4/15/03 Meeting Minutes, Town of Holly Springs

Town of Holly Springs

Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting

Tuesday, April 15, 2003

MINUTES

The Holly Springs Town Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 15, 2003 in the cafeteria of the W. E. Hunt Community Center, located at 301 Stinson Ave. Mayor Dick Sears presided, calling the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. A quorum was established as the mayor and all five board members were present as the meeting opened.

Board Members Present: Commissioners Steve Tedder, Chet VanFossen, John Schifano Peter Atwell, and Hank Dickson and Mayor Sears.

Board Members Absent: None.

Planning Board Members Present: A quorum of the Planning Board was present, including Matt Johnson, Jonathan Gibbons, Joseph Fanjoy, Dave Mackey, Jeff Bateman and Mike Taylor.

Staff Members Present: Carl Dean, town manager; Chuck Simmons, assistant town manager; Ernest C. Pearson, town attorney; Joni Powell, town clerk (recording the minutes); Linda R. Harper, deputy town clerk; Gina Bobber, director of planning and zoning; Len Bradley, parks and recreation director; Cecil Parker, chief of public safety; Drew Holland, finance director; Kendra Thompson, senior engineer; Stephanie L. Sudano, director of engineering; Alysia Bailey, town planner; Eric Tayler, IT technician and Heather Keefer, environmental inspector.

2 and 3. The pledge of allegiance was recited, and the meeting opened with an invocation by Rev. Sam Gore, pastor of Collins Grove Baptist Church.

4. Agenda Adjustment ‑ The April 15, 2003 meeting agenda was adopted with changes, as listed below.

Motion By: Dickson

Second By: VanFossen

Vote: Unanimous.

Items Added to the Agenda: Discussion and action regarding the proposed new police station was added to the agenda as Item 9e. under New Business.

Agenda Items Removed: Item 5b., the Kids Appreciation Day proclamation, was tabled until the May 6 meeting.

Other Changes: Items 8, Trotter Village PUD; 9a., Sunset Oaks PUD; and 9b., Sunset Oaks PUD preliminary plan, were moved up on the agenda to precede the public hearings. (Several other changes were made during the evening to accommodate a lengthy agenda and crowded meeting room.)

5a. National Day of Prayer - Mayor Sears presented a proclamation to Amy Ragland designating Thursday, May 1, 2003 as the National Day of Prayer in Holly Springs. Ms. Ragland, who is chair of the Holly Springs Day of Prayer observance, invited the Board and public to join the festivities on May 1 in Womble Park. There will be music, booths, balloons and a community wide opportunity for prayer together, she said.

No action.

At this time, Mayor Pro Tem Hank Dickson asked the Board’s indulgence as he presented a “surprise” proclamation to Mayor Dick Sears in recognition of his being selected Citizen of the Year 2003 by the Holly Springs Chamber of Commerce.

No action.

5b. Kids Day Proclamation - This item will be presented at the May 6, 2003 Town Board meeting.

Items moved up on the agenda during Agenda Adjustment

8. Unfinished Business: Trotter Village 02-PUD-01 Application - Ms. Bobber explained to the Board that the request before it was Trotter Village Planned Unit Development, which proposes an 83‑acre mixed-use development consisting of single‑family, townhomes, patio homes, and commercial/office uses. The subject property is located on Avent Ferry Road adjacent to Trotter Bluffs subdivision.

Ms. Bobber said that the overall proposed density of the original application was 3.5 units per acre with lot sizes ranging from 4,950 square feet to 18,000 square feet and approximately 83,000 square feet of retail/office space. The plan was in conformance with the Town’s 10-Year Comprehensive Plan for this area, she added.

During the review process and in response to public input at the public hearing, several changes were made to the plan.

Ms. Bobber recounted the history of this proposal, which had drawn much criticism from adjacent property owners:

The original proposed project was brought before the Planning Board and Town Board at a joint public hearing on December 3, 2002. There was much input from neighboring property owners residing in Trotter Bluffs subdivision (on one side) and Logging Road (on the other.) Concerns voiced centered mainly on the proposed density of the project and the proposed commercial/retail elements of the proposal. Residents also believe that the plan would detract from the value of their larger‑tract homes.

