|
DRAFT (Contact the town clerk at 919-469-4011 for official minutes)
Cary
Town Council Action Agenda
NOTE: Click on the links within this document to view full text 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.
_________________________
2. Ceremonial Opening (Mrs. Robinson)
Mrs. Robinson provided the ceremonial opening.
_________________________
3. Adoption of agenda (Town Council)
ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith moved to adopt the agenda; Mr. Portman provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
B. CONSENT AGENDA
Mrs. Robison stated her opposition to consent agenda item B.2.f., Evans Road Widening Project Condemnation Resolution.
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 August 23, 2007, and the minutes of the Cary and Morrisville joint meeting held on August 21, 2007. (Approved)
ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith moved to approve the consent agenda in its entirety. Mrs. Robinson provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
2. Operations Committee, September 6, 2007 (Click on this link to view the full text minutes of the operations committee consent agenda)
a.
Funding Source
Reclassification - Symphony Lake Greenway Bridge
(AD08-001)
b.
Connectivity – Criteria to
Connect Existing Roads
(EN08-026)
c.
Contract Award – Soils and
Materials Testing
(EN08-030)
d.
Morrisville Parkway Extension
Project Condemnation Resolutions
(EN08-031)
e.
Bid Award – Hazelwood
Subdivision and Wild Weasel Way Water and Sewer Extension Projects
(EN08-032)
f.
Evans Road Widening Project
Condemnation Resolution (EN08-033)
g.
Multi-way Stop Signs (EN08-034)
h.
Bid Award – Service Ladder
Truck Replacement
(FD08-001)
i.
Pre-Employment Background
Checks
(HR08-001)
j.
Amendments to Schedules
(PD08-006)
k.
Policy to Conduct Criminal
Background Checks for Volunteers
(PR08-004)
l.
Bid Award - White Oak Creek
Greenway
(PR08-005)
m.
PRCR Athletics Division
Reorganization
(PR08-006)
n.
Integrated Water Resources
Management Plan
(PWUT08-001)
o.
WaterSense Partnership
(PWUT08-002)
p.
Revised Amendment No. 2 to
Interlocal Agreement for Design, Construction, Ownership, Management and
Operation of Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
(PWUT08-003)
q.
Chatham County Water Intake
Agreement (PWUT08-004)
r.
New Project – Phase II of a
Stream Restoration
(EN08-004)
C. RECOGNITIONS, REPORTS, AND PRESENTATIONS
There were no recognitions, reports or presentations on this agenda.
_________________________
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.
MIXED USE SKETCH PLAN 07-MU-06, Kilmayne Office Center Request
The applicant is requesting that Town Council approve a Mixed Use Sketch Plan (MUSP) to allow 85,500± square feet of office floor space located in 4 buildings in the southeastern portion of the Mayfair Mixed Use Center.
The purpose of the Mixed Use Overlay District is to enable the development of land in areas designated as mixed use centers on the Land Use Plan Map in accordance with the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan and individual mixed use sketch plans. It is intended to promote higher-density, mixed-use developments of varying sizes, as an alternative to lower-density separate-use suburban sprawl-type development.
Mixed use sketch plans are conceptual documents that address the general
density, mix of uses, and development patterns within a mixed use
center. They are less detailed than the plans required for full site
plan review. The intent is to provide sufficient information to
determine consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the Town’s Design
Guidelines. Specific development issues must be addressed for compliance
with existing requirements specified in the Land Development Ordinance
(LDO) when the site plan is submitted. The site plan is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit.
Background Information
* Future meeting dates are tentative
Property Owner Information
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
A. Land Use Plan: This mixed use sketch plan conforms to the adopted Land Use Plan. The current land use designation for the subject parcels is Office/Institutional (OFC/INS); the proposed office development is consistent with the Office/Institutional (OFC/INS) land use designation. The subject parcels are part of the Mayfair Community Mixed Use Center which currently includes a mix of Commercial (COM), Office/Institutional (OFC/INS) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) land uses.
