Click on the links within this document to see the full text minutes. Graphics are not included, but are included in the official minutes maintained by the town clerk.

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 6:38 p.m.

_________________________

2.    Ceremonial Opening (Mrs. Robinson)

Mrs. Robinson provided the ceremonial opening.

_________________________

3.   Adoption of agenda (Town Council)

Mayor McAlister announced that with input from the committee chair, item G.1, conservation overlay district revisions, it was determined that a work session will be scheduled to allow council to discuss this issue in more detail. He also announced that the applicant has pulled item G.4., Cary Community Foundation, and it will come back to council at a future date yet to be determined.

ACTION: Mrs. Robinson moved to adopt the amended agenda. Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

B.   CONSENT AGENDA

1.   Regular Consent Agenda (click on this link for the full text minutes of all regular consent agenda items)

a.   Consideration of approval of the minutes of the regular town council meeting held on June 14, 2007; the minutes of the budget work session held on June 5, 2007; and the minutes of the budget work session held on June 12, 2007. (Approved) 

b.   Consideration of allowing WakeMed Hospital to make a payment-in-lieu with a letter of credit for the required Tryon Road improvements and consideration of waiving the required Kildaire Farm Road improvements associated with the WakeMed Hospital expansion. (Pulled from consent agenda for discussion) 

c.   Consideration of the execution of an agreement with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for the operation and maintenance of the Cary Signal System. (Approved)

d.   Consideration of adoption of the June 2007 tax report. (Approved)

e.   Consideration of adoption of certificates of sufficiency and resolutions calling for public hearings on the following annexation petitions:

(1)     ANNEXATION PETITION 07-A-18, Park at Westlake
Location: Park at West Lake, south of Optimist Farm Road, west of West Lake Road and northwest of the South Cary Water Reclamation Facility
Acreage: 20.11 plus 3.65 adjacent right of way = 23.76 total acres
Zoning: Residential 30 Conditional Use Wake (R-30CUW)
Contiguous to Corporate Limits: Yes
Proposed use: Residential Subdivision
Associated zoning case: 07-REZ-08 (Park at Westlake)
Presenter: Mr. Dan Matthys (Approved)

(2)     ANNEXATION PETITION 07-A-19, Wrenn Property
Location: 1504 Yates Store Road
Acreage: 17.69 plus 0.53 adjacent right of way = 18.22 total deeded acres
Zoning: Residential 40 (R-40)
Contiguous to Corporate Limits: Yes
Proposed use: Residential Single Family
Associated zoning case: 07-REZ-04 (Wrenn Property)
Presenter: Mr. Dan Matthys (Approved)

(3)     ANNEXATION PETITION 07-A-20, William and Mary Smith
Location: 3212 Ten Ten Road; 3212 Ten Ten Road B; 3312 Ten Ten Road
Acreage: 5.61 plus 0.81 adjacent right of way = 6.42 total acres
Zoning: Residential 30 Wake (R-30W)
Contiguous to Corporate Limits: Yes
Proposed use: Office & Institutional in Mixed Use Overlay District
Associated zoning case: 07-REZ-11 (Grist Mill)
Presenter: Mr. Dan Matthys (Approved)

(4)     ANNEXATION PETITION 07-A-21, Allen Miedema
Location: 6108 Deerwood Place
Acreage: 0.41 plus 0 adjacent right of way = 0.41 total deeded acres
Zoning: Transitional Residential (TR)
Contiguous to Corporate Limits: Yes
Existing use: Residential
Associated zoning case: N/A
Presenter: Mr. Dan Matthys (Approved)

2.   Land Development Consent Agenda (click on this link for the full text minutes of all land development consent agenda items)

a.   Mixed Use Sketch Plan 06-MU-03, Village at the Park
Location: 2932 Alston Avenue, NW corner of Kitt Creek Road and NC 55 Highway
Base zoning: Planned Development District Major (PDD)
Zoning overlay district: Neighborhood Mixed Use Overlay District, Village at the Park
Requested use: Mixed Use Sketch Plan to allow 278 multi-family residential units and a recreation facility; amend Tract 1 of the PDD to increase the number of apartments from 45 units to 278 units
Acreage: Approximately 15.17± acres
Presenter: Mrs. Debra Grannan
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: unanimous recommendation to approve (Approved)

b.   Park at Westlake Development  

(1)  ANNEXATION PETITION 07-A-14
Property owners: Starcraft Builders, Inc.
Location: 7204, 7208, 7209, 7212, 7216, 7220, 7221, 7224, 7225, 7228, 7229, 7232, 7233, 7236, 7237, 7240, 7241, 7244 Bedford Ridge Drive
Acreage: 5.17 plus 0.90 acres of right-of-way
Zoning: Residential 30 Wake (R-30W)
Contiguous to Corporate Limits: Yes
Existing use: Residential Subdivision (Park at Westlake, 07-REZ-05)
Presenter: Mr. Dan Matthys (Approved effective 12/28/07)

