|
Town of Holly Springs MINUTES The Holly Springs Town Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, September 4, 2001 in the Town Board meeting chambers, located in Town Hall, 128 S. Main St. Mayor Parrish L. Womble presided, calling the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. A quorum was established as the mayor and all five board members were present as the meeting opened. Board Members Present: Commissioners Tim Sack, John Schifano, Chet VanFossen, Peter Atwell and Hank Dickson and Mayor Womble. Board Members Absent: None. Staff Members Present: Carl G. Dean, town manager; Chuck Simmons, assistant town manager; Ernest C. Pearson, town attorney; Joni Powell, town clerk (recording the minutes); Linda Harper, deputy town clerk; Gina Bobber, planning and zoning director; Cecil Parker, chief of public safety; Drew Holland, finance director; Stephanie Sudano, director of engineering; Len Bradley, director of parks and recreation; and Jennifer Carr, director of economic development. 2 and 3.The pledge of allegiance was recited, and the meeting opened with a moment of silent meditation. 4. Agenda Adjustment – The September 4, 2001 meeting agenda was adopted with changes, if any, as listed below. Motion Made By: Sack *Note: The following three public hearings are related to one another. The Town has received various petitions for the creation of a townhome development called “Brookdale Village” on a tract previously approved for the proposed Spencer’s Trace development by another developer. The development plans have changed and the new developer proposes to add 3.14 acres (to be removed from the Saddle Ridge development plan) to the project. For the total new project to receive Town approval, the following three steps must be followed in this order: (1) amend the Land Use Plan to designate the additional 3.14‑acre tract as high‑density residential; (2) rezone the smaller tract from R‑20 to R‑10; (3) issuance of a Special Use Permit for multi‑family complexes/townhomes for the new development plan. All three steps require public hearings, and each approval is contingent upon approval of the previous step. 5a. Public Hearing: Amending the Comprehensive Growth Plan – Ms. Bobber explained that the Town has received a petition requesting the rezoning of 3.14 acres from R‑20 to R‑10, and the petition (01‑REZ‑08) is the subject of the next public hearing. The smaller tract adjoins 24.38 acres of R‑10 zoned property, and the petitioners propose to add the 3.14 acres to their project. Together, the total acreage is being proposed for a high‑density (townhome) residential development with an application for a Special Use Permit, Ms. Bobber explained. In order for the Town Board to be in a position to approve the rezoning request and subsequent SUP application, however, an amendment to the Town’s 10‑Year Comprehensive Growth Plan is necessary, Ms. Bobber said. The amendment would be to add the additional 3.14 acres, currently designated as low‑density residential (2 or fewer units per acre) to the existing 24.38 acres already designated for high‑density residential (5 or more units per acre) on the Land Use Plan. The proposed Growth Plan Amendment is requested in order for the subject rezoning petition to be in conformance with the Town's Land Use Plan as required for approval of a rezoning of land, Ms. Bobber explained. With that explanation completed, Mayor Womble opened the public hearing to accept comments. The following comments were offered for the record: Irene McGovern, 5401 Bluebell Ct. – Mrs. McGovern asked a question about the pending development plan. Joyce Sloanin, 5316 Moonflower Ct. – Mrs. Sloanin asked how the proposed development plan would effect the brook that runs on the property. Carlton Robertson 5404 Bluebell Ct. – Mr. Robertson said he was opposed to a change in the Growth Plan to designate the three acres for high-density residential. He urged the Board to maintain low-density residential zoning in the area. Mark Pallone, 5504 Solomon’s Seal Ct. – Mr. Pallone asked what was the surrounding zoning. Ms. Bobber explained that north of the property is undeveloped land zoned Wake County residential; to south is Holly Springs R-20; to the east is Holly Springs R-20; to the west is land zoned by Wake County; and the adjacent land is zoned R-10. Mr. Pallone said he did not feel the R-10 zoning designation was appropriate and did not feel the Growth Plan should be amended. Max Hammond, Cypress Ford Drive – Mr. Hammond said he did not understand why the Town has a 10-Year Growth Plan if a developer can request a change. He said he feels the Board should not consider the needs of a developer over the wishes of constituents. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. 