|
DRAFT
Cary Town Council Minutes Thursday, February 8, 2007 6:30 PM Council Chambers 316 N. Academy Street, Cary, N.C.
Present: Mayor Ernie McAlister, Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith, Council Members Marla Dorrel, Jennifer Robinson, Julie Robison and Nels Roseland
A. COMMENCEMENT
1. Call to Order (Mayor McAlister)
Mayor McAlister called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
_________________________
2. Ceremonial Opening (Ms. Dorrel)
Ms. Dorrel provided the ceremonial opening.
_________________________
3. Adoption of agenda (Town Council)
Mayor McAlister stated that Mayor Pro Tem Smith has asked to consider filling the vacant council seat under old/new business.
ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith moved to adopt the agenda as amended. Mrs. Robison provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
B. CONSENT AGENDA (click on links to see full text minutes of the consent agenda)
CONSENT AGENDA items are items unanimously recommended for approval by all involved parties. The agenda has three distinct consent agenda: (1) the regular consent agenda contains standard items that go directly to council in which staff unanimously recommends approval; (2) the land development consent agenda contains items that have been unanimously approved by Town board(s)/commission(s) who have a role in the development process and staff and only require a simple majority vote; and (3) the operations committee consent agenda contains items that have been unanimously approved by the appropriate council committee and staff. A single vote may be taken for the approval of ALL consent agenda items.
1. Regular Consent Agenda (any regular consent agenda item pulled for discussion will be discussed at the end of the old/new business portion of the agenda, which is item H on this agenda)
a. Consideration of approval of the minutes of the regular town council meeting held on January 25, 2007 and the minutes of the work session on “Round 8” Land Development Ordinance amendments held on January 23, 2007. (Approved)
ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
2. Land Development Consent Agenda (any land development consent agenda item pulled for discussion will be discussed at the end of the land development discussion portion of the agenda, which is item F on this agenda)
a.
Rezoning 06-REZ-24, Cameron Pond Planned Development District
Amendment
06-REZ-24
Cameron Pond Planned Development District Amendment
Background Information
Existing Zoning: Planned Development District (PDD)
Requested Zoning: Planned Development District Amendment
Conformity with the Land Use Plan Designation: Yes. The land use designation on The Town of Cary Comprehensive Plan is shown as Parks (PKS); however, this takes into consideration the park and open space requirement for the entire PDD. The rezoning request complies with the overall density limits for the vicinity and no change is requested. If the PDD amendment is approved, the Comprehensive Plan maps may be modified administratively to more accurately reflect actual use. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is not required because the broad designation applied to the area initially may be refined to be more specific once the land use designations in the PDD are approved.
Acreage: 0.83±
Location: Carpenter Fire Station Road near Buxton Grant Road
Applicant: Glenda Toppe Jerry Turner and Associates, Inc 905 Jones Franklin Road Raleigh, NC 27606 Phone 919-851-7150 E-mail gtoppe@jerryturnerassoc.com
Town of Cary Case Manager: Debra Grannan, Senior Planner 316 N Academy Street Cary, NC 27513 (919) 460-4980 debra.grannan@townofcary.org
Summary of Requested Rezoning The applicant is proposing an increase of 4 (four) single family dwelling units on approximately 0.83 acres of land currently designated as Open Space. No increase to the total area of the Planned Development District is proposed. If approved, the PDD will still comply with meets Cary’s open space requirements.
A. Transportation Carpenter Fire Station Rd. Existing Roadway Section: Carpenter Fire Station 2-lane road 60’ right of way (ROW) Future Roadway Section: 4-lane median divided 100’ ROW Schedule: 2007/2008 Sidewalk Requirements: Required on both sides Bicycle Requirements: 14’ wide outside lanes Transit Requirements: None needed
B. Traffic Impact Analysis: A Traffic Impact Analysis is not required.
C. Parks & Greenways: The acreage of the applicant’s original park land dedication for Cameron Pond PDD satisfies the park land dedication requirement for these additional four units. There are no other issues related to the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Resource Facilities Master Plan.
