have to submit another concept plan, and the council would determine if the densities were appropriate at that time. He stated concept plans need to be consistent with the land use plan, and the land use plan shows medium to high density residential or office development for the site. He stated any future concept plan would have to be consistent with this designation or they’d have to request a land use plan amendment.

Ms. Dorrel doesn’t think another plan would be better than the proposal. She stated this plan accommodates the 10-year storm. She understands that flooding is currently a concern, and she doesn’t think the current proposal will worsen the flooding. She doesn’t want to hold the property owner responsible for the existing stormwater problem because they did not cause it and they can’t completely fix it. She doesn’t think the proposal is likely to have a big impact on the existing traffic situation, and she believes that in the big picture alternate routes is critical. She doesn’t want to punish this applicant for the current problems in Wellington Park. She’d like to develop a plan to identify the valuable O&I land in the Town. She questioned if this particular location is marketable as an office location. She stated the applicant’s opinion is that this land isn’t suitable for office.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated appraisals and market analyses are opinions and can be wrong. He will not support the concept plan.

Mr. Roseland stated he will support the concept plan because of the high standards it contains. He stated he is not aware of any compromises the neighbors were willing to make to have a good development.

ACTION: Mrs. Robison moved to deny the Crossroads mixed use overlay district amendment (item F.1.); although it is consistent with the southeast area plan, she believes it is a zoning change that provides opportunities; she does not think the request is consistent or reasonable or in the public interest and described in the Planning and Zoning Board recommendations and as stated. Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second.

Ms. Dorrel doesn’t agree with motion, but she does not want to penalize the property owner. She will support the motion only because she thinks it’s the only way to treat the property owner fairly.

ACTION: Mayor McAlister voted “no.” All others voted “aye.” The motion to deny carried by majority vote.

Town Attorney Simpson stated no action is required on the concept plan (item F.2.), because F.1. was denied.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to waive the one-year waiting period with respect to the applicant or developer coming in with an alternative, more constructive proposal. Mrs. Robinson provided the second.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated the applicant has the right to request a waiver by make a compelling argument, and he’d prefer to wait until a proposal is brought forward and a waiver request is made.

ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion to grant a waiver. Mayor Pro Tem Smith and Mrs. Robison voted “no.” All others voted “aye.” The motion failed for lack of ¾ affirmative vote as is required by the Land Development Ordinance.

_________________________

3.   Comprehensive Plan Amendment 06-CPA-03, Bashyam Property
Consideration of adoption of an ordinance to amend the comprehensive plan. The property is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of NW Maynard Road and Chapel Hill Road and contains 16.09 acres. The current comprehensive plan designation is Office/Institutional and Medium Density Residential; the proposed comprehensive plan designation is Mixed Use. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval (majority vote). Council may take action. (Mr. Scott Ramage)

1.  Background Information

Current Comprehensive Plan Designation:  The NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan, adopted by Town Council on December 11, 2003, is the controlling Comprehensive Plan element for this Neighborhood Activity Center.  That plan designates the subject parcels as “Office/Institutional and/or Medium Density Residential,” with special Notes #2 and #4 prescribing additional recommendations for the subject parcels.  All areas on the Plan map are also subject to the recommendations of the map’s “Purpose and Intent” text box.

Requested Comprehensive Plan Designation:  Mixed Use (MXD) - with amendments to Notes #2 and #4 on the NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan, and with amendments to the “Traffic” section of the “Purpose and Intent” text box on the Plan map.

Acreage:  16.09

Street Address/Location:

Southwest corner of NW Maynard Road and Chapel Hill Road

Applicant:
Ram Bashyam
Bashyam Properties, Inc.

