|
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 store in this area. He pointed out that the traffic study shows that Cary Parkway and High House Road will need to be widened to six lanes. He wants to better understand the proposal.
Mr. Van Kloempken supports the original plan, but he is opposed to the changes. He stated the changes will increase density (residential, retail, hotel) and will decrease parking and the size of the clubhouse and the conservatory. He stated the proposal drastically reduces most of the setbacks. Mr. Kloempken stated he believes the proposal fails at least four of the seven tests in the LDO.
No one else came forward to speak, and Mayor McAlister closed the public hearing.
Ms. Dorrel assured the residents that the proposal surprises her, and she looks forward to hearing more explanation from Mr. Sears. She asked if the conservatory parking structure is underground. Mrs. Grannan replied that the plan would allow underground parking, which is the reason for the increase in stories to allow a parking structure.
Mrs. Grannan stated staff recommends that council forward this issue to the May 21 Planning and Zoning Board meeting (instead of what was proposed in the staff report) so this property may be evaluated with the property to south. Some council members wanted to ensure that the Planning and Zoning Board would conduct a second public hearing on this issue, and Mrs. Grannan replied that the council may direct the Board to conduct a second public hearing.
Ms. Dorrel stated she wants to better understand the traffic study, and she is concerned about setbacks.
Mr. Roseland asked about the Cary Parkway and High House Road traffic study results. Mrs. Grannan stated the study calls for construction of a 100 foot southbound right-turn lane on Davis Drive at High House Road; Cary Parkway at High House Road calls for the construction of a 150 foot southbound right turn lane as indicated on the original Sears Stone traffic impact analysis. Mr. Roseland asked if the road improvements will eliminate the landscaping. Mrs. Grannan stated the study calls for road widening. Mr. Roseland asked staff to include the traffic analysis detail in the staff report. Mr. Dick Moore stated he will update the staff report to include this information.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated the original plan was a model of cooperation, and he stressed the need for cooperation moving forward with this proposal.
Mrs. Robinson stated the council is not comfortable going beyond four-lane median divided roads. She is opposed to a six-lane roadway in this area, so it will take a lot of cooperation with the property owners and developers on the four corners in this vicinity. She is concerned about the traffic increases, because there is a project to the north that is proposing very high densities. She does not think the road can support these densities. She stated landscaped setbacks would be good in this community. She likes the planted median that was originally proposed and would like it to remain. She urged council to meet with staff to learn more about the proposal, especially the traffic study.
Mrs. Robison stated the comprehensive traffic study for Cornerstone and Sears Stone is important to development in this area. She asked if the 300 units was included in the study. Mr. Moore will verify this. He stated the combined traffic study that was requested by staff will be completed in two to three weeks.
Mr. Portman asked if there has been any discussion about structuring percentages to the current footprint and having the freedom to move them. Mrs. Grannan stated the percentages are open. She added that capacities would be based on the overall sqare footage allotments. She stated all the footprints would be removed according to proposed conditions. Mr. Portman does not think this is a minor change to the original proposal. He is pleased with the stormwater upgrade to accommodate the 50-year storm. He asked if the traffic study accounts for the senior retired component, because he thinks it is relevent to peak times if these seniors choose to drive at non-peak times. Mr. Moore stated it is factored in the traffic study and there are different trip capacities for the various use classifications.
Mrs. Robinson stated a loop road that goes around all four quadrants would provide traffic relief. Mr. Bailey stated the combined comprehensive study will provide this level of detail.
Mrs. Robison is concerned about the ambiguity of the proposal due to the loss of specifications.
Ms. Dorrel stated the proposed retail and commercial will serve the larger community. She asked if the traffic study takes this into consideration. Mr. Moore stated the commercial land use factors used are for retail uses that anticipate trips from outside and inside the development. Ms. Dorrel wants to see the details of the study.
ACTION: Mrs. Robison moved to move this forward (to the May 21, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board meeting) with a second public hearing at that meeting. Mr. Portman provided the second.
Ms. Dorrel stated this action should not set a precedent for future cases. She stated in this case the applicant did not meet with the neighbors in advance, and this is the reason for council requiring a second public hearing at the Planning and Zoning Board.
ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion, and council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
2.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 07-CPA-01, Evans Estates Phase 2
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Town
of Cary, North Carolina Request The applicant is requesting Council approve a Resolution to amend the Land Use Plan Map of the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Cary to change the land use designation of approximately 17.87 acres located at 110, 120, and 160 Anita Way from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR).
The purpose of a comprehensive plan amendment is to evaluate the appropriateness of a proposed land use and/or other issue, need, or opportunity for the subject parcel(s) 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 specified in the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) when the site or subdivision plan is submitted.
Background Information
Applicable Comprehensive Plan Requirements: A. Land Use Plan: This request does not conform to the adopted Land Use Plan. The land use plan designation is Low Density Residential (LDR).
B.
Transportation Future Section: 2-lane residential, 50’ ROW Road Improvements: None scheduled Sidewalks Requirements: on at least one side of all streets Bicycle Requirements: N/A Transit Requirements: None required Traffic Analysis: A Traffic Impact Study is not required since the density is less than 2.175 per acre.
C.
Parks & Greenways:
D. Open Space and Historic Resources: N/A
E. Affordable Housing: N/A
F. Growth Management: N/A
Town Council Criteria for Consideration in Reviewing Comprehensive Plan Amendments:
Section 3.2.2(B) of the Land Development Ordinance states that “Proposals to amend the Comprehensive Plan shall be evaluated based upon whether the amendment is necessary in order to address conditions including, but not limited to, the following:”
Other Reference Information Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted December 27, 2006 The following statements are provided by the applicant in response to the criteria established in the application and does not necessarily represent the views or opinions of the Town of Cary . Any statements as to the type, quality or physical features are at the direction of the applicant and may be formulated into a condition): 1. Are there any issues with the size of the tract? No 2. How is the rezoning request compatible with the comprehensive plan? The Zoning is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The Owners prefer R 12 Zoning to R8. The Owners plan to live in the subdivision and have lots large enough to construct 3.500 to 5,000 square foot homes. This would be difficult with R8 lots. 3. What are the benefits, detriments to the owners, neighbors, and community? Larger lots with larger houses than the Evans Estates subdivision would benefit the owners with a greater resale value. 4. How are all the allowable uses with the proposed zoning compatible to or how do they relate to the uses currently present on adjacent tracts? The allowable uses with the R12 zoning are the same as the existing subdivision. All adjacent land is residential or R40 zoning. The rezoning will have increased value to all property adjacent to this land.
Resolution for Consideration at time of final action follows:
07-CPA-01 Evans Estates Phase 2
A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL LAND USE PLAN MAP OF THE TOWN OF CARY TO CHANGE THE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 17.87 ACRES LOCATED at 110, 120 and 160 Anita Way owned by Ray Joseph Bailey, Carolyn Bailey Haith and Constance Bailey Colby FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (mdr) TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (ldr).
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CARY:
Section 1: The Official Land Use Plan Map is hereby amended by this Comprehensive Plan Amendment described as follows:
Section 2: That this Property’s land use plan designation changes from Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential subject to all the requirements of the Cary Land Development Ordinance (LDO) and other applicable laws, standards, polices and guidelines. Section 3. This resolution shall be effective on the date of adoption.
Staff’s powerpoint presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit D.
The applicant chose to hold his comments until the next public hearing.
No one came forward to speak, and Mayor McAlister closed the public hearing.
_________________________
3.
Rezoning 07-REZ-01, Evans Estates Phase 2
Town of Cary, North Carolina Rezoning Data Sheet 07-REZ-01 Evans Estates Phase 2 Debra Grannan, Case Manager
Request
The applicant is requesting Council approve an Ordinance to amend the official zoning map of the Town of Cary to change the zoning of approximately 17.87 acres located at 110, 120, and 160 Anita Way from Residential 40 (R40) to Residential 12 (R12)
The purpose of a rezoning is to evaluate the appropriateness of a proposed land use for the subject parcel(s) 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 specified in the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) when the site or subdivision plan is submitted.
Background Information
The applicant has submitted the following proposed zoning conditions:
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
A. Land Use Plan: This rezoning request does not conform to the adopted Land Use Plan which designates this area as Medium Density Residential. An amendment to the Comprehensive Plan has been requested by the applicant under case 07-CPA-01 which is also scheduled for a Public Hearing on March 8, 2007.