Meeting Schedule: Town Council Public Hearing Date: November 9, 2006 Action: Forwarded to the January 22, 2007 P&Z Board meeting
Planning & Zoning Board: Date: January 22, 2007 Action: Unanimous recommendation for approval 9-0
Town Council Action: Date: February 8, 2007
Summary of Requested Rezoning Amendments to existing Cameron Pond PDD
Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted September 25, 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):
How is the proposed request reasonable? In explaining how it is reasonable, please address the following, if applicable:
Are there any issues with the size of the tract? The size of the tract is conducive to the land use being proposed.
How is the request compatible with the comprehensive plan (i.e. Land Use, Transportation, Open Space and Historic Resources)? The Comprehensive Plan reflects the approved PDD for Cameron Pond. This amendment maintains the open space while providing four (4) additional lots.
What are the benefits and detriments to the owner, neighbors and the community? The additional four (4) lots will have no negative impact on the community. The regulations in the Town’s LDO will provide adequate protection to the adjacent properties.
How are all the allowable uses with the proposed rezoning compatible with, or how do they relate to, the uses currently present on adjacent tracts? Other property in the vicinity of this parcel is currently developed for the same type of residential development proposed.
What reductions/amendments and/or modifications to the development standards of the LDO are being requested and how are they justified? (PDD, new or amended) Applicants must list these items and/or clearly highlight them within the Planned Development document. No changes are proposed from the currently adopted Cameron Pond PDD.
Schools The school
information is being provided for your review; however, the Wake County
Current Enrollment and Building Capacity is based on the 20th 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 a rough approximation. The actual number of students will vary depending on variables, such as dwelling unit type, and number of bedrooms. For example a site with three, 3-bedroom homes could yield three additional students. A development with three, 4-bedroom homes could yield four 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.
Feedback at the Public Hearing Staff presented the case and the applicant concurred with the statements. No one spoke in favor of or opposed to the request.
Changes since the Public Hearing Since the public hearing, the applicant has agreed with Staff’s direction to modify the PDD document to remove any references to reductions in road widths or street connectivity requirements. Also, the document has specified the minimum lot size of 6,900 square feet for the lots in SF-3. This is consistent with the existing lot sizes previously approved for this phase of the development.
Staff’s Findings The request is consistent with the Town of Cary Comprehensive Plan. The Open Space provided within the PDD exceeds the base requirements. The increase of a maximum of four lots will have a minimal impact area schools and Town services. The intention to develop these lots at a future date was disclosed on the original recording of this property. Staff recommends approval of the request.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: On January 22, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of this request. The Board observed that the open space dedication exceeded the Town’s minimum requirements. One Board member asked how much active open space was provided. The active recreation site in the PDD is 2.5 acres and the PDD dedicated 16.29 acres of park land to the Town of Cary.
Ordinance for Consideration: 06-REZ-24 [Planned Development District]
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF CARY TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 0.83 ACRES LOCATED along Buxton grant road owned by Impact Cameron Pond, LLC FROM PDD TO PDD Amendment to allow the conversion of land Use from open space to A maximum of four (4) single family lots.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CARY:
Section 1: The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended by rezoning the area described as follows (“Property”):
Section 2: That the Property is rezoned from PDD to PDD Amendment subject to the conditions set forth herein and in the Master Plan dated May 8, 2003 (and all supporting plans), which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all the requirements of the Cary Land Development Ordinance (LDO) and other applicable laws, standards, policies and guidelines.
Section 3: This ordinance shall be effective upon adoption but the PDD and Master Plan shall not become effective until the applicant has submitted to the Planning Department of a copy of the Master Plan and all supporting plans incorporating all changes, if any that were required as conditions of approval and such additional information as the Town Council may have required as a condition of approval.
ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the consent agenda. Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.
(Ordinance is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)
_________________________
3. Operations Committee, February 1, 2007 (any committee consent agenda item pulled for discussion will be discussed at the end of the committee discussion portion of the agenda, which is item G on this agenda) (Mrs. Robinson)
a.
Churchill Estates Sanitary
Sewer – Recognize Developer Payment
(EN07‑071)
b.
Real Estate Purchase for
Barnes & Noble BMP
(EN07-073)
c.
Bid Award for Gatehouse Drive
and Olary Drive Drainage Improvements
(EN07-074)
d.
Bid Award for the Walnut Creek
Stream Restoration Design
(EN07-075)
e.
Bid Award for Weston Parkway
Rehabilitation
(EN07-076)
f.
Bid Award for South Cary Water
Reclamation Facility Digester Addition Project
(EN07-077)
g.
