Agenda & Minutes

Present: Mayor Harold Weinbrecht, Mayor Pro Tem Julie Robison, Council Members Gale Adcock, Don Frantz, Ervin Portman, Jennifer Robinson and Jack Smith

3. Adoption of agenda (Adopted agenda with the addition of item B.1.e, adoption of resolutions of sufficiency and resolutions calling for public hearings on Annexation Petition 08-A-14, Annexation Petition 08-A-15, and Annexation Petition 08-A-16)

The mayor stated that staff recommends adding agenda item B.1.e. to certify the suffiency and call for public hearings on annexations 08-A-14, 08-A-15 and 08-A-16.

ACTION: Mrs. Adcock moved to adopt the amended agenda, including the addition of annexations 08-A-14, 08-A-15 and 08-A-16. Mrs. Robinson provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.

CONSENT AGENDA items are items unanimously recommended for approval by all involved parties. The agenda has four distinct consent agenda: (1) the regular consent agenda contains standard items that go directly to council in which staff unanimously recommends approval; (2) the land development consent agenda contains items that have been unanimously approved by Town board(s)/commission(s) who have a role in the development process and staff and only require a simple majority vote; and (3) the planning and development committee consent agenda contains items that have been unanimously approved by the appropriate council committee and staff. A single vote may be taken for the approval of ALL consent agenda items.

The mayor referenced consent agenda item B.3.d., RFP for the community visioning project. He stated as part of council’s approval of this item on the consent agenda, he would like it to include his appointment of Mrs. Robison, Mrs. Robinson and himself to the consultant selection committee. By consensus, the council agreed.

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

a. Consideration of approval of the minutes of the regular town council meeting held on October 16, 2008 . (Approved)

c. Consideration of appointing Mayor Weinbrecht and Council Members Adcock and Robinson to serve on the legislative agenda planning subcommittee. (Approved)

d. Consideration of approval of the revised boards/commissions appointment process (including amendments to Chapter 2 of the Town of Cary Code of Ordinances; a policy statement on the council process for appointments to volunteer boards; and changes to board applications). (Approved)

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

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)

3. Planning and Development Committee, October 23, 2008 (click on this link for full text minutes of the planning and development committee consent agenda items)

a. Resolution to Levy a Gross Receipts Tax in Lieu of Property Tax on Heavy Equipment Rentals (AD09-004)
Committee unanimously recommended approval of a resolution imposing a gross receipts tax on heavy equipment in lieu of property tax and authorizing Wake County to assess and collect this tax on the Town’s behalf, remitting collected funds to the Town on a quarterly basis. (Approved)

b. Webster Street Renaming (IP09-002)
Committee unanimously recommended the renaming of the 100 block of Webster Street to “Zev Summit Lane” effective 30 days after the date of approval. (Approved)

c. Irrigation System Design Requirement Revisions (PWUT09-04)
Committee unanimously recommended revision of the irrigation system design requirements in the Community Appearance Manual as described in Attachments A and B. (Approved)

d. RFP for Community Visioning Project (PL09-014)
Committee unanimously recommended issuing a request for proposals for consulting services to manage the community visioning effort and the approval of the appointment of two or three Council members to the consultant selection team. (Approved; Mayor Weinbrecht and Council Members Robison and Robinson appointed to the consultant selection team)

1. Presentation of a proclamation recognizing November 1, 2008 as The 50th Golden Anniversary of Cary Band Day. (Presented)

WHEREAS, the Cary High School Band has proven its musical and marching abilities throughout the years by its continuing achievements of both national and regional recognition for its accomplishments; and

WHEREAS, members of the Cary High School Band have brought much honor to the Town of Cary and its citizens while also maintaining high scholastic aptitudes; and

WHEREAS, music plays an increasingly important role in our world today and is one of the most sublime of human pursuits and is subscribed to by all races and creeds; and

WHEREAS, music is the language of all peoples and one of the greatest forces in creating peace and harmony; and

WHEREAS, the citizens of Cary are proud of the Cary High School Band for its many accomplishments throughout the years, which recently includes being named Bands of America regional finalists in 2001, 2003, and 2004. In 2006 the band placed 4^th in the Prelims and 4^th in the Finals in St. Petersburg, FL ; and