After the public hearing was closed, the Town Board requested that the property owner (Joel Williams) and project planner (Mr. Charles Elam) hold a community meeting with the adjacent property owners to allow for an opportunity for them to meet and discuss concerns and options for plan modifications.

Plans were submitted to Town staff on Jan. 13 for review at the January Planning Board meeting on Jan. 28. In the meantime, on Jan. 15, the developer held a community meeting.

As a result of this meeting, the property owner agreed to several changes to the plans: added buffering through an increase in berm height and additional fence material as well as adding an amenity site for a neighborhood pool that would be opened up for membership to the adjacent neighborhood as well as the construction of a detention/retention pond.

The revised plans were submitted to staff on Jan. 27.

The Planning Board met on Jan. 28 to review the revised plans. After a lengthy discussion among the Planning Board members, the adjacent property owners and the land planner, the Planning Board voted 6‑2 to recommend that the Town Board deny the proposed Trotter Village PUD.

Ms. Bobber reported that some of the Planning Board members expressed concerns about: the high density components ‑ particularly Sections B&G – of the plan; the transition between the proposed land uses and the adjacent neighborhoods; whether or not the applicant is committed to closing access to Trotters Bluff Drive until development of Trotter Village is complete (some of the Planning Board members did not support the street closing); that the commercial/office component does not seem compatible with the surrounding area and is not consistent with the recommendations of the CCGC (Commercial Corridor Growth Committee); that the amount of proposed parking associated with the commercial/office component is too excessive; that there are no architectural design commitments with the project; how access is to be obtained to section G; and clarification on the phase lines since the reduced copies were not legible.

This plan, with its modifications, was presented to the Town Board on Feb. 4, along with the Planning Board's recommendation to deny.

The Town Board discussed areas of concern on Feb. 4 and forwarded the plan to the Technical Review Committee for further review and discussion prior to final Town Board action.

The project designer attended the February 18, 2003 TRC meeting and then requested to come back before the TRC on March 18. He then submitted a revised Master Land Use Plan on March 31, 2003 for final action by the Town Board.

At the Feb. 18 TRC meeting, the committee members provided the following suggestions for modifications to the Trotter Village PUD in the following order of preference:

1. Commercial Modifications: indicate 2‑story buildings only, reduce the amount of building area, reduce the parking area.

2. Modify Village Lots to larger lots adjacent to Trotter Bluffs

3. Relocate the traffic circle

4. Move the townhomes to provide a transition from the commercial area to the other residential areas. If #2 above is done, then this would not be as important.

At the March 18 TRC Meeting, the Committee Members reviewed a revised master plan presented at the meeting by the project designer and provided the following suggestions:

1. The new larger 12,000 square foot lots adjacent to Trotter Bluffs do not need to have a buffer as shown. Remove the buffer and make the lots larger.

2. The Charleston lots on the south side of the street by the roundabout should be changed to become 2 large lots instead.

3. Move the detention pond to become a neighborhood feature.

4. Still skeptical about the amount of commercial area indicated on the plans.

On March 31, 2003, Ms. Bobber reported, the developer submitted a revised Master Land Use Plan for final action by the Town Board.

Ms. Bobber detailed some of the highlights of the plan changes, including those made on Jan. 27 to the original plan:

1. Added buffering through an increase in berm height and additional fence material

2. Added an amenity site for a neighborhood pool that would be opened up for membership to the adjacent neighborhood

3. Construction of a detention/retention pond.

And, then, following TRC meetings, the following additional changes were made:

4. The main drive through the site from Avent Ferry Road to the traffic circle has been moved towards the middle of the site with a continuous arc to the traffic circle. The Charleston homes still face the village green along this street.

5. A new road travels parallel to the main drive with patio homes behind the Charleston homes' alley. The opposite side of this street has large-lot single family homes that back to the property line with Trotter Bluffs Subdivision.

6. The minimum lot size of the single-family home section is to be no less than 12,000 square feet. The smallest lot shown is 13,491 square feet, and the largest is 27,594 square feet, which make the homes bordering Trotter Bluffs closer in size to those in Trotter Bluffs.