(2)  REZONING 07-REZ-05, Park at Westlake
Location: South of Optimist Farm Road and West of West Lake Road
Current zoning: Residential 20 Conditional Use District Wake (R-20 CUD W)
Requested zoning: Residential 8 (R-8)
Acreage: 6.08 ±
Presenter: Ms. Jennifer Currin 
Comprehensive Plan Consistency: In accordance with N.C.G.S. 160A-383, and based upon the recommendations and detailed information developed by staff and/or the Planning & Zoning Board contained in the case report, approval of this case by the Cary Town Council will officially adopt the individual rezoning report as evidence that consistency with the Comprehensive Plan has been thoroughly evaluated and that this is a reasonable action to further the community’s public interest in carrying out the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: unanimous recommendation to approve (Approved effective 12/28/07)

3.   Planning and Development Committee, June 21, 2007 (click on this link for the full text minutes of all Planning and Development Committee consent agenda items)

a.   Bishops Gate PUD - Request for Payment-in-Lieu and Release of a Letter of Credit (EN07-120)
Committee unanimously recommended approving the request for a $125,595 payment-in-lieu of constructing the water lines along Davis Drive and Westhigh Street and release of the letter of credit for the Westhigh Street extension over the railroad tracks to Davis Drive. (Approved)

b.   The Park at Langston – Request Waiver of Curb and Sidewalk (EN07-130)
Committee unanimously recommended approval of reduced street design standards for The Park at Langston allowing the developers request to install 22’ wide streets without curb and gutter and sidewalk. (Approved)

c.   Garagescapes and Anti-Monotony Standards (PL07-044)
Committee unanimously recommended that Council direct staff to draft ordinance language regarding anti-monotony and snout-nose garage regulations for inclusion in the next round of LDO amendments. (Approved)

d.   Consent for the Relocation of Graves (PL07-050)
Committee unanimously recommended the adoption of a resolution for the removal and re-interment of twelve graves of all the graves within the Lewter Cemetery. (Approved)

e.   TCAP Tower (EN07-127)
Committee unanimously recommended that staff continue consideration of a tower at the location of the existing water tank at the intersection of Kildaire Farm Road and Pleasants Avenue.  Committee directed staff to update the staff report to include photo and height dimensions of temporary cell tower units along with a comparison of cost projection versus lost revenue stream. (Approved)

C.   RECOGNITIONS, REPORTS, AND PRESENTATIONS

1.   Recognition of the Town of Cary as a “Fit Community” by Blue Cross Blue Shield of NC and the North Carolina Health and Wellnes Trust Fund. (Mr. Roy Watson, Eastern NC Lead Executive of BCBS of NC)

Mr. Roy Watson presented the award to the town council.

_________________________

D.   PUBLIC HEARINGS (click on this link for the full text minutes of all public hearing agenda items)

1.   SPECIAL USE PERMIT 07-SU-002
Location: Southeast of intersection of Davis Drive and Collins Road
Current zoning: Office, Research, and Development – Conditional Use (ORD-CU)
Request: Mini-storage facility
Acreage: 3.82 Acres
Presenter: Mr. Greg Barnes
Recommended council action: Council may take action (Approved with a condition that operation/access hours will be 7a.m.-8 p.m. Monday-Saturday and 9 a.m.-6 p.m. on Sunday)

2.   SPECIAL USE PERMIT 07-SU-005
Location: 9011 Chapel Hill Road
Current zoning: Residential-40 (R-40)
Request: To operate a preschool within existing church
Acreage: 5.06 ±
Presenter: Ms. Jennifer Currin
Recommended council action: Council may take action (Approved with a condition that maximum enrollment is limited to 40 students)

3.   Comprehensive Plan Amendment 07-CPA-04, Indian Wells
Location: along Indian Wells and Wackena Roads, approximately 1,200 feet west of the intersection of NC Highway 55 and Indian Wells Road
Current comprehensive plan designation: Very Low Density Residential
Requested comprehensive plan designation: Medium Density Residential
Acreage: 164.5
Presenter: Mr. Scott Ramage
Recommended Council Action: Council may refer this item to the August 20, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board meeting (this public hearing was continued from the June 14, 2007 meeting) (Referred to 8/20/07 P&Z meeting)