WHEREAS, 2007 has been a year of great accomplishments for the Cary High School Band. They were named 2007 Dixie Classic Grand Champion at the 29_th Annual Dixie Classic in Danville, VA. They were named the Grand Champion at the 7^th Annual Highland Celebration, Scotland High School, in Laurinburg, NC.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Harold Weinbrecht, Jr., Mayor of the Town of Cary, North Carolina, on behalf of the Cary Town Council, do hereby proclaim Saturday, November 1, 2008, as the 50^TH GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY CARY BAND DAY and urge all citizens of Cary and the surrounding areas to join together in honoring and supporting this longstanding Cary tradition.

Mayor Weinbrecht presented the proclamation to representatives of Cary Band Day.

2. Recognition of Chris Hendricks as the recipient of the North Carolina Street Maintenance Worker of the Year Award from the North Carolina chapter of the American Public Works Association Streets Division. (Recognized Mr. Hendricks)

Public Works and Utilities Director Steve Brown presented the award to Mr. Chris Hendricks.

Ms. Ginger Warner thanked the council and staff for their assistance with the LDO amendment on tonight’s agenda for ratification.

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

1. ANNEXATION PETITION 08-A-12
Property Owner(s): Kera Gardens LLC
Location: 917 Reedy Creek Road
Acreage: 8.00 total deeded acres
Zoning: Residential 12 Conditional Use (R-12-CU)
Contiguous to Primary Corporate Limits: Yes
Existing Use: Residential Single-Family
Proposed Use: Residential Subdivision
Associated Case: 08-SB-009 (Kera Gardens Subdivision)
Speaker: Mr. Wayne Nicholas
Proposed Council Action: Council may take action (Approved)

a. ANNEXATION PETITION 08-A-13
Property Owner: White Oak Baptist Church River Birch Management, LLC
Location: 1512, 1512-A, 1609, 1621, 1624, 1704, 1725 White Oak Church Road
Acreage: 45.23 plus 2.30 acres of right-of-way
Zoning: Residential 40 Wake (R-40W)
Contiguous to Primary Corporate Limits: No
Existing Use: Church; Cemetery; and Vacant
Proposed Use: Religious Assembly; Life Care Community; Nursing Home; Adult Day Care; and Cemetery
Associated Case: 08-REZ-13 (White Oak Church Property)
Speaker: Mr. Wayne Nicholas
Proposed Council Action: No action required; the item will be placed on a future council agenda for action to coincide with the associated rezoning case (08-REZ-13, White Oak Church) (No action required)

b. REZONING 08-REZ-13, White Oak Church
Location: 770 feet north of White Oak Church Road and Green Level West Road intersection
Current Zoning: Residential 40 Wake (R-40W)
Proposed Zoning: Office and Institutional Conditional Use (OI-CU) and Residential 40 (R-40)
Acreage: 45.23 ±
Speaker: Mrs. Debra Grannan
Proposed Council Action: Refer to the November 17, 2008 planning and zoning board meeting (Referred to the 11/17/08 planning & zoning board meeting)

a. Subject: Public hearing to consider an ordinance designating the Guess-White-Ogle House, located at 215 S. Academy Street as a Cary Historic Landmark.
Speaker: Ms. Anna Readling, Mr. Gary Roth and Mr. Bob Myers
Proposed Council Action: Council may take action (Approved)

b. Subject: Public hearing to consider an ordinance designating the John Pullen Hunter House, located at 311 S. Academy Street , as a Cary Historic Landmark.
Speaker: Ms. Anna Readling, Mr. Gary Roth and Mr. Bob Myers
Proposed Council Action: Council may take action (Approved)

