|
DRAFT (official minutes may be obtained from the Cary Town Clerk by calling 919-469-4011)
Cary Town Council Minutes
Present: Mayor Ernie McAlister, Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith, Council Members Marla Dorrel, Ervin Portman, 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. He introduced visitors representing our Hsinchu City, Taiwan sister city.
_________________________
2. Ceremonial Opening (Mayor Pro Tem Smith)
Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith provided the ceremonial opening.
_________________________
3. Adoption of agenda (Town Council)
ACTION: Mrs. Robinson moved to adopt the agenda; Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
B. CONSENT AGENDA (click on this link for the full text minutes of the consent agenda)
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 February 22, 2007, and the minutes of the joint Cary/Chatham County work session held on February 20, 2007. (Approved)
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-34, Napowsa Property
b.
Comprehensive Land Amendment
06-CPA-10, Modern
Woodmen of America
3. Operations Committee, March 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.
Highcroft Sewer Easement –
Recognize Developer Payment
(EN07‑079)
b.
Bid Award for Piney Plains
Road Sewer Extension
(EN07-080)
c.
Municipal Agreement – Walnut
Street Northbound Lane Addition Project
(EN07‑081)
d. Contract Award –
Value Engineering Services for the Western Wake Regional Water
Reclamation Facility Project
(EN07-084) (1) An engineering services contract be awarded to HDR for Value Engineering services for the Western Wake Regional Water Reclamation Facility Project with a not-to-exceed value of $292,000, and, (2) Creating a new capital project, SW1152, Western Wake Value Engineering to fund this work by transferring $168,776 from the SW1123 contracted services account and $123,224 from the SW1124 contracted services account into the SW1152 contracted services account. (Approved)
e.
Utility Agreement – NCDOT
U-4026 A & B (Northern Davis Drive)
(EN07-086)
f.
Evans Road Widening Project
Condemnation Resolution
(EN07-087)
g.
Contract Award – Engineering
Services for the Walker Street Extension Project
(EN07-088)
h.
Annual Turnover Report
(HR07-002)
i.
2009-2015 Transportation
Improvement Program Requests
(PL07-027)
j. Budget
Adjustment for NCDOT Funding and Chatham County Use Agreement
(PR07-023) (1) Council approval of staff’s recommendation that the Town manage the construction of the ATT through Chatham County with reimbursement funding provided by the NC Department of Transportation which requires the following: (a) Approval of the attached NCDOT /SAFETEA-LU agreement. (b) Recognition of $2,191,960 in reimbursement funding to be placed for expenditure in a new capital project account. (2) Council authorize staff to enter into an agreement with Chatham County with the general terms as listed below: (a) That the Town agrees to maintain the 4.68 mile segment of the ATT through Chatham County for a period of five years. At the end of the 5 year period representatives from Cary and Chatham County will jointly develop a new maintenance plan. (b) That Chatham County provides the Town with $60,000 in one-time funding to be used towards development of the Amberly Trailhead Park (PR1095) proposed for a 12 acre site located off New Hope Church Road. Council recognizes the $60,000 contribution to be placed n the construction account of PR1095 for expenditure. (c) That joint use language for use of the Amberly Trail Head Park facilities between Town residents and Chatham County residents is agreed upon by staff. (Approved)
k.
Donation for Kids Together
Park
(PR07-025)
l.
Swift Creek Pump Station
Expansion Project
(PWUT07-016)
m.
Proposal to Allow a Beer
Garden at Lazy Daze
(PR07-026)
_________________________
C. RECOGNITIONS, REPORTS, AND PRESENTATIONS
There were no recognitions, reports or presentations on this agenda.
_________________________
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.
Rezoning 06-REZ-31, Sears Farm Planned Development District Amendment
06-REZ-31 Sears Farm Planned Development District Amendment Case Data
Background Information
Existing Zoning: Planned Development District (PDD)
Requested Zoning: PDD Amendment
Land Use Plan Designation: Sears Farm PDD is located within the Mixed Use Cornerstone Community Activity Center, which encompasses all four quadrants around the intersection of Davis Drive and High House Road. (A community activity center is intended to include a balanced mix of commercial, office/institutional and residential uses at moderate-to-high densities.)