4.    Street Closing
Consideration of adoption of a street closing order resolution to close the right-of-way of North West Street from the CSXT right-of-way southward to the northern right-of-way of West Chatham Street. Council may take action. (Approved)

5.    Street Closing
Consideration of adoption of a street closing order resolution to close a portion of Kumar Court abutting Lots 3, 4 and 5. Council may take action. (Approved)

E.   PUBLIC SPEAKS OUT (see official minutes)

Mr. Karl Thor spoke against the Searstone and Crosland developments. He’s been collecting petitions against these requests, and he’s learned that many people did not know about the proposals.

_________________________

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)  

1.   Comprehensive Plan Amendment 07-CPA-01, Evans Estates Phase 2
Location: 110, 120 and 160 Anita Way
Current comprehensive plan designation: medium density residential
Proposed comprehensive plan designation: low density residential
Acreage: 17.90 acres
Presenter: Ms. Meredith Chandler
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: 6-2 recommendation to approve
Recommended Council Action: Council may take action (Approved the original request to go from medium density residential to low density residential)

Request

The applicant is requesting Council approve an amendment to the Land Use 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

Subject Parcels

Applicable Comprehensive Plan Requirements:

A. Land Use Plan:  This case proposes to modify the existing Land Use Plan designation.

B. Transportation
Road 1:  Anita Way
Existing Section:  2-lane residential, 50’ Right of Way (ROW)
Future Section:  2-lane residential, 50’ ROW
Road Improvements:  None scheduled

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.  Provision of a connection to the Black Creek Greenway is also recommended. 

D.  Open Space and Historic Resources: 
The Open Space and Historic Resources Plan does not identify any historic resources on this site.  The Open Space Plan identifies portions of the three properties as having some significant natural resources, which were included in the Town-wide inventory of priority open space.  These identified natural resource areas include the stream buffers for Black Creek for all three of the subject parcels.  The northern section of the northernmost parcel (PIN #0764290673) includes additional areas of significant resources, primarily limited to sections of mixed hardwood forest, outside of and adjacent to the stream buffers for the tributaries of Black Creek.   

E.  Affordable Housing: 
The Town of Cary has an adopted Affordable Housing Plan; applicable goals from this plan include:

• Provide for a full range of housing choices for all income groups, families of various sizes, seniors, and persons with special challenges.
• Facilitate the creation of a reasonable proportion of the Town of Cary’s housing as affordable units through additional homeownership opportunities for individuals and families earning between 60% and 80% of area median income and affordable apartments for individuals and families earning up to 60% of the area median income.
• Assure a quality living environment and access to public amenities for all residents, present and future, of the Town of Cary, regardless of income.

At the level of a comprehensive plan amendment, the particular impact of this amendment on the Town’s adopted affordable housing goals cannot be determined; however, low density residential development is typically – though not always – less affordable than higher density residential development.

F.  Growth Management: 
Guiding Principal L1 from the Growth Management Plan is relevant to this case, since it concerns the desired location of future growth:

• L1.  Concentrate growth near existing and planned employment centers and available and planned infrastructure to minimize costly service area extensions. 

The subject parcels are certainly located within an infill area where urban services are already readily available. 

Council Public Hearing March 8, 2007  

A.  Public Hearing Comments

During the March 8, 2007 Town Council Public Hearing, this case and the associated rezoning case, 07-REZ-01, were combined for the purpose of public hearing comments.  Following is a summary of citizen comments from the Town Council Public Hearing related to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request.  Comments related to the associated rezoning will be included that with that case’s staff reports.

    Five citizens expressed support of the proposal.

    One citizen expressed concern about the increase in traffic and the timing of the Evans Road widening.  She hoped the construction on this land can be delayed until construction traffic can enter off of the widened Evans Road.

    The president of the Evans Estates homeowners’ association stated there are fifty-two homeowners.  Twenty-two homeowners responded to a survey they circulated.  Twenty were in favor of the request and two were opposed. For those in favor, the homeowners often expressed some of the concerns previously mentioned during this Public Hearing.  These concerns will be detailed with the rezoning case impact statements.

B.  Town Council Questions and Comments

Town Council comments were related to details associated with the rezoning and not with the broad land use request of this comprehensive plan amendment.