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 08-CPA-03, White Oak Baptist Church
Property Location: (1) the area located generally north of Green Level West Road, east of the American Tobacco Trail, west of Bachelor Branch, and south of Yates Store Road and the future westward extension of Morrisville Parkway; and (2) the area located north of Roberts Road, south of White Oak Creek, and west of the future I-540 Western Wake Parkway Current Land Use Plan: Conservation Residential, Very Low Density (VLCR), and Conservation Residential, Low Density (LCR)
Proposed Land Use Plan: Conservation Residential, Very Low Density (VLCR), and Conservation Residential, Low Density (LCR), but with amendments to the definitions of VLCR and LCR given in Section 2.2, Chapter 2, of the Southwest Area Plan
Acreage: 1,792 ±
Planning and Zoning Board recommendation: Recommended denial by majority vote
Speaker: Mr. Scott Ramage and Ms. Kelly Commiskey
Proposed council action: Council may take action (Denied)

This is a request from White Oak Baptist Church to amend portions of the text of Section 2.2, Land Use Category Definitions, in Chapter 2 of the Southwest Area Plan. Specifically, the applicant requests that the following underlined text be inserted into a [new] text box to be located proximate to the conservation residential land use definitions in that section.

Within either the Low or Very Low Density Conservation Residential categories, limited compatible and complementary institutional neighborhood uses may in some cases also be appropriate, such as religious institutions, schools, libraries, and daycare facilities.

In addition, since it is in the public interest that housing for seniors and the infirm should be available within one’s own community and social support setting, in some cases limited and compatible housing types such as life care communities and nursing homes may also be appropriate.

Whether or not a specific instance of such a use is considered appropriate depends on factors such as the following, as interpreted and evaluated by the Town Council and Planning Board:

The original amendment request considered at the Town Council public hearing was to amend the definition for “Conservation Residential, Very Low Density” in Section 2.2, Land Use Category Definitions, in Chapter 2 of the Southwest Area Plan, so that the revised definition would be (new text is underlined):

“Conservation Residential, Very Low Density (VLCR): This category, new for the Southwest Area Plan, pertains to very low density residential development proposed for areas west and south of the LCR regions and east of the American Tobacco Trail. Single-family detached residential dwellings shall have lot sizes of at least 2 acres. If the area is developed using conservation subdivision design principles, density may increase up to a maximum of 1 unit per acre, with lot sizes ranging from 20,000 square feet. Uses that are compatible and complementary to the surrounding neighborhood and these very low residential densities may be considered such as life care communities, nursing homes, religious institutions, schools, libraries and daycare facilities.”

The original amendment request also included a staff request that, should the applicant’s amendment be adopted, the definition of Low Density Conservation Residential (LCR) in Chapter 2 should be amended in the same way, in order to maintain consistency between VLCR and LCR. (If the amendment were deemed appropriate for VLCR, then logically it should also be appropriate in the denser LCR category.)

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.

Applicants	White Oak Baptist Church 621 White Oak Church Road Apex, NC 27523 ph. (919) 362-6768 contact: Reverend Charles R. Tyner, Sr.
Agent	Glenda Toppe, Jerry Turner and Associates, Inc. 905 Jones Franklin Road Raleigh, NC 27606 ph. (919) 851-7150; e-mail: gtoppe@jerryturnerassoc.com
Acreage	1,792 ± (note: the requested text amendment affects 1,792 ± acres, however the applicant represents 2.11 acres)
General Location	(1) the area located generally north of Green Level West Road, east of the American Tobacco Trail, west of Bachelor Branch, and south of Yates Store Road and the future westward extension of Morrisville Parkway; and (2) the area located north of Roberts Road, south of White Oak Creek, and west of the future I-540 Western Wake Parkway.
Hearings / Meetings	*Public Hearing* July 24, 2008	*Planning & Zoning* September 15, 2008	*Town Council* October 30, 2008
Existing Land Use Plan Designation	Conservation Residential, Very Low Density (VLCR), and Conservation Residential, Low Density (LCR)
Requested Land Use Plan Designation	Conservation Residential, Very Low Density (VLCR), and Conservation Residential, Low Density (LCR), with a text box added to the definitions of VLCR and LCR in Section 2.2, Chapter 2, of the Southwest Area Plan.
P&Z Recommendation	The Planning Board voted 4-2 to recommend denial of the request
Town of Cary Staff Contact	Scott Ramage, Principal Planner Town of Cary Planning Department 316 North Academy Street Cary, NC 27513 ph. (919) 462-3888 scott.ramage@townofcary.org

There are 508 parcels currently located within the areas designated as VLCR and LCR on Map 1, Future Land Use, of the Southwest Area Plan. A complete list of these parcels, including Wake County Property Identification Numbers (PIN’s) may be obtained from the Planning Department.