5b. Public Hearing: 01‑REZ‑08 – Ms. Bobber explained that the Town has received a petition filed by Don Mizelle, Spaulding and Norris, on behalf of the owner, South Forty Ventures, LLC. The rezoning petition is to change the zoning designation of 3.14 acres from R 20: Residential/Agricultural District to R 10: Single and Multi Family Residential District. Ms. Bobber explained that the surrounding property zoning is residential, either under Wake County districts or the Holly Springs R-20 or R-10. The proposed rezoning petition is to allow for additional land to be included with the proposed Brookdale Village Townhome Special Use Permit and Zoning Permit request (the subject of Public Hearing #5c), Ms. Bobber said. This property is currently included in the Saddle Ridge single family residential subdivision as “flag lots” and are located across a stream crossing from the rest of the subdivision. The inclusion of this property with the proposed Brookdale Village is much more sensible due to potential environmental impacts of creating a stream crossing for access to the “flag lots,” Ms. Bobber advised. In order for this land to be included in the request for a Special Use Permit for Townhomes, a rezoning of the property from R 20 to R 10 is necessary since the proposed use is allowed only within the R-10 District. Ms. Bobber stressed that the R-10 district does not allow by right multi-family townhomes or condominiums. Any multi-family development would have to obtain a Special Use Permit, she explained. With that explanation completed, Mayor Womble opened the public hearing to accept comments. The following comments were offered for the record: Carlton Robertson, 5404 Bluebell Ct. – Mr. Robertson said he is opposed to the rezoning of the 3.14 acres. He said he felt if the Town Board approves the rezoning, then a Special Use Permit would likely follow. He asked that the present zoning of R-20 remain intact. Thomas Sedivy, 4905 Skycroft Lane – Mr. Sedivy urged commissioners to deny the rezoning request. He is opposed to the Special Use Permit as well. Mr. Sedivy said he felt traffic is a major concern that would be further aggravated with a higher density development on this site. Chris Dadd, 5408 Turtlehead Ct. - Mr. Dadd urged commissioners to keep the parcel zoned R-20 as much of the surrounding property is zoned. Morris Miner, 4821 Cypress Ford – Mr. Miner urged commissioners to vote against all three proposals relating to Brookdale village on the basis that a higher density development would be an encroachment on the quality of life of existing larger home lots; the potential that property values would be adversely affected by the addition of high-density residential units nearby; and the negative impact increased traffic would have, especially on Sunset Lake Road. He pointed out that on any given morning, there is a full line of traffic on Sunset Lake Road and that added units would further aggravate the problem. Patricia Robertson,5404 Bluebell Ct. – Mr. Robertson asked the commissioners to ban all new construction in this area until funds are raised for road construction. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. 5c. Public Hearing: 01‑SUP‑05, Brookdale Village– Ms. Bobber explained that the applicant is applying for a Special Use Permit to allow for the construction of 192 townhome units on 27.5 acres (7 units/acre). The development would consist of 29 buildings containing either 4 or 8 units each and a recreation site. This project would replace the previously approved Spencer’s Trace development. In addition, this project also is proposing to take in 3.14 acres from the previously approved Saddle Ridge subdivision, which would eliminate the need for flag lots within that subdivision, Ms. Bobber reported. Ms. Bobber advised the Board that the Planning Board and staff had reviewed the application would recommended approval of the special use permit with several attached conditions, which are enumerated later in these minutes. The following detailed engineering comments regarding this project were offered by Mrs. Sudano: Access to this project is off Sunset Lake Road, which would be widened to one half of a 74' back to back cross section in accordance with the Town's thoroughfare plan. Water is to be supplied via a connection to a 12" waterline under construction along Sunset Lake Road at this time. Approval of the project with this one tie to water is subject to review of a hydraulic analysis required with submittal of the first construction drawings for the project. A water service would be provided by the developer to the Town's pumping station. Sewer service is available via a pump station that the Town currently is constructing on a site located on the downstream portion of the property. The developer would be responsible for making a payment in lieu of construction for the development's capacity in the pumping station, as well as the downstream Sunset Ridge pump station. The developer is grading an access road from the end of the roadway in the