Acreage: 75.24 ±
Location: SE Corner of High House Road and Davis Drive
Applicant: William Sears, Sears Farm, LLC 1142 Executive Circle, Suite D Cary, NC 27511 (919) 467-5703 billsears@shkw.com
Applicant’s Contact: Andrew Padiak, The John R. McAdams Company 2905 Meridian Parkway Durham, NC 27713 (919) 361-5000 padiak@johnrmcadams.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 has requested an increase in the retail, office and residential square footage for this existing PDD. There are also specific changes to the certain zoning conditions, such as building height, setbacks and square footage in both the commercial and residential portions of the site.
A. Transportation
High House: Future Roadway Section: 4-lane median divided, 100’ ROW Schedule: N/A Sidewalk Requirements: required on both sides Bicycle Requirements: wide outside lanes required Transit Requirements: Concrete pad (6’ wide by 16’ long minimum) and bus stop shelter (5’ wide by 12’ long) with metal roof (color to be approved by Town), metal structure, with metal bench, plexi-glass sides and rear, and low growing shrubs (maximum full growth height of 24”) on perimeter required on High House in area between two most western entrances
Davis: Future Roadway Section: # of lanes, ROW Schedule: N/A Sidewalk Requirements: One side or both Bicycle Requirements: wide outside lanes required Transit Requirements: None
B. Traffic Impact Analysis: A draft traffic impact study has been prepared by town traffic consultant, Sepi Engineering dated February 2007.
The study (07-TAR-236) recommends the following improvements to meet Town of Cary Adequate Public Facilities Requirements. 1. High House Road at Davis Drive Construct a 100’ southbound right turn lane on Davis Drive at High House Road. 2. Cary Parkway at High House Road Construct a 150’ southbound right turn lane as indicated in the Original Searstone TIA. 3. Davis Drive at Cornerstone Drive/Drive #1 Install a traffic signal as indicated in the original Searstone TIA. 4. Davis Drive at Site Drive #2 (RIRO) Install a 100’ northbound right turn lane. 5. High House Road at Searstone Drive/Future Drive Install a traffic signal 6. High House Road at Site Drive #3 (RIRO) Install a 100’ eastbound right turn lane. 7. High House Road at Site Drive #5 (RIRO) Install a 100’ eastbound right turn lane and an island restricting northbound left turning movement.
These improvements and the requirements of the Town of Cary Comprehensive Transportation Plan will provide mitigation for site impacts as required by the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. A combined Traffic Impact Study for Cornerstone and Searstone is being prepared by Sepi Engineering to determine the effects of both developments.
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: March 8, 2007 Action:
Planning & Zoning Board: Date: April 16, 2007
Town Council Action: Date: May 10 or 24, 2007 April 26, 2007
Summary of Requested Rezoning
Master Land Use Data – Revisions to Project Data for Village Tract
Master Land Use – Village Tract Setbacks
Revised Notes:
Master Land Use Data for Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC)
Master Land Use Data -Continuing Care Retirement Community Tract Setbacks
Building Height and Parking
Rezoning Conditions
Revisions to the section titled “Circulation” of the PUD Document The typical sections for the streets included under Circulation dictate a 30” curb and gutter. We request the ability to install 24” curb and gutter as an alternate. The back of curb to back of curb dimension of all street sections will be maintained independent of which curb and gutter is used.
The typical sections for the streets call for a 6 foot wide sidewalk. The applicant requests the ability to install 5 foot sidewalks as an alternate. The width of the ingress/egress easement will be maintained as currently approved.
Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted (December 6, 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. Are there any issues with the size of the tract?
There are no issues associated with the tract size.
2. How is the request compatible with the comprehensive plan?
Our proposed modifications to a previously approved PDD are compatible with the Town’s comprehensive plan in the following ways: a) Proposed land use is the same as previously approved b) Proposed increases in density are moderate and do not occur adjacent to any of our residential neighborhoods. c) Although some traffic impact is anticipated, it is our opinion that most traffic generated by proposed expansion will not occur during peak traffic hours (i.e. retail, traffic, hotel, traffic, or young professionals working on site). d) Our proposed increase in density will have no impact on existing open space (a large portion of which is dedicated to public use) because we plan to expand upward – not outward. Existing open space will remain as previously approved. e) New urbanism requires density and verticality to be efficient, functional an appealing to its constituency. We need this moderate amount of additional density if we are to be true to the concept of new urbanism.