Provided below are the applicant’s responses to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Justification Questions contained in the application form. (The application questions are repeated below.) Please note that the statements below are that of the applicant and does not necessarily represent the views or opinions of the Town of Cary:

How is the proposed request reasonable? In explaining how it is reasonable, please address the following, if applicable:

1. Describe how the requested amendment is warranted due to changes in conditions, forecasts, or assumptions since the original Comprehensive Plan recommendations were developed.

Applicant Response: The text change is needed to allow certain nonresidential uses that are compatible and complementary to residential uses in the VLCR land use category. It is important for these uses to be located in all areas throughout the Town of Cary.

2. Describe how the requested amendment is warranted due to new issues, needs, or opportunities that have arisen in this geographic area since the original Comprehensive Plan recommendations were developed.

Applicant Response: Other land use categories in the Southwest Plan allow for certain types of complementary and compatible nonresidential uses. This CPA amendment would allow for this option in the VLCR category.

3. Describe how the requested amendment is warranted due to changes in Town policies, objectives, or standards since the original Comprehensive Plan recommendations were developed.

Applicant Response: It is important to include nonresidential uses that are compatible and complementary to residential uses in all areas of a community so that the residents can have the opportunity to use these uses without having to drive to other parts of the community. The proposed text amendment will not jeopardize the intent of the Southwest Plan.

4. Describe how the requested amendment is warranted due to errors or omissions in the current Comprehensive Plan.

Applicant Response: Other land use categories within the Southwest Plan make provisions for complementary and compatible nonresidential uses. This amendment would add this provision to the VLCR category.

The governing element of Cary’s Comprehensive Plan is the Southwest Area Plan, originally adopted in August 2004. The Southwest Area Plan identifies the subject parcels as a mix of Low and Very Low Density Conservation Residential (LCR and VLCR). The boundaries of these two land use categories are depicted on Map 1, Future Land Use, of that plan. Chapter 2 of the plan defines the two land use categories as follows:

 “Conservation Residential, Very Low Density (VLCR): This category, new for the Southwest Area Plan, pertains to very low density residential development proposed for areas west and south of the LCR regions and east of the American Tobacco Trail. Single-family detached residential dwellings shall have lot sizes of at least 2 acres. If the area is developed using conservation subdivision design principles, density may increase up to a maximum of 1 unit per acre, with lot sizes ranging from 20,000 square feet.”

 “Conservation Residential, Low Density (LCR): This category, new for the Southwest Area Plan, pertains to low-density residential development proposed for areas west of the future I-540 interchange. Single-family detached residential dwellings shall have lot sizes of at least 1 acre. If the area is developed using conservation subdivision design principles, density may increase up to a maximum of 2.5 units per acre, with lot sizes ranging from 10,000 square feet.”

B. Comprehensive Transportation Plan:
Since this case concerns a large, 1,792-acre area, and not a single or small group of parcels, it is not practical to identify the Transportation Plan recommendations that might affect each of the parcels. Refer instead to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan for general information.

C. Parks & Greenways Master Plan:
Since this case concerns a request for a large, 1,792-acre area, and not a single or small group of parcels, it is not practical to identify all possible parks and greenway facilities planned for this area. Refer instead to the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Master Plan for general information.

The subject parcels include properties located within the Green Level National Register Historic District, as well as many significant open space resources. However, since this case concerns a large, 1,792-acre area, it is not practical to identify all possible open space resources within this area. Refer instead to the Open Space and Historic Resources Plan for general information.

E. Affordable Housing Plan:
The Affordable Housing Plan includes the following goals and objectives which could bear on the subject amendment request:

1. Provide for a full range of housing choices for all income groups, families of various sizes, seniors, and persons with special challenges.