C.  Changes Since the Public Hearing

There were no changes made to the case between the Town Council Public Hearing on March 8, 2007 and the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting on May 21, 2007.

Planning and Zoning Board Meeting May 21, 2007

A.  Public Hearing Comments

No one came forward to speak at the public hearing.

B.  Planning and Zoning Board Actions and Analysis

A motion was presented that the Planning and Zoning Board recommend Town Council amend the Comprehensive Plan Use designation from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR).  Following is a summary of Planning and Zoning Board comments from the Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing:

• Mr. Nath questioned what the Board’s criteria were for approving the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 
• Ms. Wayman and Mr. Brooks indicated that they preferred the property be amended from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential (LDR to MDR) because it provided a better transition and offered flexibility to the applicant.

The Board voted 6-2 with Ms. Wayman and Chairman Mr. Brooks dissenting.

C.  Changes Since the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting

There have been no changes to this case since the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting on May 21, 2007 .

Staff Analysis and Recommendation

The applicant has requested changing the land use plan designation from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Low Density Residential (LDR).  Staff recommends instead changing the land use plan designation from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to “Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential” (“LDR to MDR”).  This would provide a more appropriate transition in the land use plan.  The three subject parcels are adjacent to mostly High Density Residential (HDR) to the north and east and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to the west and south.  The “Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential” (“LDR to MDR”) designation would also provide the applicant some flexibility in planning Evans Estates Phase II.

Staff recommends the land use plan designation be changed from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to “Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential” (“LDR to MDR”).  The applicant supports Staff’s recommendation.  

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:”

• A change in projections or assumptions from those on which the Comprehensive Plan is based;

Analysis:  No changes have been identified.

• Identification of new issues, needs, or opportunities that are not adequately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan;

Analysis:  The applicant desires development options that may be at a lower density than the current Medium Density Residential (MDR) Land Use Plan designation.

• A change in the policies, objectives, principles, or standards governing the physical development of the Town or any other geographic areas addressed by the Comprehensive Plan; or

Analysis:  No changes have occurred.

• Identification of errors or omissions in the Comprehensive Plan.

Analysis:  No errors have been identified.

Staff’s powerpoint is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit. Ms. Chandler explained the staff’s recommendation, which differs from the Planning and Zoning Board’s recommendation.

Mr. Roseland asked if notification was given to neighbors about the change proposed by staff. Ms. Chandler stated a separate letter was not mailed out but a public hearing was conducted at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting. He stated there is buy-in to change the designation to Low Density Residential; most concerns are related to the rezoning and construction traffic. He thinks the communication process in this instance is lacking.

Mrs. Robinson receives a lot of complaints about overcrowded roads and schools, and she doesn’t understand why staff would recommend a higher density than what is proposed. She thinks council needs to regroup and direct staff to change to reflect the concerns of the citizens. She will support a change to Low Density Residential.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to move forward as originally proposed to Low Density Residential as the change to the comprehensive plan. Mrs. Robinson provided the second.

Mr. Portman asked if Medium Density Residential requires a certain density. Ms. Chandler stated as staff proposed it allows one to eight units per acre.

Mrs. Robison stated the area is all single family homes and she’s alarmed to think the staff proposal would allow eight units per acre. She thinks the higher density would change the character of the neighborhood.

ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion to change the comprehensive plan designation to Low Density Residential, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

G.   COMMITTEE REPORTS (discussion items)

Planning and Development Committee, June 21, 2007 (any item pulled from the committee consent agenda for discussion [agenda item B.3.] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda) (Mr. Roseland)

1.   Revisions to the Conservation Residential Overlay District (PL07-045)
Committee unanimously recommended moving this item to the discussion agenda in order for full council to provide staff with additional feedback.  Committee directed staff to revise the staff report to incorporate their feedback which included:

• Explore using a certain percentage of additional open space in exchange for a certain percentage of more residential units;
• Explore a higher standard for water quality from developments in exchange for more units;
• Clarify the requirement to limit the amount of grading and tree removal and the use of sidewalks and greenways; and,
• Explore what constitutes open space.

The committee suggested staff present hypothetical examples showing how the recommended changes would work. Council may give staff direction. (Removed from this agenda; council will conduct a work session)

Fiscal Impact:  The use of Low Impact Design techniques may have future operating impacts due to the increased number of storm water devices that will require inspection and long-term maintenance.

Staff Recommendation:  Provide staff with direction on changing the Conservation Residential Overlay District.

This item was removed from the agenda.