7. The original plan had the Charleston Homes backing onto this property line with Trotter Bluffs.

8. The relocation of the detention pond from the southeast corner to the southwest corner and the location of the minor streets and lots for the patio homes. The actual number of lots remains the same. She pointed out the land planners deleted one single-family lot at the traffic circle, added seven 12,000+ square foot single-family lots along the property line with Trotter Bluffs, and have 51 Charleston lots (42 on previous plan) and 50 Patio Homes (65 on previous plan).

And, one additional change:

9. The square footage of village retail space was reduced by 10,000 square feet. Ms. Bobber explained that the original proposal featured 83,250 square feet of office/retail uses, divided equally between 41,625 square feet of office space and 41,625 square feet of village retail uses

Ms. Bobber pointed out that the retail uses would be restricted to meeting the retail/village district regulations in the UDO and, therefore, would not be of the typical commercial type development that residents might envision.

She added that the developer also reduced the office square footage by 10,000 square feet, making the new office figure 31,625 square feet.

This, she said, would reduce the total of office and retail uses to 73,250 square feet.

Ms. Bobber reported to the Board that staff recommends approval of the latest plan as revised on Jan. 27 and further revised on March 31 with seven conditions. She also asked that the Town Board give direction as to whether or not blocking access on Trotters Bluff Drive during development of the property, if approved, would be desirable.

With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears asked for comments from the Board.

Commissioner Schifano asked if any provisions had been made on the plan to increase the buffer zone between the town’s wastewater treatment plant, which is located to the west of the property.

Ms. Bobber responded that it was staff’s opinion that the wastewater treatment plant is situated far enough away so as to not have an adverse impact on the properties. She noted that there is a recommended condition of approval requiring direction in the covenants that there be disclosure of the plant to those who purchase in the townhomes section.

Commissioner Atwell asked about the land-locked piece of property designated as section G. Ms. Bobber explained that the tract used to be a part of the larger tract, which was cut in two pieces by construction of the NC 55 Bypass. She said the developer is working on gaining access to that property. Development of that section, she said, would hinge on the developer’s ability to gain that access and that his gaining this access is a recommended condition of approval.

Commissioner Schifano said he would like to see the townhomes nearest the treatment plant to be eliminated from the plan. He said he would not vote in favor of the plan because he said his concerns were not met and he feels it is the same plan that was presented in the first place.

Commissioner Tedder said he would vote in favor of it because it is a quality plan that would be suited to the property and the area.

Commissioner VanFossen said the changes that have been made are positive and that the end result would be a quality development. He pointed out particular features of the revised plan that he likes. He said he was not concerned about the townhomes’ being situated as they are.

Mayor Sears asked the developer to describe the types of uses that might be placed in the retail section.

Mr. Dan D’ambrosi said that the retail section would be restricted to the community type services and businesses as described in the UDO. He said things like small cafes with no drive-through windows, ice cream shops, barber shops are some examples.

Commissioner Atwell said he would like to see some of the townhomes eliminated, but he also agrees with Commissioner VanFossen in that the Board’s role is to look at the overall scheme and that the changes that have been made are positive ones. He said it would be up to the developer to determine if the townhomes and retail sections would be viable. He said he would be inclined to vote in favor of the revised plan.

Commissioner Dickson said the larger lots’ being placed next to Trotter Bluffs was a positive change for the plan. He said the retail space really is in keeping with what is planned for both sides of that particular portion of Avent Ferry Road from that location north to the Bypass intersection.

The plan is similar, he said, to the first plan, but the changes that have been made have met all the concerns that have been raised. He said he would be inclined to vote in favor of the revised plan.

Action #1: The Board approved a motion to approve PUD application 02-PUD-01, Trotter Village PUD, as submitted by Elam Todd d’Ambrosi on Jan. 27 and with the revised lot layout presented in Version dated 3‑31‑03 with the following seven (7) conditions:

1. Within 30 calendar days of Town Board approval, a revised PUD Master Plan document must be submitted to the Department of Planning & Zoning, otherwise the approval will be deemed null and void.

2. The following plan modifications must be included in the revised PUD Master Plan document:

• Access to any landlocked parcels adjacent to Section “G” must be provided.

• The 15’ opaque buffer and 30’ opaque buffer along the east property line between the residential lots and Trotter Bluffs is to be removed and labeled as a Landscape Easement and shall include a statement that plant materials within such easement shall not be removed unless dead, diseased or threatens to become a danger to human life or property. This note is also to be placed on the final plats for these sections of the PUD.