B. Growth Management Plan:
C. Affordable Housing Plan:
D. Transportation:
SE Maynard Road Future Section: 4 lane median divided Road Improvements: widening to meet Comprehensive Transportation Plan requirements Sidewalks Requirements: both sides Bicycle Requirements: wide outside lanes Transit Requirements: None Traffic Analysis: A traffic study (07-TAR-239) was conducted by Sepi Engineering. The following are preliminary recommendations from the study for this development:
These recommendations are based on staff comments from draft study and the TOC reserves the right to adjust these recommendations with additional review.
E. Parks & Greenways:
F. Environmental:
G. Buffers:
H. Streetscape:
Consistency with the Land Development Ordinance
The proposed project is in the MUSP stage; therefore, only preliminary engineering of the site has been done. Prior to Site or Subdivision Plan approval, the application will be required to demonstrate consistency with the LDO with respect to specific development requirements, such as access, stormwater management, road improvements, utility line placement, road connectivity and landscape plantings.
Base Zoning and MUSP Comparison:
The proposed MUSP allows for the inclusion of the lots immediately adjacent to SE Maynard Road as office floor space. The current base zoning for those properties is Residental-12 (R-12) which would preclude all non-residential development. The amount of square footage allowed on the remainder of the site, would remain unchanged from that allowed under the base zoning. Flexibility in buffers is granted by the parcel being located within a Mixed Use Overlay District and is available under either the base zoning or through the MUSP process.
Town Council Criteria for Consideration in Reviewing Mixed Use Sketch Plans:
Proposed MUSPs shall be reviewed for compliance with the following approval criteria where deemed appropriate (i.e., it may not be practical for some existing or partially-built mixed use district to achieve certain design standards).
Section 4.4.2 (J) of the Land Development Ordinance sets forth the following criteria that Council should consider in reviewing MUSPs.
(1) The mixed use sketch plan has been prepared consistent with the requirements of this Section and the Land Use Plan; (2) The mixed use sketch plan includes an appropriate mix of land uses for the overall activity center, including residential, commercial, office, and institutional uses; (3) The mixed use sketch plan will meet or exceed Town design guidelines and other established Town standards; (4) The mixed use sketch plan includes medium- and higher-density housing; (5) The mixed use sketch plan includes some formal outdoor space for public use, such as a park, village green, or plaza; larger mixed use centers should include more such space than smaller centers; and (6) The mixed use sketch plan demonstrates that there has been participation by residents, property owners in the surrounding neighborhoods, and the Town, so that the proposed development responds specially to the unique conditions of the area.
Other Reference Information
Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted (August 9, 2007)
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. Any issues with the size of the tract?
There are no issues with
the size of the tract. 2. How is the request compatible with the comprehensive plan (i.e. Land Use, Transportation, Open Space and Historic Resources)?
The adopted Land Use Plan
designates the parcel for office development. The proposed use is
office. 3. What are the benefits and detriments to the owner, neighbors and the community?
The Town of Cary has identified this area as a Mixed Use Overlay District (MUOD). The proposed MUSP meets the intent of the Town’s development policies to provide office development at major intersections in Cary. All proposed development must meet the requirements of the LDO. These regulations will adequately protect adjacent property owners.
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?
Other property in the vicinity of the proposed rezoning is currently developed for the same type of use proposed.
Staff’s powerpoint presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit. There is a valid protest petition filed on this request.
Mr. Jerry Turner of Jerry Turner and Associates, on behalf of the property owner, stated this is for approval of a mixed use sketch plan, and of the five acres only two acres on Maynard Road are not zoned office and institutionaI. He stated people have attempted to rezone it a couple of times in recent years. He stated the comprehensive plan shows office. He has met with neighbors, and there were many comments about the setback from Maynard Road; however, Cary’s design standards want developers to push buildings closer to the road. He will continue to work with the neighbors.