B. Transportation Future Section: 2-lane residential, 50’ ROW Road Improvements: None scheduled Sidewalks Requirements: on at least one side of all streets Bicycle Requirements: N/A Transit Requirements: None required Traffic Analysis: A Traffic Impact Study is not required since the density is less than 2.175 per acre.
C. Parks & Greenways: According to the approved Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Facilities Master Plan a recreation payment-in-lieu will be required for any subdivided residential lots in accordance with the Town’s Land Development Ordinance.
D. Environmental: According to the Town of Cary GIS maps, there is a stream buffer on a portion of this site. The project will be required to comply with all buffer requirements of the Land Development Ordinance during the site plan approval process.
E. Buffers: According to Chapter 7 of the Land Development Ordinance, the applicant will be required to provide a 20’ wide landscaping area planted to Type “B” Buffer standards between this use and the adjacent Class 2 uses. This may be located within the platted portion of a lot.
F. Streetscape: N/A; Not located along a thoroughfare or major collector roadway.
Consistency with the Land Development Ordinance
The proposed project is in the rezoning stage and therefore preliminary engineering of the site has not been done. Prior to Site Plan or Subdivision Plan approval, the application will be required to demonstrate consistency with the Land Development Ordinance with respect to specific development requirements, such as access, stormwater management, road improvements, utility line placement, road connectivity and landscape plantings.
Existing and Requested Zoning District Comparison:
Town Council Criteria for Consideration in Reviewing Rezonings:
Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Development Ordinance sets forth the following criteria that Council should consider in reviewing rezonings:
1. The proposed rezoning corrects an error or meets the challenge of some changing condition, trend or fact; 2. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan set forth in Section 1.3 (LDO); 3. The Town and other service providers will be able to provide sufficient public safety, educational, recreational, transportation and utility facilities and services to the subject property while maintaining sufficient levels of service to existing development; 4. The proposed rezoning is unlikely to have significant adverse impacts on the natural environment, including air, water, noise, stormwater management, wildlife and vegetation; 5. The proposed rezoning will not have significant adverse impacts on property in the vicinity of the subject tract; 6. The proposed zoning classification is suitable for the subject property;
Other Reference Information
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 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 64 three bedroom dwellings could yield 27 additional students, while 64 homes with four or more bedrooms could yield 49 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.
Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted December 27, 2006
The following statements are provided by the applicant in response to the criteria established in the application and does not necessarily represent the views or opinions of the Town of Cary. Any statements as to the type, quality or physical features are at the direction of the applicant and may be formulated into a condition):
1. Are there any issues with the size of the tract? No
2. How is the rezoning request compatible with the comprehensive plan? The Zoning is not compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The Owners prefer R 12 Zoning to R8. The Owners plan to live in the subdivision and have lots large enough to construct 3.500 to 5,000 square foot homes. This would be difficult with R8 lots.
3. What are the benefits, detriments to the owners, neighbors, and community? Larger lots with larger houses than the Evans Estates subdivision would benefit the owners with a greater resale value.
4. How are all the allowable uses with the proposed zoning compatible to or how do they relate to the uses currently present on adjacent tracts? The allowable uses with the R12 zoning are the same as the existing subdivision. All adjacent land is residential or R40 zoning. The rezoning will have increased value to all property adjacent to this land.
Ordinance for Consideration at time of final action.
07-REZ-01 Evans Estates Phase 2 (General Use District)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF CARY TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY17.87 ACRES LOCATED along 110, 120 and 160 Anita Way owned by Ray Joseph Bailey, Carolyn Bailey Haith and Constance Bailey Colby FROM Residentail 40 (R40) TO Residential 12 (R12). 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:
Section 2: That this Property is rezoned from Residential 40 to Residential 12 subject to all the requirements of the Cary Land Development Ordinance (LDO) and other applicable laws, standards, polices and guidelines.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective on the date of adoption.
Staff’s powerpoint presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit E. A valid protest petition was filed on this request.
Mr. George Bailey has not achieved his goal of eliminating the protest petition, but he has met with neighbors for more than a year. He stated the meetings were poorly attended.
Mr. Ray Bailey stated he and his family will live in this subdivision.
Mr. David Ward, on behalf of the property owners, stated they prefer larger lots, which resulted in the proposal.