Staff observation: The proposed amendment would open up the possibility for providing housing and care for seniors and the infirm within their own community.

2. Assure a quality living environment and access to public amenities for all residents, present and future, of the Town of Cary, regardless of income.

Staff observation: The proposed amendment might help to provide access to senior housing and residential care for the infirm within their own community.

F. Growth Management Plan: The Growth Management Plan includes the following two Guiding Principles which are relevant to this case:

1. Guiding Principle L2: Ensure that future growth protects sensitive natural resources and protects open space.

Analysis: It is difficult to ascertain the extent to which future neighborhood-supportive institutional development might protect natural resources and open space. The nature and extent of such protection would be determined as part of the rezoning and/or site plan approval process.

2. Guiding Principle A1: Increase permitted densities in preferred growth areas to encouraged desired forms of development.

Analysis: In general, the southwest area is not designated as a preferred growth area in which higher densities are encouraged. However, three of the types of uses mentioned in the amendment (schools, places of worship, daycare) are already allowed by right via the existing
R-40 base zoning. And, while life care communities and nursing homes might have uncharacteristically high densities when viewed as housing, they also tend to have low traffic generation and low levels of on-site activity. These considerations may need to be balanced against the good of providing senior housing within the fabric of the communities they serve.

Representatives for White Oak Baptist Church, part of the White Oak Community since 1865, stated that the proposed amendment would help address a need in the community for housing for seniors and the infirm, places of worship, schools, and daycare. They felt that the Southwest Plan should provide support for certain institutional uses within the LCR and VLCR land use categories, just as it does for the LDR and VLDR categories (Low and Very Low Density Residential).

Two citizens supported the amendment, two citizens opposed the amendment, and one citizen felt that institutional uses were not compatible with rural character, but then he felt it was no longer reasonable to expect Green Level to remain rural. One citizen in opposition was, however, supportive of expansion of White Oak Baptist Church and the provision of a nursing home near the church. Citizens opposed to the amendment were concerned with development impacts, wanted to maintain the area as single-family only, and were concerned that the applicants represent only a small fraction of the total SW Plan acreage. There was also concern that the amendment seemed to provide plan support for all institutional and supportive uses, rather than case-by-case consideration.

Citizens supportive of the amendment felt it would not jeopardize the intent of the Southwest Plan, that it offered land use options for parcels that are too small for conservation subdivisions, and that it would help meet the Town’s need for schools, places of worship, and other institutional uses. It was also stated that the inclusion of supportive uses would enable shorter trips to reach such facilities.

Some Council members supported expanding the land use definitions to provide support for schools, places of worship, and daycares, since such uses were already allowed by base zoning. Several Council members were concerned about whether the amendment seemed to provide policy support for any and all future requests for life care communities and/or nursing homes, and wanted the amendment to support case-by-case discretion when evaluating rezoning requests for such uses.

Council also discussed whether the proposed plan text amendment would have been better dealt with as a plan map amendment, limited to properties of concern to the applicant. One Council member felt it might be confusing for the Southwest Plan’s VLCR and LCR categories to include uses that are not allowed by the LDO in the residential zoning districts (i.e., life care communities and nursing homes).

The applicants fully revised the amendment to make clear that it does not support any and all rezoning requests for life care communities, nursing homes, and/or other institutional uses, and that Council and the Planning Board have discretion in determining whether or not a specific case is appropriate, on a case-by-case basis. The revised amendment is described on the first page of this report, followed by a description of the amendment as originally considered.

Representatives for White Oak Baptist Church expressed the importance of providing housing options for seniors and the infirm within their neighborhoods, in order to help residents maintain their social ties and support networks. They stated that the church has been part of the community since 1865, and serves a deep-rooted and established community. They noted that some uses allowed under the existing R-40 zoning – such as public schools – could have a much greater impact than life care or nursing homes.