development to the new pump station. The developer also is incorporating the extension of CP&L power into his development and to serve the pumping station, Mrs. Sudano said. A recommended condition of approval of this plan is that the developer provide an access easement and utility easement for the purposes of an access road and CP&L power to the pump station, Mrs. Sudano pointed out. This is being provided so that the Town may continue its construction of the pumping station if progress on this project does not happen as anticipated by the developer, she said. She added that, by mutual consent, the previous developer agreement for this project is no longer in effect. With that explanation completed, Mayor Womble opened the public hearing to accept sworn testimony and evidence that the application does or does not satisfy the conditions specified by Town Code. In this case, the application must satisfy the 6 General Conditions as well as 12 additional Specific Conditions. Witnesses, under oath administered by the Town Clerk, offered the following testimony. Note: testimony, evidence comments and responses to questions are all subject to the oath: Don Mizelle, 972 Trinity Road of Spaulding & Norris – Mr. Mizelle explained that this property holds an existing Special Use Permit for a proposed multi-family development plan. He said the applicant is requesting a new permit to allow for a newly-designed project, which the applicant believes satisfies all conditions required by Town Code. Mr. Mizelle testified that the subject plan differs from the original Spencer’s Trace/Beaver Creek development plan in the following ways: The site plan preserves a 30-foot perimeter buffer and a 50-foot buffer along Sunset Lake Road, in accordance with Town Code. The new plan does include 3.14 acres of additional land. Brookdale Village is subject to Neuse River Basin regulations; therefore, stream buffers 50 feet on either side of the stream have been reserved. He said the new site provides access for the Town’s pump station. The new plan is not for condominiums as was the case with the original plan, but is planned to be strictly townhomes. Mr. Mizelle said a few more units are proposed at 192, but the end result would be about the same density per acre. He pointed out that the building configuration is different, recurring in groups of two-to-eight units. He said the architect for the project has made the units look like large single-family homes. He said the applicant has met staff concerns about water quality and stream buffers. In closing, Mr. Mizelle submitted the application, site plan, architectural information and supplemental application information into the record as evidence that the application satisfies all General and Specific Conditions. A copy of this evidence is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages. Tom Spaulding, 972 Trinity Road, Raleigh – Mr. Spaulding reminded the Board that when Saddle Ridge was approved, the flag lots were reserved to be placed in the Brookdale Village plan because of the draw of the land. He said the developer of the proposed Brookdale Village project has been working to improve access to the pump station and underground power and water to the station. He said erosion control problems remaining after a false start on the original development plan would be addressed by the new developer of Brookdale Village following approval of a Special Use Permit. Commissioner Schifano asked if a traffic study on Sunset Lake Road had been conducted. Mr. Spaulding responded that the developer would be required to build a left turn lane into the development, but town ordinances do not require that a traffic study be conducted. Mr. Spaulding added, however, that a traffic study would be provided if one was made a condition of approval. Tal Falco, 4805 Skycroft Place, Fuquay-Varina – Mr. Falco said he opposes the creation of 192 units on the property. He cited a 1999 NCDOT study he said revealed that 10,000 vehicles a day travel Sunset Lake Road. Mr. Falco said the State advised him that 1,800 vehicles per hour is the standard capacity for a rural road. Mr. Falco said he assumes that morning and evening commute hours comprise about 80% of the traffic on Sunset Lake Road. Discounting that amount and taking the remainder, Mr. Falco said, it seems that Sunset Lake Road is handling abut 2,000 vehicles per hour. He pointed out that this does not take into account continuing development of Sunset Lake Road that has occurred since 1999 when the study he quoted was released. Mr. Falco conceded that the provision of left turn lanes into the property was good, but he was just as concerned about traffic trying to get out of the development. Mr. Falco said he believed the application did not satisfy his concerns about the pollution of Middle Creek. He said Middle Creek is flood plain and marshy and that those types of areas