3. The property must be annexed into the Town Limits prior to submittal of the first Petition for Final Plat review and recordation.

4. Covenants creating a Home/Property Owners Association specifying maintenance of buffers, open space, and street trees and the inclusion of a full disclosure regarding the proximity of the project to the Town’s Waster Water Treatment Plant must be submitted with the first Development Petition submitted for this project.

5. The area for land dedication to the Town of Holly Springs as park land is to be provided at a rate of 1 acre per 35 units. This area is to be calculated at time of Preliminary Plan. All areas for dedication within utility easements, slopes of 15% or greater, or flood plain will be credited at the rate of 1 acre per 20 units.

6. An 8’ asphalt greenway trail with 30’ easement should be shown from the cul‑de‑sac in area A to and including the main greenway trail. The area of the greenway easement and linear footage of the constructed asphalt trail will be credited toward the Ordinance requirements for fees in lieu of dedication of park land.

7. The following items are to be included on Preliminary Plans/Development Petitions (later in the approval process):

• TIA submittal required

• Provide a functional alignment for Piney Grove Wilbon Road re‑alignment to verify that access to the Carroll property is maintained.

• Verification of all easements and private roads within the easements

Motion By: Tedder

Second By: Atwell

Vote: The motion carried following a 4-1 vote. Commissioners Tedder, VanFossen, Atwell and Dickson voted for. Commissioner Schifano voted against.

Ms. Bobber said that during the public hearing the adjacent property owners addressed concerns regarding the traffic impacts that this development would have on the existing Trotter Bluffs Drive. As a result of these comments, the project designer during the public hearing, made a commitment that the connection to the existing Trotter Bluffs would be closed until construction of Trotter Village is complete. The revised plans do not indicate such commitment language, she said.

At the Planning Board meeting, the Planning Board members expressed great concern about blocking this access and did not agree with that commitment and were also concerned about future enforcement should it be included as part of this project, she reported.

Ms. Bobber said staff is requesting that the Town Board discuss this request and commitment and determine if such access should be restricted and what enforcement provisions should be made.

Commissioner Atwell said he would hope to find a solution that would limit construction traffic, but not be an imposition to local traffic.

Mrs. Sudano said signage could be installed.

Legally, Chief Parker said, there was nothing he could do to enforce the signs and it would be a matter driver courtesy to observe the signs.

Commissioner Tedder said it would be up to the developer to build a construction entrance and enforce its use.

Commissioner VanFossen said that there is really no reason for anyone to use Trotters Bluff Drive until that development is complete. He noted that a similar situation on Gable Ridge became a problem because the motorists were not only using Gable Ridge to get home, but to get back and forth from amenities.

He said this would not be the case in this situation and that he would not have a problem with closing all access via Trotters Bluff Drive until 80% of the certificates of occupancy are issued.

Action #2: Commissioner VanFossen made a motion that the Town Board direct that the developer close access to Trotter Village by way of Trotters Bluff Drive to all traffic until 80% of the residential certificates of occupancy are granted.

Motion By: VanFossen

Second By: Dickson

In discussion, Commissioner Dickson pointed out that the units in Section G should not be included in figuring the percentage since a separate access would be used.

Amend Motion: Commissioner VanFossen amended his motion from “80% of the residential certificates of occupancy are granted” be changed to “123 residential certificates of occupancy are granted.”

Amend Motion: Commissioner VanFossen amended his motion from “123 residential certificates of occupancy are granted” to “123 residential certificates of occupancy, excluding Section G, are granted.”

Second of Amendment(s): Dickson

Vote: Unanimous

9a. 02-PUD-02, Sunset Oaks - Ms. Bobber said that the Sunset Oaks PUD application is proposing a 328-acre Planned Unit Development for single-family, townhome, and mixed-use development located around the intersection of Optimist Farm Road and Pierce‑Olive Road.

She said that this project originally was presented to the Town Board and Planning Board at a joint public hearing on February 4, 2003. At that public hearing, there were several residents who spoke regarding their concerns about this project. Since the public hearing, the developer has made modifications to the plans to address those concerns, she said.