Ms. Tamara Boles expressed her support of the proposal. She stated she is related to the applicants. She thinks some of her neighbors’ concerns are excuses to avoid change. She stated the construction on Evans Road is a Town project, and the applicants have no control over the timing or execution of the project. She stated based on information she received, by the time the preparation of the land would begin, the Evans Road project should be completed, so this issue should resolve itself unless something arises beyond the applicant’s control. She stated some neighbors are concerned with one access point during construction. She stated this is not a problem based on the multiple homes that have recently been built in this area, which did not negatively impact traffic. She believes the rezoning will increase surrounding property values. She stated the applicants must consider the environmental conditions on the proposed land use, and she expects superior landscaping. However, she does not think this issue can be addressed until the topographical studies are completed. She stated citizens must trust their local government to put controls in place that are in the best interest of the residents. She stated some of her neighbors are concerned about safety with regard to construction vehicles. She believes that the majority of safety issues occur when other drivers attempt aggressive driving maneuvers to go around these vehicles. She is personally more concerned about the frequency of the neighborhood residents speeding through the neighborhood. She fully supports this proposal.
Ms. Phyllis Lang is concerned about the increase in traffic and the timing of the Evans Road widening. She hopes the construction on this land can be delayed until construction traffic can enter off of the widened Evans Road. She stated their homeowner association does not allow residents to park in front of their homes on the street because the road is too narrow. She has seen in the past with construction of homes in the neighborhood when construction traffic actually blocked the streets to the point they were impassable. She stated the intersection of Evans Estates Drive and Evans Road is often already a bottleneck during rush hour traffic, which also serves as a bus-stop for neighborhood children.
Mr. Mark Lavigne stated he is not against the rezoning, but he would like to see conditions. He would like a temporary access on the new road instead of allowing construction traffic to use existing roadways. He does not want to see the property clearcut to accommodate this development. He would like this to be a condition of the rezoning.
Mr. Joseph Bailey, a relative of the applicant, supports the proposal. He does not think the construction traffic will impede quality of life, because construction has occurred in this neighborhood for the past six years.
Mrs. Taunya Alexander, a homeowner in this subdivision and a relative of the applicant, stated she supports this request. She stated construction traffic and the school bus stop safety concerns have not been problems with past construction in the neighborhood. She stated there will be a total of 100 feet where the trees will remain between this development and the homes bordering it.
Mr. Earl Coombs stated he supports the rezoning to a lower density.
Mr. Bruce Brown, the president of the homeowners’ association in this development, stated there are 52 homeowners; 22 responded to a survey the circulated; 20 were in favor of the rezoning; 2 were opposed. For those in favor, the homeowners often expressed some of the concerns that have been heard at this meeting. He stated the homeowners’ association has not taken a stance; instead, they represent the neighborhood.
Mr. Ismael Rodriguz supports the request and thinks it will increase his property value.
No one else came forward to speak, and Mayor McAlister closed the public hearing.
Mr. Roseland stated he lives in this neighborhood. He stated the majority of neighbors support the comprehensive plan amendment to go to a lower density. He stated there is significant support for this request, but people would like to see conditions associated with this rezoning request. Mrs. Grannan stated this is a non-conditional rezoning so there is no ability to add conditions. Mr. Roseland outlined three main concerns: (1) capacity of Evans Road and timing of road improvements and construction of the property, (2) construction traffic and (3) the need for public space to bring the neighborhoods together.
Mrs. Robinson concurred with the importance of providing community space.
Mrs. Robison asked about the road under construction (Bailey Park Road) and the anticipated date of connection. Mrs. Grannan stated the new road may be considered for construction traffic, but it is a site plan issue. She stated there is a stream buffer in the area, which would require study to see if connectivity could occur. She stated the applicant could request a waiver to the connectivity requirement, which would be decided by council.
Mr. Roseland asked if the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) must issue a permit to cross the stream. Engineering Director Tim Bailey stated this stream is deemed to exist unless a field determination shows it is not there. He stated this has not been done yet. He stated it if is determined to be a stream in the Neuse River Basin, then it will require DWQ approval to cross the stream with temporary construction accesses or permanent connections. He stated this determination would have to be made before the staff makes a determination on connectivity.