Mr. Ed Clayton stated he understands that the sketch plan still needs work and staff reviews are not complete, but his one opportunity to speak is tonight at the beginning of the process. He stated the playing field is not level. He stated this proposal applies mixed use guidelines to a neighborhood where the setbacks do not fit at the intersection of Maynard Road. He stated the proposal would locate two buildings facing Maynard with only one-half of the setback to the street that is provided by the funeral home in the area. Mr. Clayton commented that this plan is not cohesive, as each of the four mini sites has its own building, its own parking lot and its own wet pond. He stated a portion of the mixed use district is not part of the proposal, because the homeowner does not want to sell; however, the applicant is required by code to provide stub-outs to the residential property in anticipation of future office use. He stated the one stub-out shown on the proposal is inadequate. He stated the prelimary traffic study recommends eliminating two of the parking lot access points to Kilmayne because they are too close to the Maynard intersection. However, in the traffic study these access points were not removed before the sketch plan was submitted. He stated one of the interior mini sites in the plan shows a four-story office building, and he does not think this is an adequate transition to the residential property. Mr. Clayton noted that the trees will be cleared to accommodate the proposed buildings. Additionally, he stated the plan’s goal seems to maximize the square footage of office space. He would like a plan to complement the church and funeral home properties and one that also provides a suitable transition to the adjacent residential use. He asked council to provide more citizen involvement. He encouraged the council to reevaluate the mixed use code and process. He has posted information on a blog at kilmayne.blogspot.com.
Mr. Steve Johnson stated this development will worsen traffic on SE Maynard Road. He is not opposed to a mixed use development on Kilmayne, but he urged council to consider the following to lessen impact: no curb cuts on Maynard, focus development on Kilmayne Drive, orient buildings adjacent to Maynard Road so the long dimension faces Kilmayne, provide large buffer zones between the buildings and Maynard Road and use established trees, and be sure plans for development of the parcel at the SE corner of Maynard and Kilmayne is consistent with this proposal. He suggested that council defer any action on this proposal until this outstanding parcel can also be considered.
Mr. Bruce Dean stated the vacancy rate of office space in this area is high, and no residential development has been proposed recently. He wants to preserve the residential character as much as possible and use landscaping and sloped roofs. He is concerned about building setbacks and wants the setback to be compatible with other buildings in the area. He stated the plan shows two four-story office buildings, which is unprecedented in this part of town. He thinks this use will create a high occupancy density, which will negatively impact traffic. He suggested to restrict access to the property only from Kilmayne and not allow it on Maynard for safety reasons. He asked if this project is impacted by the watershed protection district. He added that Woodland Terrace provided a 70 foot buffer, and this applicant is proposing 40 feet; he asked for more buffer and for lighting that will not impact the residential development.
Ms. Sherri Phillips stated this development will negatively impact their neighborhood. She stated the office use will decrease home values, and she stated there is vacant office and commercial space in the vicinity. If the rezoning is approved, she asked that buildings face Kilmayne and provide ample landscaping. She stated residents in this area were some of the first residents in Cary. She believes the following issues need to be addressed: increased traffic on Maynard, increased congestion, ample building setback to improve motorist and pedestrian safety, safe movement of pedestrian traffic, increase in stormwater runoff and pollution, loss of green space, increase in noise, increase in smell if there will be a restaurant, light pollution, increase in business and street signage, decrease in air quality, increase in volume of service truck traffic, increase in road access, and increase in rental properties. She stated they do not want to see it, smell it or hear it.
Ms. Claudia Dean is not opposed to the development of the green space pockets, as long as it fits into the surrounding area.
Ms. Suzanne Davis urged council to treasure and preserve the older neighborhoods in Cary. She stated the funeral home and church have more than a 60 foot setback. She stated she had difficulty getting information about the hearing date from staff. She urged the council to review the process.
No one else came forward to speak, and the mayor closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Robinson stated recently with a restaurant the council split the difference with regard to setback. She believes the proposed setback is appropriate in a new urban environment, but she thinks the council should use discretion in established neighborhoods. She urged staff and the applicant to reconsider this.
Mr. Portman stated the mixed use sketch plan work session is on October 2, which is before the Planning and Zoning Board will hear this case. He thinks the council should review the original mixed use sketch plan concept, which was to provide more flexibility in zoning for mixing uses in exchange for a more comprehensive view of the entire quadrant of an intersection. He stated this is not the case in this situation, because there is not an entire quadrant. He agrees with Mrs. Robinson’s comments about the setback issue.