Ms. Bobber said that the original proposal was for a maximum number of 1,150 dwelling units plus commercial/office space in the mixed-use core. The number of dwelling units has been decreased to 850, which reduced the density from 4.9 units per acre to 3.65 units per acre. The proposed lower density fits into the lower range of the Comprehensive Plan’s Moderate Density Residential category of 3‑5 units per acre as this property is designated, Ms. Bobber said.

Ms. Bobber said the other significant modifications to the PUD plans include the relocation of the smaller single‑family lots to the far western portion of the PUD and locating the largest lots along the perimeter of the PUD adjacent to Talicud Trail and the property to the north of the PUD.

The developers submitted with this last review “design guidelines” for architectural requirements for the single‑family homes that include restrictions on the percentage of the front façade that could be used for the garage doors as well as a variety of aesthetic requirements. However, these design guidelines as submitted would not be under the Town’s enforcement authority since they would be in the covenants and not a part of the actual PUD document, which the Town has enforcement authority over, she pointed out.

The other significant change is the increase in the minimum lot size from 3,500 square feet to 4,000 square feet for the smallest lots in the SF 1 district and the increase in the minimum lot size for the largest lots (SF 3) from 7,800 square feet to 8,000 square feet. In addition to the modification in the minimum lot sizes, the developer has included minimum net lot sizes for those lots that are impacted by buffers and/or wetlands. This would ensure a minimum lot area so that there would be adequate room for the home and retain a “usable” portion for backyards, porches, decks, etc.

Other modifications include clarification of the perimeter buffers and a reduction in the required side setbacks for the single‑family lots from 10’ aggregate to 8’ aggregate.

Mrs. Sudano said the utility services would have to be extended to the site by the developer. The developer would need to construct approximately 700 feet of offsite waterline on Optimist Farm Road to serve the site. She said the developer is proposing a developer agreement to cover several issues. This proposal will be presented to the Town Board for action later in the agenda, if the PUD is approved.

Ms. Bobber said that the Planning Board reviewed this PUD proposal at its meeting on March 25, 2003. After a lengthy discussion on the proposed plans and responses received by the developer, the Planning Board felt that there were still too many unresolved issues and recommended that the Town Board deny this request. Ms. Bobber reported that the Planning Board received information the night of its meeting, and some members did not feel comfortable approving the plan without more time to review, so they voted to recommend it be denied.

The Town’s engineering department had requested additional information be provided prior to the Town Board meeting, Mrs. Sudano said, and it has been provided.

Ms. Bobber gave a summary of other changes that had been made to the plan:

1. A traffic impact analysis had been provided that road improvements planned would be adequate

2. Water flows have been provided

3. Some of the mixed-use sections have been eliminated.

4. Covenants, which include very specific design guidelines and which are more restrictive than the town’s UDO, have been submitted.

Ms. Bobber reported that staff recommends approval of the plan, with conditions.

Commissioner Atwell asked what would be allowed on a 4,000 square foot lot.

Ms. Bobber said many types of homes could be situated there. She cited Kingsport Drive in Sunset Ridge North as an example of 4,000 square foot lots. She said that the Town’s UDO, which the developer is agreeing to follow, mandates that homes on small lots have to have additional architectural detail to raise their value.

Commissioner VanFossen asked about the accuracy of the traffic study.

Mrs. Sudano said the Town had the consultant review the plan and there were many comments. All comments, she added, were addressed in the resubmittal.

Commissioner VanFossen asked about current traffic flow on Optimist Farm Road.

The traffic study states that current traffic load is 2,700 to 3,700 cars per day. The consultant presenting the information added that Sunset Lake Road has a traffic count of about 10,000 cars per day (in comparison), but Sunset Lake Road is signalized. Rural roads without signals can handle 16,000 cars per day, he said.

At build-out in 2015, there would be 7,000 added trips throughout the roads leading to the development, he said. The 1,800 cars per day on Pierce Olive Road would rise to 5,400 at build-out.

Commissioner Atwell asked if any road improvements by the state are planned. There are no plans for these specific roads, the consultant said.

Mayor Sears asked about the designated open space’s not being accessible by land owners.

Mr. Jim Earnhart, representing the developer, responded. Mr. Earnhart said there were several access points along drainage points, sewer easements, spurs and planned future greenways.

Mr. Bradley said the developer has proposed to dedicate to the Town 90+ acres, most of which is on the south side of the CP&L easement, that would be valuable as a passive park area for activities like environmental education, wildlife viewing, etc.