Special Audit Reports
(FN07-003)
h.
Authorized Banking Signatures
(FN07-005)
i.
Amendments to Schedules
(PD07-012)
j.
Recognize Federal Grant Award
for Police “In Car” Video Equipment
(PD07-013)
k.
Budget Adjustment: Department
of Transportation Enhancement Funds for Black Creek Greenway, Phase IV
(PR07-016)
l.
Bid Award for Development of a
Comprehensive Sign Plan
(PR07-019)
m.
Adoption of Public Records
Policy
(TC07-004)
n.
Annual Report on Boards and
Commissions Activities and Council Liaison Activities for Outside
Organizations
(TC07-005)
o.
Traffic Signal Aesthetic
Issues (EN07-067)
C. RECOGNITIONS, REPORTS, AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Report on the settlement of Town of Cary v. Alphus T. Seymour, III, ETAL. No council action is necessary. (Mrs. Chris Simpson)
Town Attorney Simpson reported this settlement, which is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit.
_________________________
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.
06-REZ-40,
Stephens Road
property rezoning
06-REZ-40 Stephens Road Property Rezoning Case Data
Background Information
Existing Zoning: Residential 40 (R40)
Requested Zoning: Transitional Residential Conditional Use (TR-CU) Use limited to Single-Family detached units with a maximum of 48 lots.
Land Use Plan Designation: The governing element of the Comprehensive Plan for this property is the Southeast Area Plan, which designates the subject parcels for “Low- to Medium-Density Residential,” with a maximum of 6 dwellings per acre. Thus, the parcels are appropriate for densities in the range of 1-6 dwellings/acre. The SE Area Plan further recommends that properties in the vicinity of the subject parcels should “...only be redeveloped as Medium Density Residential if at least 3 or more contiguous acres are assembled for that purpose. However, once some initial redevelopment has occurred, subsequent redevelopment may occur in smaller assemblages, provided they are contiguous to redeveloped parcels. There should be a transition to single family detached housing adjacent to Wellington PDD…” The subject properties are comprised of more than three contiguous acres.
Acreage: 12.99 +
Location: 2109 and 2201 Stephens Road
Applicant: Willie Hood Jerry Turner and Associates, Inc. 905 Jones Franklin Road Raleigh, NC 27606 (919) 851-7150
Applicant’s Contact: Glenda Toppe Jerry Turner and Associates, Inc. 905 Jones Franklin Road Raleigh, NC 27606
Town of Cary Case Manager: Debra Grannan, Senior Planner 316 N Academy Street Cary, NC 27513 (919) 460-4980
Summary of Requested Rezoning
A. Transportation Stephens Rd. Existing Roadway Section: 2 lanes, approx. 60’ right of way (ROW) Future Roadway Section: local road Schedule: N/A Sidewalk Requirements: On at least one side Bicycle Requirements: N/A Transit Requirements: None
B. Traffic Impact Analysis: Traffic Impact Study (07-TAR-229) was prepared by Town traffic consultant, Martin Alexiou Bryson, dated December 22, 2006. All signalized intersections in the study area operate at Town of Cary standard level of service “D” or better. The study recommends right and left turn lanes be constructed on Stephens Road at Piney Plains Road.
C. Parks & Greenways: There are no parks or greenways planned for this site according to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Facilities Master Plan. A payment-in-lieu will be required for any subdivided residential units in accordance with the Town’s Land Development Ordinance.
Reference Information
Meeting Schedule: Town Council Public Hearing Date: February 8, 2007 Action:
Planning & Zoning Board: Date: April 16, 2007
Town Council Action: Date: May10 or 24, 2007*
*The date of this meeting will be determined after the P&Z Board recommendation. If a unanimous recommendation is made, it will go to the first public hearing on consent; if not on consent, it will go to the second public hearing.
Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted (December 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 size of the tract is conducive to the land use being proposed.
2. The Comprehensive Plan currently designates this tract for medium density residential. (MDR)
3. The proposed rezoning is in compliance with the Town’s adopted Land Use Plan. The proposed land use is compatible with the existing development in the area. The infrastructure is in place to support the proposed development.
4. Other property in the vicinity of the proposed rezoning is currently developed for the same type of residential development proposed. The regulations in the Town’s LDO will provide adequate protection to the adjacent properties.