Mrs. Robison concurred with Mr. Portman, and she appreciates the reasonable comments of the speakers. She would like to preserve the tree cover in this area. She mentioned that the staff presentation included a statement that no comments were provided in the Neighborhood America public comment product, and she believes this statement did not adequately represent the other public comment that was received.
Ms. Dorrel stated one of the purposes of the setback guidelines is to avoid a massive sea of parking in front of the building and to make it more pedestrian friendly. She recognizes the difficulty in infill situations, especially this one with residential on one side and commericial on the other. She asked what the term “area shown conceputally” means in the powerpoint presentation. Mr. Hales of the planning staff stated the applicant is required to submit a site plan showing the entire quadrant. However, he added in this infill situation there are only five parcels, and one property owner chose not to participate in the request. He stated the ordinance was written so that the developer would not be held hostage due to one or more property owners not participating. He stated the ordinance was recently changed to allow the plan to be shown conceputally and not to the detailed level that is required in the sketch plan in order to show how it might develop in the future with the inclusion of the properties not participating in the request. Ms. Dorrel asked if the Powell family (who is not participating in this request at this time) would be bound to an office building in the future that is similar to the conceptual drawing. Mr. Hales stated the council cannot bind the property owner, and the drawing is only conceptual to show how it might later tie in.
Ms. Dorrel asked about building height. Mr. Hales described the building height according to the sketch plan. He stated the four-story buildings are approximately 50 to 60 feet.
Mr. Roseland stated the setback is creating conflict with nearby neighbors. He would like another plan as it moves through the process to respect the transition between this development and the residential development. He questioned why this plan is labeled a mixed use sketch plan but it includes only office development. Mr. Hales replied that mixed use sketch plans theoretically plan for the entire quadrant, and the quadrant has a mix of uses with the office, the church, the retail, etc. He stated this is infill development. Mr. Roseland looks forward to the upcoming work session. He stated an office use that is low key and compatible with the neighborhood would probably make sense in this location.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated the Town did not require the drug store in the area to be pushed closer to the road. He stated there should be a higher standard for infill development. He thinks it should go back with the message that the council expects a higher quality for this location.
Mr. Portman stated the applicant had no option and was required to use the mixed use sketch plan process. He stated the applicant has mentioned that they did not necessarily agree with pushing the building closer to the road. He would like staff to review section 3b in the land development ordinance regarding geographic coverage of mixed use sketch plans. He stated it seems that this plan does not comply because it does not include the entire quadrant. He stated no one should get the benefits of mixed use unless the entire quadrant is included. He asked staff to follow up with council.
Mrs. Robison stated what the council sees in the presentation versus the application of the mixed use planning tool is not in sync. She concurred with Mr. Portman’s comments.
Ms. Dorrel stated concerns were raised about the orientation of the building. She stated there is no on-street parking, and pushing the building up acommodates pedestrians. She stated this issue raises concerns about whether practical benefits with moving buildings closer to the street will be met. She stated the application seems awkward. Mr. Hales stated staff has made similar comments to the applicant.
ACTION: Referred to the December 17, 2007 Planning and Zoning Board meeting
_________________________
2.