filter pollution. He cited from a 1989 NCSU graduate student’s paper on the subject of water quality of Middle Creek. He said the student took samples from Middle Creek at Sunset Lake Road and then at Cary. The analysis of the water illustrated that water quality was more poor closer to Cary’s development. Since then, Mr. Falco said, the Sunset Lake Road area has experienced much of the same types of development that Cary was experiencing in 1989 and he believes the water quality of Middle Creek would likely show evidence of a decline in water quality. Mr. Falco said he also was opposed to the issuance of the Special Use Permit because he feels the small lot sizes of the subject proposal are not in character with the larger lots and bigger homes of the neighboring developments. Robert Sedivy, 4804 Durgencroft Place, Fuquay-Varina – Mr. Sedivy believes there would be a negative impact on the (Sunset Lake Road) roadway due to added traffic congestion. He said he felt the local school facilities would be overburdened by the addition of nearly 200 families. He said he felt the development plan proposed was not in keeping of the surrounding area. He said townhomes would not be in character with the neighboring large single-family home lots. Mr. Sedivy said he feels the original Special Use Permit granted four years ago was a mistake on the Town’s part and that this application provided an opportunity to correct that mistake by denying the permit. Tom Sedivy, 4905 Draycroft Place, Fuquay-Varina --- Mr. Sedivy asked the Board whatever became of the original Beaver Creek project and then the Spencer’s Trace model. He said the failure of those ventures should indicate to the Board that a multi-family project does not fit into the character of the area. He said he feels the project is too urban in nature and would not be suited to the surrounding rural character of the neighboring developments. Anchen Kitchener, 5725 Sunset Lake Road – Mrs. Kitchener said she was surprised that the original Beaver Creek project that was approved was decreased in the number of units that would be built (when Neuse River Basin regulations required the omission of some of the units in the original SUP) but now a new plan is actually proposing more units. She said living on Sunset Lake Road is a traffic nightmare. She said it already is difficult to get into and out of her driveway and that the creation of the project would further aggravate the situation for her. She reported that there have been many traffic accidents in front of her home as motorists take risks to get out on the roadway. She said she has seen first-hand the dangers on Sunset Lake Road that already exist because she and her husband often clean wreck debris from the roadside ditches in front of their home. Morris Miner, 4821 Cypress Ford – Mr. Miner said he echoed input provided by speakers before him by saying he does not feel his neighborhood needs this particular misfit plan. He said he feels traffic is the major concern, but he also is concerned that property values near the Brookdale Village development would decrease. He said that this would have a negative impact on the Town as a whole because the lower the property values, the lower the tax base. Patricia Tector, 4704 Cypress Ford Drive – Ms. Tector said she had concerns about how the development would effect traffic congestion. She said the left turn lane to get into the development would be appropriate, but getting out of any of the subdivisions along Sunset Lake Road is difficult. She said traffic accidents on Sunset Lake Road have been very serious. Ms. Tector said that, at some point, Sunset Lake Road is going to be widened. She asked what would happen to the 50- foot buffer. She asked the Board that if the Special Use Permit is granted, that provisions be made that additional buffer be required to accommodate the widening of Sunset Lake Road. Ms. Tector said soil erosion and water runoff would have a serious effect on the ecology of area. Joyce Sloanin, 5316 Moonflower Ct. – Ms. Sloanin said the original plan is four years old, and growth during the past four years, particularly on Sunset Lake Road, has occurred at such a great rate that roads are incapable of handling any more traffic. She said roads should be improved before the Town approves any more development on Sunset Lake Road. She told the Board that residents are living with a difficult situation with a rural road that is handling urban amounts of traffic. At this time, the Board asked Ms. Bobber to address some of the questions posed by some of the residents. Ms. Bobber said Beaver Creek was the first name of a condominium and townhome development planned and which obtained a Special Use Permit on the subject property about four years ago. She said that during the next several months, the original developer changed the name of Beaver Creek to Spencer’s Trace. A little over