Mr. Roseland questioned the schedule for the Evans Road. Mr. Bailey stated the bid date is April 19, 2007; it will then go to the May operations committee meeting for contract award; the contracts will be signed about mid-June. He stated there is about a one year duration for contract time. He believes the project will be complete within a two year time period.
Mrs. Robison asked if the applicant can bring forward voluntary conditions. Mrs. Grannan replied negatively. She stated to add conditions to the case the applicant would have to withdraw the current request, lose their money, and seek a waiver to reapply. Mrs. Robison asked if the applicant could enter into private agreements with the homeowners that would not be enforceable by the Town. Mrs. Grannan responded affirmatively.
Mrs. Robison asked the number of lots planned that back up to the Black Creek greenway and whether the applicant will provide greenway access. Mr. Bailey (the applicant) stated they are required to have greenway access. He stated this project and Evans Road widening will be completed at about the same time and the road will probably be completed before the first house is built. He stated preliminary drawings show about 40 lots at this time. They do not own the property from Bailey to Evans Road and it is not part of this request.
ACTION: Referred the comprehensive plan amendment to the May 21, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board meeting
ACTION: Referred the rezoning to the July 16, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board meeting
_________________________
E. PUBLIC SPEAKS OUT (one hour time limit)
Mr. Alan Soutter, a Grenadier resident, spoke about the MI Homes Stonebridge project. He stated he received an e-mail from staff regarding their concerns, and it is clear that there is a disconnect between the homeowner concerns and the staff’s response. He is concerned about a decrease in property value because of what Town staff is allowing MI Homes to do at the homeowners’ expense. He stated specifically, they are using homeowners’ properties to fix the problems in the MI Homes design in order to maximize their shareholder value. Mr. Soutter stated their issue with the retaining wall is not height, but rather the position/location of the retaining wall. He stated in a separate area MI Homes has built a custom berm that is eight feet high in points and planting to the neighbors’ liking. He stated it took MI Homes five months to develop a stormwater system to the berm behind his home. He stated it took 42 feet to make the berm behind his neighbor’s home, and the plan for this berm is only 30 feet wide. He stated it is impossible for MI Homes to give these homeowners the same kind of berm with 25 percent less land. Instead of an eight foot high berm, he will only get a six foot high berm.
Mr. Marty Jacumen, senior pastor of First Baptist Church in Cary, spoke about the beer garden at Lazy Daze. He is concerned with alcohol having a negative impact on pedestrian traffic. He wants to avoid potential problems and urged council not to allow this to be part of the Lazy Daze event.
Mr. Bruce Knight, a Grenadier resident, spoke about the Stonebridge Subdivision issues. He stated the developer worked for five months and the only unresolved issue in those drawings was storm drainage behind the levy they built behind his and his neighbors’ homes. He stated in mid-December there were deceitful changes that disturbed him and his neighbors. He stated the berm documents have changed since the developer has built the berm for his neighbors, and he and his immediate neighbors were never intended to be separated out and dealt with individually just because the developer chose to erect a retaining wall behind their homes. He stated it appears that attorneys have added and deleted notes on those drawings. He has alerted staff of all the deceitful changes and he is still awaiting staff responses. He stated the design has problems, and they are using his and his neighbors’ properties as a swale to move their stormwater, and the Town staff is allowing this to occur. He urged council to consider this issue at the planning and development committee meeting.
Mr. Brent Miller spoke about citizens being at the top of the Town’s organizational chart, which he noted is fundamental to successful government. He encouraged the council to keep this in mind when making important decisions that impact the citizens of Cary.
_________________________
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)
There were no land development discussion items.
_________________________
G. COMMITTEE REPORTS (discussion items)
Operations Committee, March 1, 2007 (any item pulled from the committee consent agenda for discussion [agenda item B.3.] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda) (Mrs. Robinson)
The were no committee discussion items.
_________________________
H. OLD/NEW BUSINESS (any item pulled from the regular consent agenda for discussion [agenda item B.1.] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda)
There were no old/new business items.
_________________________
I. CLOSED SESSION
Closed session was not called.
_________________________
J. ADJOURNMENT
ACTION: At 8:43 p.m., Mayor Pro Tem Smith moved to adjourn; Mr. Roseland provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||