Our proposed revisions relate primarily to the retail component of Searstone and we are proposed to enhance the urban concept by augmenting the use and density in an effort to increase efficiency, enhance the quality of life, improve convenience and expand opportunity for not only the residents of Searstone, but also the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Young professionals will be the target of proposed residential expansion with enhanced medical/professional offices in which they can work and increase specialty retail opportunities to conveniently accommodate their needs.
4. 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? Our proposed uses, with the exception of a targeted residential component, are simply moderate expansions of previously approved uses and are compatible in every way with existing/proposed uses on adjoining tracts. None of our proposed expansion is adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood and except for moderate traffic impact, should provide convenient and services heretofore unavailable for our community (i.e. an intensely developed urban park with an aquatic theme, a conservatory, professional services enhanced shopping opportunities, etc.
We now have a development partner of national reputation capable of producing an enhanced concept of what we have previously described and you have previously approved.
5. What reductions/amendments and or modifications to the development standards of the LDO are being requested and how are they justified? See the tables included with the PDD Amendment submittal package for a detailed description of the requested changes.
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 only an approximation. The actual number of students will vary depending on several factors such as dwelling unit type, number of bedrooms, and dwelling size. For example: a site with 298 one bedroom apartments could yield only 8 new students while a site with the same number of three bedroom apartments could yield 225 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, proposed student yield can not be exact 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 presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit C. A valid protest petition was filed on this request.
Mr. Bill Sears stated it is obvious he has not appropriately informed the neighbors of his intentions based on the protest petitions that were submitted. He regrets this, and he has taken measures to introduce himself to the neighbors. He stated the traffic impact study notes no impact on current traffic conditions. He stated the only condition on the original planned development document not completed is the median on High House Road. It was not required by the council but was requested by Sears Farm. They seek removal of this because the right-of-way required for this improvement for the planted median would adversely impact the neighbors due to road alignments. He stated there is a misunderstanding regarding the health care facility, which is intended to accommodate the people that live in the community. He stated they will build 26 beds instead of 36 as originally proposed, because in the beginning most of their residents will be healthy. They foresee the need for about 155 beds in the future. It is not a public hospital. They seek to work with surrounding hospitals to use some of these beds in the beginning when they are empty. He stated the stormwater requirements were for a one-year storm, but they increased it to a 10-year storm. He stated after hearing neighbors’ comments, he instructed the John R. McAdams Company to build a 50-year stormwater facility. They have added three stormwater structures to accommodate this stormwater detention. Mr. Sears stated they are not seeking big box in the usual sense; instead, they want specialty retail components to enhance the neighborhood (i.e., Southern Seasons, etc.). He stated they would not accept discount stores. He stated their commercial partner is a premier, high-end retailer in the southeastern United States and beyond. He stated new urbanism is sometimes used inappropriately to describe projects. He stated they plan to add about 200 employees with the retirement community staffing, and the new urbanism concept is to provide places to live on-site for these employees as well as those that will work in the medical facilities. He stated they will have much better medical support than they originally thought, which will benefit the surrounding community. He plans to provide more detail to council in the next week.
A representative of the John R. McAdams Company stated the proposal is very similar to the original plan. He stated the conservatory will remain; they are only seeking to remove the precisely stated square footage for the conservatory to give them flexibility. He stated the lake will remain the size as approved in the earlier plan, and their stormwater will treat the 50-year storm. He stated the traffic study confirmed that the level of service will remain the same in most categories.
Mr. Dave Buell stated he is concerned with the apartments, the proposed increase in retail and office space, traffic, noise, school overcrowding and the general aesthetics of the development. He does not object to the building height. He is also concerned with the merits of the wording of the rezoning document, such as the statement that traffic will not occur during peak times. He stated traffic studies do not account for construction or future construction in the area.
Mr. Richard Byrne is glad to hear that Mr. Sears plans to meet with the surrounding neighbors. He thinks the 298 residential units in the proposal is too dense. He is opposed to the big box tenants and added they do not need a grocery st | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||