1417 Elberton Place

Raleigh, NC 27609

(919) 872-0253

rbashyam@bellsouth.net

Applicant’s Contact:

Chris Tingler

Cline Design Associates PA

125 N Harrington Street

Raleigh, NC 27603

(919) 833-6413

ChrisT@clinedesignassoc.com

Or

Joseph Meir

Blue Ridge Realty, Inc

2501 Blue Ridge Road

Raleigh, NC 27607

(919) 783-9292 x 140

jmeir@br-realty.com

Town of Cary Case Manager: 

Scott Ramage, Comprehensive Planning Principal Planner

316 N Academy Street, Cary, NC, 27513

(919) 462-3888

scott.ramage@townofcary.org

Parcel and Owner Information:

2.  Summary of Applicant’s Original Requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment   

(The following amendment request is as of the Town Council public hearing on March 9, 2006.  Changes to this original proposal are described in Sections 4 and 5, below.)

2.1 Land Use Plan
The applicant is requesting that the NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan, adopted by Town Council on December 11, 2003, be amended as follows: 

(1) Amend the land use recommendation for the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Chapel Hill Road and NW Maynard Road from “Office/Institutional and/or Medium Density Residential” to “Mixed Use” (MXD). 

(2) Amend Notes #2 and #4 on the NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan map as follows: (The strike-through text is being removed per the applicant’s request and the underlined text is being added per their request.)

Note #2:  This mixed-use area can include Commercial uses, Office and Institutional uses, or either medium density residential uses. or office and institutional uses, or a mix of both.  (Where medium density residential is defined as 3-8 dwellings per acre, single family attached or detached.)  A substantial and reasonable mix of at least two of the aforementioned uses should be provided.  General guidelines:

a.)     Lot consolidation and the provision of shared driveways onto Chapel Hill Road are also recommended in this area, in order to maximize the overall redevelopment potential and avoid land use conflicts with neighboring lots.

b.)     If both residential and office nonresidential uses occur on this quadrant, the architectural styles of the two types of uses should be compatible, and transitions between such uses should conform to Cary’s Design Guidelines Manual.

c.)     Office uses should be limited to no more than about 100,000 square feet of office space on this quadrant, and Commercial/Retail uses to no more than about 100,000 square feet.

d.)     As provided for under the Town’s standard Office/Institutional zoning district, up to 20% of the floor space in any single office building can be used for certain commercial purposes (generally related to serving the office tenants).  The square footage of any mixed building uses will be limited to the proposed cap.

Note #4:  Natural b Buffer adjacent to railroad right-of-way, minimum of 30.  Usually about 100 ft. wide.  Recommended to include a sound wall or fencing to block view of railroad.

(3) Amend the first paragraph under the “Traffic” heading of the “Purpose and Intent” text box on the NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan map as follows:

The overall level of traffic associated with future development within this activity center should not exceed the level that might reasonably have been expected for this neighborhood activity center, prior to the rezoning of the northeast quadrant in May 2003 for a Lowe’s Home Improvement Center (02-REZ-19).  Thus, total trip generation across the entire activity center should not exceed more than about 12,900 18,100 ADT (Average Daily Trips) on weekdays, and 13,500 20,600 ADT on Saturdays.

2.2 Comprehensive Transportation Plan
No requested changes.

2.3 Parks & Greenways Master Plan

No requested changes.

3.  Feedback at Public Hearings

3.1 Summary of Citizen Comments

Three citizens spoke at the March 9, 2006, Town Council public hearing, and two of them (Ms. Patty Morales and Mr. Brent Miller) raised the following concerns:

·         Both opposed the proposed amendments.

·         Both felt that the Town should abide by its December 2003 Land Use Plan for the activity center.  Mr. Miller felt that the current plan recommendations for office and housing contribute to a carefully-crafted balance of uses and reasonable levels of traffic.

·         Both raised concerns about additional traffic impacts that might result from the amendment.  Mr. Miller felt that the requested Average Daily Traffic (ADT) cap increases were excessive.

·         Ms. Morales voiced concerns about adverse quality-of-life impacts for existing neighborhood residents.

·         Both felt that the proposed amendment shouldn’t support a potential grocery store, and that the area was already adequately served by supermarkets.

At the June 19, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board public hearing, two nearby residents spoke in favor of the request for the following reasons:

·         Convenience of having retail within walking distance

·         Support for mixed use development

3.2     Summary of Council Comments

At the March 9, 2006, Town Council public hearing, the following issues were raised by Council members:

·         Traffic Impacts.