Mayor asked how Sunset Oaks would compare to Sunset Ridge

Mr. Earnhart explained that the original forest setting of Sunset Ridge provided for larger estate lots, but this property does not have the same character. The level of vegetation, he said, is better suited to more homes. He added that his company would plant trees that would mature over time. As for the price range comparison, Mr. Earnhart said the price point of Sunset Oaks would be just below, but complimentary to, Sunset Ridge.

Ms. Bobber advised the Board that a protest petition had been filed in this situation, requiring a four-fifths vote of the Board to gain approval.

Action: The Board approved a motion to approve Planned Unit Development #02‑PUD‑02 for Sunset Oaks PUD as submitted by Tony M. Tate Landscape Architecture, PA, dated Revised 04/02/03 with the following conditions:

1. Revised plans must be submitted within 30 calendar days of Town Board approval that address the following conditions of approval. If not submitted within this time frame, the PUD approval will be deemed null and void.

a. Correct Note 13 on Sheet M‑1 to include that buffers along Optimist Farm Road or Pierce‑Olive Road are to be re‑vegetated to Level C: Opaque if existing vegetation is not adequate.

b. Correct Table of Permitted Uses on Sheet M‑1 to eliminate “Mixed Use” and “Townhomes” from SF‑2 and SF‑3, eliminate “SF‑1” from SF‑2 and SF‑3, eliminate “SF‑2” from SF‑3.

c. Sheet M‑14: Per the written response to previous Planning Comments during the Staff PUD review, you state that driveways are not subject to the setback regulations in the data table. Please provide written information regarding the required setbacks for driveways or specify if driveways can be placed on the property line for the single‑family typical lot details.

d. A detail for wider entrances shall be provided on the revised plans showing 2 outbound lanes.

e. A sewer stub to the upstream property shall be provided on the revised plans.

f. Waterline sizes are inadequate and must meet minimum standards per Town Specifications.

2. Revised covenants must be submitted within 30 calendar days of Town Board approval that address the following. If not submitted within this time frame, the PUD approval will be deemed null and void.

a. Article I, Section 16 “Accessory Dwelling Unit” to be removed.

b. Article I, Section 17 “Apartment District” and Section 18 “Market District” to be removed or clarified appropriately. Neither of these districts are included in the PUD document.

c. Revise the Section numbers in Article III since Section 7 was removed.

4. The following items are to be included on construction drawings (later in the approval process):

a. Fee‑in‑lieu of pump station upgrade

b. All TIA comments be adequately addressed

c. All hydraulic analysis comments must be adequately addressed

d. Provide a flood study and graphically show the 500 year flood area

e. Provide a listing of lots or label all lots that will require a FFE based on the

flood study.

f. Some lots shown appear to be un‑buildable per flood ordinance. Each lot must have a minimum area outside of the flood area to be considered buildable. Please verify with the flood ordinance.

g. Provide documentation that lots severely impacted by the wetlands and/or

flood plain can be developed

Motion By: VanFossen

Second By: Tedder

Vote: Unanimous

9b. Sunset Oaks, 03-MAS-01 Preliminary Site Plan - Ms. Bailey explained to the Board that this is the preliminary plan proposal for Phases 1‑4 and 6‑8 of the Sunset Oaks Planned Unit Development (PUD). These phases are located to the south and access would be obtained off of Optimist Farm Road.

The subdivision is composed of approximately 127 acres of land, which has been proposed to accommodate 375 lots. The minimum and average lot sizes that were listed in the site data information were not based on the minimum gross lot size, Ms. Bailey said. Using the minimum lot size in the site data information would show that the minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet. As currently drawn, not all lots within the project meet the minimum lot size required for this subdivision as specified in the PUD Master Plan.

Ms. Bailey said that to minimize the impacts of this development there would be a 25-foot opaque buffer along Optimist Farm Road. Also, there would be a 25-foot undisturbed buffer around the perimeter of the development. The plans indicate that if the 25-foot perimeter undisturbed buffer should need to be revegetated, the vegetation should be planted to a Type B: Semi‑Opaque level, and that if vegetation needs to be planted along Optimist Farm Road, it should be planted to the Type C: Opaque level.