_________________________

2.   Subdivision Waiver Request – Saxonbury Singh Subdivision (PL07-046)
Committee unanimously recommended approval of a request for a waiver of the one-year waiting period for a new subdivision plan for the Saxonbury Singh conservation residential subdivision west of Green Level Church Road.  Per the Land Development Ordinance (LDO), a supermajority is required for Council to grant this request. Council may take action; six affirmative votes are required to approve this item. (Approved)

STAFF REPORT

Planning and Development Committee, June 21, 2007

Subdivision Waiver Request – Saxonbury Singh subdivision (PL07-046)
Consideration of a request for a waiver of the one-year waiting period for a new subdivision plan for the “Saxonbury Singh” conservation residential subdivision west of Green Level Church Road
Speaker:  Mr. Jeff Ulma

 

From:  Jeffery G. Ulma, AICP, Planning Director
Prepared by:  Jeffery G. Ulma, AICP, Planning Director
Approved by:  William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by:  Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Mr. Paul Rizzardi of Singh Development has requested a waiver of the one-year submission waiting period required by LDO Sec. 3.9.2(L), Effect of Decision on Successive Applications.  This land was the subject of a “conservation residential” subdivision plan that was denied by Town Council on April 26, 2007.

Since that time, the applicant has prepared a revised subdivision plan.  Based upon a number of discussions to identify potential improvements, staff believes that the direction now being followed for this new proposal will better meet the requirements of the Conservation Residential Overlay District.

Some of the key changes the developer has incorporated in the draft, revised plan include:

·         increased open space,

·         revised lot and road layouts,

·         incorporation of additional low-impact stormwater techniques, and

·         improved environmental protection.

While we have not reviewed the plan in detail at this point, we believe that the changes are sufficient for the applicant to submit a revised plan.  If the waiver request is approved, the subdivision plan will undergo complete review by staff, the Planning and Zoning Board, and Town Council.

 â                          Real Estate - Developers - Builders - Investors - Management

                                    .                                                                                                          

SINGH DEVELOPMENT, L.L.C.

5001 Weston Parkway—Suite 106

Cary, NC 27513

(919) 677-1700

(919) 678-8300 Fax

www.Singhweb.com

June 5, 2007

Mr. Jeffrey G. Ulma, AICP

Director, Planning Department

Town of Cary

Cary, NC 27513

RE:       Saxonbury-Singh Subdivision

            Description of Proposed Subdivision Plan Amendments to Accompany

            Request of Waiver to 1-year Waiting Period for Plan Resubmittal

Dear Jeff:

I would like to thank you for arranging the meeting of June 4, 2007 with yourself, Tom Horstman, and Wayne Nicholas and providing some feedback and direction on the proposed changes to our subdivision named Saxonbury-Singh.  Our project team in attendance, including myself, felt the meeting provided valuable insight of how to move forward with our amended subdivision plan.

As discussed in the meeting we are requesting to proceed with an Amended Subdivision Plan, containing substantial differences from the one previously submitted, and we respectfully request that the previously submitted waiver request for the one-year resubmittal period be moved forward to the Planning & Development sub-committee of Town Council for consideration.  The proposed amendments to the plan are listed herein, and, therefore, please feel free to forward this letter along with the original waiver request to assist in the sub-committee’s review of this matter. 

Additionally, I have attached five exhibits to help illustrate the proposed subdivision plan amendments.  You may forward all or only those exhibits that you feel will best assist in the sub-committee’s consideration of this item.

The attached exhibits are as follows:

1.       Previously submitted layout for Saxonbury-Singh (“Original Plan”) as already reviewed by Staff, Planning & Zoning Board, and Town Council

2.       Amended concept plan (“Amended Plan”) to incorporate the items discussed at the meeting of June 4, 2007

3.       Existing drainage basin analysis map (pre-existing conditions)

4.       Previous Plan’s drainage analysis map (post-construction conditions)

5.       Amended Plan’s drainage analysis map (post-construction conditions)

We believe the Amended Plan qualifies as a significant change to the Original Plan and qualifies for the waiver of the one year waiting period based on the Amended Plan proposing additional Low Impact Design Techniques (“LID Techniques”) both in the site’s layout and in the stormwater management design.  These items are further detailed below and are further discussed in relation to common Low-Impact Design Strategies.

LID Strategy #1:           Define Development Envelope and Protected Areas

Our project team identified the following LID site planning goals for Saxonbury, and these items have been listed in order of importance by our design team:

a.       Preserving riparian areas (areas adjacent to streams)

b.       Preserving the Green Level Historic District;

c.