ANNEXATION PETITION 07-A-11
Annexation Petition Number:
07-A-11 Research Triangle
Foundation of NC UTILITIES:
MEETINGS: 07-A-11 AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING LANDS NOT CONTIGUOUS TO THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF THE TOWN OF CARY , NORTH CAROLINA WHEREAS, on 1/29/2007 , the Town Council has been petitioned under G.S. 160A-58.1 to annex the area described below: KRG/Prisa II Parkside LLC; Research Triangle Foundation of NC; Wake County Parcel Identification #0736147496 portion, 0736327647, 0736511799, 0736227527, 0736233947, 0736233114, 0736221835; including 125.19 acres, plus 0 acres of adjacent right-of-way; which are Non Contiguous to the existing municipal limits of the Town of Cary; and WHEREAS, on 8/23/2007 , the Town Clerk of the Town of Cary certified the sufficiency of said Petition, the same being duly made after investigation; and WHEREAS, on 8/23/2007, the Town Council of the Town of Cary ordered a public hearing on the question of said annexation and Notice of a Public Hearing was published in the newspaper of general circulation as required by law; and WHEREAS, the matter came for public hearing before the Town Council of the Town of Cary on 9/11/2007, at which time all persons opposed and all persons in favor of said annexation were allowed to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Town Council hereby finds that the area described herein meets the standards of G.S. 160A-58.1(b), described as follows: a. The nearest point on the proposed satellite corporate limits is not more than three miles from the corporate limits of the Town. b. No point on the proposed satellite corporate limits is closer to another municipality than to the Town. c. The area described is so situated that the Town will be able to provide the same services within the proposed satellite corporate limits that it provides within the primary corporate limits. d. No subdivision, as defined in G.S. 160A-376, will be split up by this proposed annexation. e. The area within the proposed satellite corporate limits, when added to the area within all other satellite corporate limits, does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the area within the primary corporate limits of the Town. f. The public health, safety, and welfare of the Town and of the area proposed for annexation will be best served by annexing the area described herein; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Cary , North Carolina that: Section 1. By virtue of the authority granted by 160A-58.1, the area described in the petition and depicted on the attached map, is hereby annexed to and made a part of the Town of Cary, effective on 9/11/2007 with a condition that the property owner connect to the Town of Cary sewer/water line based upon the Town’s policy(ies) in place on the effective date of this ordinance. A map and description of the annexed area are on file in the Planning Department, Cary Town Hall.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION (for PIN #0736147496 portion) Section 2. That from and after the effective date of this ordinance, the territory and its citizens and property shall be subject to all debts, laws, ordinances and regulations in force in the Town of Cary, and shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as other parts of the municipality. Said territory shall be subjected to municipal taxes according to G.S. 160A-58.10. Section 3. The Mayor of the Town of Cary shall cause an accurate map of the newly annexed territory together with a copy of this ordinance, duly certified, to be recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Wake County and in the Office of the Secretary of State of North Carolina. Section 4. Pursuant of G.S. 160A-22, the Town Clerk is directed to update the Official Town Map by drawing in the territory annexed, or setting out the boundaries in a written description, or showing the current Town boundaries by a combination of these techniques. Such a map shall also be delivered to the Wake County Board of Elections as required by G.S. 163-288.1. Section 5. Pursuant of G.S. 160A-23, the boundaries of Electoral District A are hereby revised to account for and include the territory annexed, and the Official Town Map of Electoral Wards is hereby amended to include the annexed territory in the said Electoral District. Adopted on 9/11/2007.
Mr. Dan Barutio of Teer Associates, on behalf of the partners of this development, stated this is an exciting development for Cary and Research Triangle Park. They hope to begin construction later this year.
No one else came forward to speak, and the mayor closed the public hearing and announced that vote will occur later on this agenda.
________________________
E. PUBLIC SPEAKS OUT (no one spoke)
_________________________
F. LAND DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Parkside Town Commons development
a.
ANNEXATION PETITION 07-A-11 The staff report is provided earlier in these minutes.
b.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
07-CPA-03,
Parkside Town Commons Request
The applicant is
requesting Council approve an amendment to the Land Use Plan Map of the
Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Cary to establish a land use
designation for approximately 17.94 acres located at 5128 NC Highway 55
of Mixed Use (MXD) within the Regional
Activity Center around the
interchange of I-540 and NC Hwy 55. The request will establish a base
land use designation for land currently within
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 comprehensive plan amendment 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 or Area Plan Requirements:
A. Land Use Plan: This case proposes to make an initial land use designation to the Town’s Land Use Plan, an element of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, as well as to the area plan for this part of Cary, the Northwest Area Plan. Since the subject parcel has already been recommended for inclusion in the Alston Regional Activity Center via adoption of the Alston ACCP (Activity Center Concept Plan), this amendment is consistent with both the recommended limits of the ultimate boundaries of the Regional Activity Center, and with the mixed use character of the Parkside Neighborhood within the Alston ACCP. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||