Ms. Bailey said that the developer has offered 90± acres of land dedication and greenway easement of several thousand feet, which would satisfy the land dedication requirement.

Ms. Bailey reported the engineering department’s comments on the plan that the water must be extended approximately 700 feet down Optimist Farm Road to the site by the developer. The sewer is adjacent to the site and would also be extended by the developer. This site is tributary to the Middle Creek Pump Station, and a fee‑in‑lieu of upgrade would be required.

Ms. Bailey reported that the Planning Board recommends denial of the preliminary plan 03‑MAS‑01 Sunset Oaks PUD Phases 1‑4 and 6‑8. She said that staff recommends approval of the site plan with conditions.

Commissioner Schifano asked when amenities would be built. He said he does not want it to be the last thing the developers install.

Mr. Earnhart said it generally takes two years or so before enough people are in place to use a swimming pool. Pointing to Sunset Ridge, he said he felt his company’s track record was pretty good in that respect.

Commissioner VanFossen asked how many houses would it take to build a pool. Mr. Earnhart said about 200, and he would guess that would take about two years.

Commissioner Atwell said he is disappointed because the company is asking for approval of certain phases.

Commissioner Dickson said he felt the Board could not legislate market demand.

Commissioner Tedder said he agreed with Commissioner Dickson, and he added that the company does have an excellent history in Holly Springs residential development.

Action: The Board approved a motion to approve preliminary plan 03‑MAS‑01 for Sunset Oaks Phases 1-4 and 6-8 as submitted by Tony M. Tate, Landscape Architecture, dated Revised March 6, 2003, with the following conditions:

1. Revised plans must be submitted within 30 calendar days of Town Board approval that address the following conditions of approval. If not submitted within this time frame, the preliminary plan approval will be deemed null and void.

a. The minimum and average lot sizes listed in the “Site Data” information must be modified to lot sizes that correspond to those minimum lot size listed for the districts shown on the plan. (The minimum lot size cannot be 4,800 square feet in area and the average lot size cannot be 5,250 square feet in area when the minimum allowed lot size is 6,000 square feet.)

b. Correct Note 2 on Sheet L‑6 to include that buffers along Optimist Farm Road or Pierce‑Olive Road are to be re‑vegetated to Level C: Opaque if existing vegetation is not adequate.

c. Please provide written information regarding the required setbacks for driveways or specify if driveways can be placed on the property line for the single‑family typical lot details.

2. The developer has offered 90± acres of land dedication and greenway easement of several thousand feet. Their total proposal would satisfy the land dedication requirement. Staff recommends acceptance of their land dedication.

3 The preliminary final plats must be submitted prior to Construction Drawing approval.

4. At the time of Final Plat review and approval:

a. Each lot must meet or exceed the applicable minimum lot size specified in both the PUD document and the Preliminary Plan. This may result in a reduction in the number of lots as currently shown on the Preliminary Plan.

b. Revised Covenants must be submitted for review prior to recordation in accordance with the Sunset Oaks PUD approval.

5 Any signs associated with this development, either temporary or permanent, must be approved by the Town of Holly Springs Department of Planning & Zoning prior to installation.

6. The following items are to be included on construction drawings (later in the approval process):

• Fee‑in‑lieu of pump station upgrade.

• All TIA comments be adequately addressed.

• All hydraulic analysis comments must be adequately addressed.

• Provide a flood study and graphically show the 500 year flood area.

• Provide a listing of lots or label all lots that will require a FFE based on the flood study.

• Some lots shown appear to be un‑buildable per flood ordinance. Each lot must have a minimum area outside of the flood area to be considered buildable. Please verify with the flood ordinance.

• Provide documentation that lots severely impacted by the wetlands and/or flood plain can be developed.

Motion By: Tedder

Second By: VanFossen

Vote: Unanimous

At this time, Mayor Sears called for a short recess before the meeting resumed with the remaining items on the agenda in their original order.

When the meeting resumed, a quorum of the Town Board was still present. Mayor Sears requested that item 6d be moved up on the agenda, to be followed by the remaining items on the agenda in their original order.