5. No reductions/amendments and or modifications to the development standards of the LDO are being requested.
Schools The
school information is being provided for your review; however, the Wake
County
Current Enrollment and Building Capacity is based on the 20th 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 a rough approximation. The actual number of students depends on variables, such as dwelling unit type, number of bedrooms, and dwelling size. For example: 48 three-bedroom homes could yield 20 additional students, while a neighborhood with 48 four-bedroom homes could yield 36 students. The basis for making this calculation is based on multipliers provided by the Wake County Schools Office of Student Assignment. During the rezoning process, 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.
Staff’s powerpoint presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit. A valid protest petition was filed on this request.
Mr. Willie Hood of Jerry Turner and Associates stated they believe it is a very good proposal and it meets the land use plan. They are seeking a gross density of three units per acre, which is the low range of the medium density range. The original plan was for 48 single family homes, but they have recently reduced it to 39, and this was based on neighborhood concerns about the originally proposed density. He stated there have been concerns expressed about stormwater and a fear that the proposal will reduce property values. However, he stated he believes the stormwater plans will satisfy all neighborhood concerns, and he believes the proposal will increase surrounding property values. The traffic impact analysis was based on 48 units, and it’s been reduced to 39 units. He stated this is a small development and will have minimal impact on area schools.
Mr. Robert Weir, a retired professor of forestry at NC State University, stated he owns seven of the acres being considered for rezoning. He chose the current real estate company because their offer was most in line with the Town’s plan and offered the least impact to the neighborhood. He believes this plan will add value to the surrounding neighborhood.
Ms. Christine Black spoke about the request. Her comments are attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit.
Mr. Tom Wells spoke about the request. His comments are attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit.
Ms. Ruth Merkle, on behalf of the Wellington Park homeowners associated, read a letter from their president, Michael Fletcher. This letter is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit.
Mr. Rod Keller stated he supports the conditional rezoning. The applicant is not asking for variances and is keeping buffers intact. He believes it is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
Mr. Tracey Filomena stated she supports the conditional rezoning with 39 maximum single family detached units. She would love to see some of the traffic concerns addressed and the turn lane on Piney Plains Road repainted.
Mr. Scott Reapel stated they currently have a serious stormwater runoff problem in this area. He stated his grandmother lives in this neighborhood, and she is opposed to the project. He asked that lot sizes be compatible and in harmony with surrounding lots and he stated they should be as large as possible to keep runoff to a minimum.
Mr. Douglas Lent is opposed to 39 lots on this property; he would prefer 20 lots. He stated 39 lots will result in about 90 additional cars.
No one else came forward to speak, and Mayor McAlister closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Robison asked the base requirements. Mrs. Grannan stated the minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet in transitional residential, and single family attached, townhomes and duplexes are allowed. She stated the request is for 39 single family detached. Mrs. Grannan pointed out she does not have a site plan at this stage of the process, so she cannot respond to the lot size considering buffers and open space. Mrs. Robison would like the developer to provide a comparable analysis to council members showing what will actually be developed.
Mrs. Robison asked what can be done to mitigate the stormwater management issues. Mrs. Grannan stated this will be addressed at the site plan process, and staff notifies adjacent property owners when the site plan is submitted, and there is an opportunity for citizens to provide comments.
Mrs. Robison wants to know Mr. Horstman’s assessment of stormwater issues prior to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. She would prefer to proactively deal with these issues sooner and completely understand the situation.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated there is frustration with the transitional plan, because neighbors want the development to be the same as the surrounding development instead of transitional.
Mr. Roseland stated within the Wellington Park neighborhood it appears that approximately 53 houses are platted within the buffer according to a graphic provided by a speaker during the public hearing. He stated today we do not allow developers to plat in the buffers. He stated the developer counts lots on a gross density basis, but neighbors count on a net density basis, and council struggles with average lot sizes. He stated it would be good if the developer exceeded the one-year flood standard.
Mrs. Robinson stated infill development is not sympathetic to surrounding development and results in a massive loss of trees, and the council hears this repeatedly with this type of development. She is happy the proposal is single family, but if the lots are larger, for example ¼ acre, it would solve both problems.
ACTION: Referred to the April 16, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board meeting
_________________________
2.
Ordinance Amendment | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||