Three citizens spoke in opposition to the amendment, however one speaker stated she might support assisted living facilities for Alzheimer’s patients only. Speakers were concerned about maintaining rural character, and felt the additional uses in the amendment were not compatible. Speakers were also concerned about potential development impacts, including impacts on the American Tobacco Trail, traffic, light pollution, water quality, trees, and wildlife. One citizen presented a petition with 44 signatures opposed to the amendment, collected primarily from users on the American Tobacco Trail. (However, the petition text did not accurately represent the proposed amendment, stating that the proposal would convert the area to “offices, institutions, … and retirement complexes.”)

The Board voted 4-2 to recommend denial of the CPA request as presented at the meeting.

Board members opposed to the amendment expressed a preference for the VLCR land use category to remain single-family detached only, and felt that uses such as life care communities were incompatible. One board member thought the land use definitions should not provide support for schools, places of worship, and daycare, even if such uses are allowed by the existing R-40 and R-20 zoning. One Board member felt the proposed amendment should include more specific requirements and standards for the new uses. A couple Board members supported having a life care/nursing home facility on the applicant’s site, but were opposed to amending the plan for all VLCR and LCR areas, and would have preferred a plan map, rather than document, amendment.

Board members supportive of the amendment felt that nursing homes and life care facilities could fit compatibly in the VLCR and LCR areas, using context-sensitive design. They felt the amendment adequately supported case-by-case review, and would enable the Town and the community to keep options open for reasonable proposals for neighborhood-supportive uses.

C. Changes after the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of September 15, 2008

It may have been an oversight that when the Southwest Area Plan was adopted in 2004, the definitions provided for the LCR and VLCR land use categories did not include the statement that “uses that are compatible and complementary to the character of the surrounding neighborhood may also be considered, including uses such as religious institutions, schools, libraries, and daycare facilities.” This statement would have been consistent not only with all the other land use categories used in the Southwest Area Plan, but also with the existing underlying base zoning.

This case raises an important question that was not addressed during development of the Southwest Area Plan in 2003-2004, namely that of whether or not housing for seniors and the infirm should be provided within the community where they have lived. In recent years there has been increasing focus nationally on providing such housing within neighborhoods, so that senior and infirm residents can maintain and be sustained by the social ties they have with their community, rather than being cut off from such support if forced to relocate outside their community. Contemporary land planning practice has therefore been supportive of integrating such uses within neighborhoods and communities.

The Green Level community includes families that extend back many generations, as does the community served by White Oak Baptist Church. Staff feels that – on balance – there is a greater community good in providing housing for seniors and the infirm within their neighborhoods than in restricting all residential development within the southwest area to single-family residential.

Most rural communities in North Carolina do in fact include facilities such as nursing homes, schools, daycares, libraries, and religious institutions. The extent to which such uses conform with or detract from rural character depends on the number, size, and distribution of such uses, and those factors can largely be controlled through the Special Use (school, daycare, religious institution, library) and/or rezoning process (life care community, nursing home). Rural character can also be sustained with context-sensitive development plans that provide adequate open space, vegetated screening and buffers.

It should be noted that the area’s existing R-40 base zoning already allows schools, daycares, religious institutions, and libraries either by-right or as special uses. Such uses could easily have comparable or greater impacts than life care communities or nursing homes. Stormwater and water quality ordinances hold all development in the area to the same standard, regardless of the type and density of development. Traffic impacts will continue to be regulated by the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance for Transportation.

The proposed amendment does not give blanket support for any and all cases of schools, places of worship, daycare, life care, nursing homes, and so forth. If the Town were to receive a rezoning or development plan application for such a use, Council and the Planning Board would have full discretion in determining whether or not the case was appropriate and conformed with the Comprehensive Plan, based on factors such as those specified in the amendment text.

It is important to distinguish between the policy recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, and the regulatory requirements of the LDO. Regardless of the Southwest Area Plan’s recommendations, schools and religious assembly sites of more than 20 acres are allowed by right in the existing R-40 and R-20 Districts, and daycare centers, large daycare homes, and schools and religious assembly sites of 20 acres or less are allowed as special uses. Life care communities and nursing homes are not allowed within the area’s existing R-40 and R-20 Districts; a rezoning request to OI District would be required for those uses, giving Council complete legislative control over whether to approve such a rezoning request.