a year ago, the original developer brought the plan back to the Town Board for an amended Special Use Permit so that the project would be in compliance with new Neuse River Basin rules to protect stream buffers. Now a new developer is proposing to move forward with development of the property, but the new developer desires to do straight townhomes (instead of condominiums). Ms. Bobber stressed that if the new Special Use Permit for Brookdale Village was not issued, the previously-approved Special Use Permit for the condominium/townhome plan of Spencer’s Trace (as amended) would stand. Chris Dadd, 5408 Turtlehead Ct. – Mr. Dadd asked why townhomes were being planned for the property and not single-family homes? Mr. Spaulding answered that the property is being bought as zoned, and the developer feels there is a market for townhomes in this area. He pointed out that the new Brookdale Village plan was a better development plan for the community that the original Spencer’s Trace plan that featured condominiums and townhomes. Mr. Dadd said he was had traffic concerns with additional high-density residential development along Sunset Lake Road, and he was also concerned about environmental impacts of the project. He feels the nature of this proposed development is at odds with the surrounding properties. William Todd – Mr. Todd asked if the townhomes properties were for sale or rental. Mr. Spaulding responded that the townhomes would be provided for private ownership. Mr. Todd said he echoes the concerns of other speakers before him. He said road conditions on Sunset Lake Road are bad and that, though he understands that it is beyond the control of the Town for road improvements, he feels the decision the Board makes will have an impact on Sunset Lake Road. He urged the Board to prohibit further development of properties along Sunset Lake Road until NCDOT upgrades the roadway to handle traffic. Mr. Todd said he also wants the Town to preserve a sense of community, and he does not feel this project fits into the surrounding community. Mark Pallone, 5504 Solomon’s Seal Ct. – Mr. Pallone echoed the concerns of others before him. He asked that if the property was approved for a Special Use Permit four years ago, is that permit still valid. He said he felt the Board might be basing its decision tonight on the assumption that it is. Mr. Pallone said it seemed that the plan featured a lot of asphalt and not a lot of places for stormwater runoff, forcing water into the stream that crosses the property. Mr. Pallone said he realizes Sunset Lake Road is owned and maintained by the State, but that a traffic study should be required. He said he would like to know what NCDOT thinks about adding traffic to Sunset Lake Road. He said Sunset Lake Road fronting this project is curvy, and the entrance is situated right in the downhill dip of a deep curve. He said he did not see how it would be safe for as many as 190 cars coming out of the driveway as it is planned. He asked about the 50-foot tree buffer and if it would remain if Sunset Lake Road is widened in the future. He asked if the 50-foot tree buffer was in addition to the turning lane that is featured on the site plan. Mr. Spaulding answered that the 50-foot tree buffer is in addition to the turn lane and to the future widening of Sunset Lake Road. Mr. Pallone asked what kind of impact would the additional traffic have on the Montessori School project on a nearby property. He said he felt the addition of this project would devastate the traffic pattern. Mr. Pallone added that he was opposed to the density on the property with its proximity to large-lot single-family homes. Irene McGovern, 5401 Bluebell Ct. – Ms. McGovern said she was opposed to the development plan. Van Crandall, 4813 Salem Ridge Road – Mr. Crandall said Holly Springs has an over abundance of residential development now, and traffic is impacted. He said this project would not offer a return in investment for the Town. Carlton Robertson, 5404 Bluebell Ct. – Mr. Robertson said he was opposed. Mr. Robertson told the Board he picked the ruralness of Holly Springs over an urban setting and said with humor, now that he had found his little niche, he was frankly opposed to any development around him. Mr. Robertson said he understands the rights of the property owner, but if infrastructure is so dense that infrastructure can’t support a proposal, then the development should not be approved. He pointed out when the Town has had water supply problems, it establishes a moratorium on building construction. He asked if a roadway did not pose the same problem. He said he believes it will be 10 years before NCDOT upgrades Sunset Lake Road. Until then, he does not believe any municipality should allow development along it. Johnny Deal, 4940 (could not recall the name of the street as he must moved in) – Mr. Deal said he was not in favor of a development