6d. Joint Public Hearing: Holly Springs West PUD 03-PUD-01 - Ms. Bailey explained the Holly Springs West Planned Unit Development is proposing 678‑acre mixed‑use development that includes single family residential, multifamily residential, a golf course, and commercial /office uses. She said that the plans also indicate that 235 acres would be set aside for open space and possible dedication to the Town. The land for Holly Springs West PUD is within the corporate limits of the Town, and was formerly a part of the Finisterra PUD located off of New Hill Road. This PUD development would leave the previously‑approved Finisterra PUD with approximately 70 acres of land designated for single family and multifamily uses.

Ms. Bailey said the plan calls for the following development criteria:

* Maximum Proposed Units = 1819

* Net Density = 4.25 units/acre

* Minimum Lot Size = 4,000 square feet

With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the public hearing to accept input. The following comments were recorded:

Tom McKay, the developer -- Mr. McKay provided an overview of the plan. He said the project began with the name Holly Springs West, but now it is to be called Twelve Oaks.

He said the original 27-hole golf course has been changed to 18 holes. Density of the original Finisterra plan has been reduced, and the golf course would now be a focal point at the end of an oak-lined boulevard.

He confirmed that the golf course would be designed by the Arnold Palmer company. He added that the whole development will be focused with a true Southern style.

Commissioner Schifano asked if the project would be created by a variety of builders.

Mr. McKay said he did not anticipate that the residential development would be farmed out to any high-production builders, although more than one builder would likely be attracted to the project. He said builders would be selected based on architectural integrity of the homeplans.

Commissioner VanFossen asked if the golf course would be constructed prior to any other development.

Mr. McKay said yes, the golf course and clubhouse would be constructed and then the residential development would follow in phases.

Commissioner Atwell asked about the 4,000 square foot lots noted on the plan.

Mr. McKay said the design philosophy of this section of Twelve Oaks would be neo-traditional with rear alleyways; however, homeplans would restrict the percentage of garage faces fronting the street.

Commissioner VanFossen asked if the developer intended to preserve trees on the site.

Mr. McKay said yes, that trees are a part of southern heritage and would be intrinsic to Twelve Oaks; however, he pointed out that some of the site already has been thinned.

There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.

Action: The Board approved a motion to forward PUD application 03-PUD-01 to the Planning Board for review and recommendation.

Motion By: Atwell

Second By: Tedder

Vote: Unanimous

6a. Public Hearing: 02-SEU-01, Village Church – Ms. Bailey explained that the Village Church of Holly Springs is requesting permission to renovate an existing 2,000 square foot residence on New Hill Road into a multi-purpose facility for the church. The house, located on .69 acres, would be remodeled to accommodate a multi-purpose room, including office space and a meeting room.

Ms. Bailey said that the Board of Adjustment granted a variance (03‑VAR‑01), allowing the parking area constructed as gravel. The ordinance has specific regulations regarding parking for church facilities and the proposed development meets the requirements of the ordinance.

Ms. Bailey said that currently there is water and sewer lines on the property. The Church would be required to add an RPZ (backflow prevention device) to the existing water service. There is a well located on the property that, according to County regulations, will be abandoned.

Ms. Bailey said that the proposed site is located on New Hill Road which is on the Town’s Thoroughfare Plan as a major roadway consisting of a 74’ back‑to‑back cross section with 100’ of right of way. The church is proposing to dedicate the right of way and is asking for a waiver of the required road improvements until building of their future church facility. If a waiver is granted, Ms. Bailey asked that the Town Board indicate a date for completion of future right of way improvements.

With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the public hearing to accept sworn testimony. The following comments under oath administered by the Town Clerk were recorded:

Don Brown, pastor of Village Church – Mr. Brown submitted the church’s application in to the record as evidence that the application and site plan would satisfy all conditions for a special exception and for the waiver.

Commissioner VanFossen asked how long it would be before the required road widening could be done.

Mr. Brown said he did not know, but would hope it would be at least three years.

Commissoner Atwell asked if it would make sense to require road widening.

Commissioner Schifano said the road widening should be tied to the future construction or completion of the church.

Commissioner Dickson said he would be in favor of anything that would improve the streetscape, especially along a major entrance into town.

Commissioner Schifano suggested that the Board adjust the required perimeter landscape to be less restrictive.

There being no further testimony, the public hearing was closed.

The Board set about making the necessary findings of fact:

a. The proposed use will not be injurious to the public health, safety, comfort, community moral standards, convenience or general welfare.