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:”

Staff Comment: Over the last several years, the Town has been challenged by the scarcity of land available for schools, places of worship, and other institutional uses. The proposed amendment may offer opportunities to provide a certain number of such facilities, in a manner compatible with the goals of the Plan. The Southwest Plan did not specifically consider the community’s needs for senior housing and housing for the infirm, especially in light of contemporary planning practice that encourages the provision of such uses within the fabric of the neighborhoods they serve.

Staff Comment: The Southwest Area Plan does include allowances for supporting institutional uses such as religious institutions, schools, libraries, and daycare facilities within the definitions given for the High, Medium, and Low Density Residential categories. It may have been an oversight not to have included comparable text for the definitions given for the Conservation Residential categories.

Recommendation: On balance, and based on the analysis provided above, staff recommends in favor of the amendment request.

I move that we amend Section 2.2, Chapter 2, of the Southwest Area Plan as currently proposed by the applicant.

I move that we amend Section 2.2, Chapter 2, of the Southwest Area Plan as currently proposed by the applicant, but with the following further changes and modifications: (list any additional changes).

I move that we deny the proposed amendment because it fails to meet the requirements of Section 3.2.2(B) of the Land Development Ordinance for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and for other reasons and justifications cited in this staff report.

Staff’s PowerPoint presentation is attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit. Planning and Zoning Board chair Commiskey outlined the Board’s recommendations (as outlined herein).

Mrs. Robinson clarified and Mr. Ramage of the planning staff confirmed that the requested uses are already allowed in other areas of the southwest plan.

Mr. Frantz asked whether a council approved comprehensive plan amendment would result in a defacto approval of the rezoning that has been requested. Mrs. Robinson responded negatively and stated it will only allow the rezoning to be in compliance with the plan. Mr. Portman stated the applicant may seek a rezoning that does not comply with the comprehensive plan, but it would be a higher hurdle.

Mr. Smith stated he is attempting to understand the added value of all these layers. He stated if the council denies this request, then the applicant may still request a rezoning, and it would put the burden on the applicant to justify the rezoning.

Mr. Portman stated council has the option to approve this request without the institutional use. Mr. Ramage concurred. He stated it seems to be an omission in the area plan in this case where the land use plan and the rezoning categories are not compatible.

Mrs. Robison pointed out stated the southwest area is very special, and it may have been intentional that certain uses are not allowed. Mrs. Adcock concurred.

Mr. Portman asked if the school officials are considering locating a school in this area. Mr. Ramage stated this is his understanding. Mr. Portman asked if the proposed location allows a school. Mr. Portman clarified that the base zoning (R-40) allows schools, libraries, daycares and churches. He stated it is not relevent if the land use plan doesn’t allow these uses, because the zoning clearly allows them.

ACTION: Mr. Portman moved to proceed to modify the comprehensive plan to include schools, daycares, churches and libraries but not the institutional use. Mrs. Robinson provided the second.

Mr. Portman thinks this needs to be cleaned up, and he thinks this action will support the planning and zoning board’s recommendation for denial, because he thinks most of their concerns relate to the institutional use. He stated the church may still come forward with a rezoning.

Mr. Frantz does not understand why a life care facility is not appropriate for this area, and he understands the discrepancies between the R-40 zoning and the land use plan. Mrs. Robinson stated the uses as stated by Mr. Portman in his motion are already allowed in the R-40 zoning district, and the motion would simply align the land use plan with the R-40 zoning.

Mrs. Adcock asked if this issue arose at the planning board meeting. Ms. Commiskey responded negatively. Mrs. Adcock asked why the council needs to amend the comprehensive plan if the base zoning already supports these uses. Mr. Portman thinks it is a clean-up issue of a probable oversight.

Mayor Weinbrecht asked if it is appropriate for the council to vote on a motion that differs from the request without another public hearing. Town Attorney Chris Simpson stated council may adopt modifications to the request.

Mr. Frantz thought the intent of the conservation district in the southwest plan was to maintain this area as rural and prevent high traffic generators such as schools, daycares, and libraries. He stated if we were to amend the plan to include these uses, then wh