moratorium necessarily, but he urged the Board to realize that development on Sunset Lake Road has caused a lot of sedimentation. He said he was surprised that this property was issued a Special Use Permit four years ago for the same reasons a lot of residents gave this evening during the hearing. He said multi-family is not in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. He said he felt such a development would be an eyesore compared to the large lot homes that exist. He said traffic is going to be aggravated. He said it is pathetic now to see motorists trying to enter the Montesorri School. Mr. Deal said he did not understand why a developer would want to place a multi-family project such as this out in the country, and he added that he hoped the Town Board would preserve the rural nature of the area. There being no further witnesses, the public hearing was closed. 6. Special Presentation – Mr. Kim Janus, 235 Springside Drive, a resident of Holly Springs, addressed the Board to publicly present the Department of Public Safety with an alco‑sensor device. Mr. Janus’ son was in a near-fatal accident, and he advises that the Public Safety Department saved his son’s life. “The accident happened on Father’s Day, and for Father’s Day, I got my son back,” Mr. Janus said, emotionally. He said the Holly Springs Public Safety crews from the Police, Fire, and EMS divisions did the impossible. “They cut my son out of a ball of metal.” Mr. Janus told the Board that a local police officer even stayed with his mother and provided comfort until family members could be with her. In deciding how to express his appreciation, Mr. Janus said a friend of his in New Jersey who died from a DWI accident came to mind. So, as a gesture of appreciation and commendation, Mr. Janus wanted to provide the Holly Springs Department of Public Safety with this useful tool in combating drunk drivers, he said. He added, “They have my advocacy forever.” No action taken. 7a. Sunset Ridge Pump Station – This topic emerged during the Aug. 21, 2001 meeting’s Public Comment portion of the agenda. Residents of Sunset Ridge were distressed because an existing pump station was being upgraded. The upgrade, the residents said, would result in a much larger station that would be more unsightly and intrusive. They also asked that the Town consider shifting the location of the pump station. Mrs. Sudano reported, and the residents agreed, that she has been meeting with them regarding the possibilities. A list of changes was submitted to the contractor installing the pump station, but the pricetag for the changes totaled more than $300,000. Residents were dismayed that the original plan was going to have to apply. Mrs. Sudano explained that she was still attempting to make changes that would both satisfy the residents and come within the budgetary restraints of the Town. Since the Aug. 21 meeting, engineering staff has continued to meet in the office with engineers on the pump station project and on site with residents. During those meetings, several alternatives and requests were suggested. Mrs. Sudano outlined a number of possibilities for the Board’s consideration. Mrs. Sudano relayed to the Board several means of addressing the residents’ concerns of odor, sound, visibility and size of the station footprint. There was much discussion as the Board, the residents and the engineering department talked about various means of meeting all or most of the resident’s concerns. The Town Manager suggested that the Board direct staff to bring to them at their next meeting several options accompanied by cost estimates from which they could choose how best to proceed. In the meantime, Mrs. Sudano said, the utility line extension project needed to proceed. She asked that the Board authorize work to continue since the changes in the pump station would not be effected. Action #1: The Board, by consensus, agreed to consider a list of options and related costs on Sept. 18. 7b. Geologist – Mr. Dean reported to the Board that he had, pursuant to the Board’s directive on Aug. 21, contacted Mr. Phillip Brown of P.M. Brown Inc. Mr. Dean reported that he provided Mr. Brown with all available information from the Board of Adjustment meeting, and as of Friday morning had not heard back from Mr. Brown. Mr. Dean advised the Board that Mr. Brown indicated he may not be interested in taking on the job of characterizing the Griffin Brothers construction and demolition landfill site. Mr. Dean said he would let the Board know if and when he hears back from Mr. Brown. 8. Consent Agenda – All remaining items on the Consent Agenda were approved following a motion by Commissioner Sack, a second by Commissioner Dickson and a unanimous vote. The following actions were affected: 8a. ETJ Planning Board Seat – The Board recommend that the Wake County Board of Commissioners appoint Ms. Natalie Lew, 912 Logging Road, to the ETJ position on the Holly Springs Planning Board. 8b. Architectural Contract – The Board entered into a final negotiated version of the architectural contract with Little & Associates of Research Triangle Park for architectural work for the new Town Hall. The contract is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages, but the highlights are as follows:
8c. Soccer Field Lease – the Board renewed the lease for soccer fields on Avent Ferry Road through Dec. 31, 2001 and on a month‑to‑month basis thereafter with the new owner of the property. A copy of the lease agreement is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages. 8d. Budget Amendments, FY 2001‑02 – Budget amendments for the amounts and for the reasons listed herewith were adopted:
8e. Budget Amendment, FY 2000‑01 – A budget amendment to the FY 2000-01 budget to allocate non‑Powell Bill debt to debt service covered by the General Fund was adopted. A copy of this budget amendment is incorporated into these minutes as an addendum page. 8f. Minutes – Minutes of the Board’s regular meeting held on Aug. 7, 2001 and a record of a quorum present during the Holly Springs Chamber of Commerce planning retreat on Thursday, July 19, 2001 were approved. With July 19 correction that Atwell not present. At this time, the Board recessed for a 10-minute break. Upon reconvening several minutes later, the business meeting resumed. 9a. Growth Plan Amendment 01‑GPA‑01 – Commissioner Dickson said the 10-year Growth Plan was devised in 1998 before the Saddle Ridge subdivision plan came to the Town Board and was approved for R-20 zoning. Commissioner Sack said he felt it was more logical to attach the subject 3.14 acres to the Brookdale Village property since it is on the same side of the dividing stream. He said he would be in favor of the change to the Growth Plan. Commissioner Schifano said he did not want the Board to take changes to the Growth Plan lightly, but that the subject area is only three acres. 9b. Rezoning Petition 01‑REZ‑08; Brookdale R‑10 – Commissioner VanFossen said the rezoning request is consistent with the R-10 zoning district of Sunset Ridge lots located nearby. He said he did not see a problem with zoning the 3.14 acres R-10. 9c. Special Use Permit Application 01‑SUP‑05; Brookdale Village – Ms. Bobber had explained that the Planning Board and staff have reviewed the application and related site plan. Approval with conditions is recommended, she said, subject to the Town’s Board making the necessary findings of fact. Mrs. Sudano added that the developer of Brookdale Village has requested approval for an early grading permit on the site. At this time, she said, the Town currently is completing construction of an access road to one of the Fair Share pump stations across an existing easement on this same property that was secured by the Town some time ago. She said approval of the new site plan that is under consideration tonight would shift the developer’s desired location for the pump station access road on the site. Mrs. Sudano explained that staff is comfortable with the issuance of an early grading permit, which would allow the developer to begin grading to accommodate the access road in his preferred location, subject to conditions. These conditions are being recommended by staff as among several additional conditions of plan approval for the Brookdale Village site plan / Special Use Permit. The Board set about reviewing the testimony and evidence to determine eligibility of the application. Commissioner VanFossen asked if 01-SUP-05 for Brookdale Village was denied could the developer build out the existing plan that was issued for Spencer’s Trace. Staff responded, “Yes.” Commissioner Schifano said he would like to see a traffic study conducted on Sunset Lake Road. With 192 units, he said, potentially 400 vehicles would be added on Sunset Lake Road. He said he felt that this would constitute an adverse impact on neighboring property. General Conditions
Specific Conditions – Multi-Family Complexes (7)
Specific Conditions – Townhomes (5)
9d. Rosewood Centre, 01‑MAS‑05 – Ms. Bobber explained that Mr. Bunn Olive, the property owner, is applying for a Major Subdivision of 22.37 acres of land zoned as commercial. The subdivision will divide the property into seven (7) lots. The minimum lot size is shown to be 1.38 acres. This property was previously approved as Salem Creek Business Center, which will be replaced upon approval of this submittal. The subdivision is currently offering stubs to the properties to the north and south of the subject property. Detailed Site Plan / Zoning Permits will be required to be submitted for review and approval including landscaping and architectural review prior to the construction of any structures in the subdivision. Currently, the property owner has begun some infrastructure improvements based upon the approvals granted for Salem Creek Business Center. Both staff and planning board recommend approval of the proposed preliminary subdivision plan, Ms. Bobber reported. Action: The Board approved a motion to approve the preliminary plat for Rosewood Centre, 01‑MAS‑05, as submitted by Spaulding and Norris, Project Number 301‑0001.pro, dated revised 8/17/01 with the following conditions:
Second By: Dickson Vote: Unanimous 9e. Windcrest Farms Developer Agreement – Mr. Bradley explained that the Town has a previous developer agreement with a former developer of the Windcrest Farms project. A new developer, Colony Homes, is planning to take the project to completion, and a new agreement would be required in order for the Town to receive the same considerations as in the original agreement. According to the agreement: Colony Homes would agree to dedicate approximately 10 acres, including an existing pond and residential structure (located on the south side of the pond) to the Town of Holly Springs. The remaining open space corridor north of the pond dam shall be placed under a conservation easement and maintained by a duly‑established homeowners association. Colony Homes agrees to pay to the Town of Holly Springs for park fees at a rate of $750 per lot, not to exceed a cumulative amount of $210,000. Of the $210,000, $94,000 includes the following items:
Motion By: Sack Second By: Atwell Vote: Unanimous 9f. Engineering Services, Holly Springs Road – Mrs. Sudano explained that the suject proposal is from CH Engineering for performing preliminary engineering functional design and opinion of cost work on a project which will include widening and realignment of Holly Springs Road from Spring Meadow Subdivision eastward to Sunset Lake Road. This work would be broken into two portions, as noted below:
Note #1: At the Town Board's June 19, 2001 meeting, a $4000 contract was approved with Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc. The scope of work described in that proposal is included in the proposal under consideration this evening. The proposal with Mulkey Engineering was never executed, and no work was initiated. The $4,000 is available for use on this proposal under consideration tonight, reducing the need for a budget amendment to $9,033. Note #2: See budget amendment in Sept. 18, 2001 minutes. Action: The Board approved a motion to authorize funds for professional services as described above. 9g. Engineering Services, Avent Ferry Road – Mrs. Sudano asked that action on this item be deferred until Sept. 18. 9h. and 9i, Fair Share Area – Mrs. Sudano reported to the Board that the residents of the Fair Share area want their vacant lots to be serviced with water taps. From inception, the project has been to provide water to only occupied lots. She said she would gather more information about this issue and report to the Board with a request for direction on Sept. 18. Mrs. Sudano said that another question regards Bible Way. She said the Town was consistently asked to extend utilities down Bible Way, but funds were not available. Then, in an a developer agreement last year, the Town arranged for utility extension and road improvements to Bible Way. Now, Mrs. Sudano said, property owners along Bible Way are saying they do not want water service. She said she would attempt to get more clear information for a Sept. 18 report to the Board. 10. Public Comment – At this time an opportunity was provided for members of the audience to address the Board on any variety of topics not listed on the night’s agenda. The following comments were offered: Lesli Doares – Mrs. Doares said she felt the residents of Sunset Ridge have the right to ask the Town to minimize the impact of a neighboring sewer pump station, but she warned if the Town Board committed to these changes in the project, it would be obligated to do the same for all pump stations in the Town. 11. Other Business – In other business, Mr. Pearson reported that the sewer authority bill has passed out of the State House but is likely to be opposed in the Senate by Sen. Tony Rand; he reported that Don Davis is being assisted in getting his property in shape; he reported that a code violation case against a resident seems to be heading into one of two possible courses of action -- getting him to cooperate with Town laws or taking the case to court. 12. Manager’s Reports – Reported under Other Business. 13. Closed Session – None. 14. Adjournment – There being no further business for the evening, the Sept. 18, 2001 meeting of the Holly Springs Board of Commissioners was adjourned following a motion at 12:15 a.m. by Commissioner Schifano, a second by Commissioner Dickson, and a unanimous vote. Respectfully Submitted on Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2001, Joni Powell, CMC Town Clerk Addendum pages, as referenced in these minutes, follow and are a part of the official record of this meeting. |