Regular Meeting
MINUTES
The Holly
Springs Town
Council Members Absent: None.
Staff Members Present: Carl Dean, town manager; Chuck
Simmons, assistant town manager;
2 and 3.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited, and the meeting opened with an
invocation by Rev. Hal Adkins of The Moravian Church of
4.
Agenda Adjustment: The
Motion
By: VanFossen
Second
By: Womble
Vote: Unanimous
Items
Added to the Agenda: None.
Consent
Agenda Items Removed: None.
Other
Changes: None.
5.
National Volunteers Week
Marcia Schoerer of the
Action: None
6a.
Public Hearing: Annexation
Ordinance A05-05 - Mr.
Jones said the Town has received a petition for voluntary annexation of
104.7531 acres located on
With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the
public hearing to accept input. The
following comments were recorded: None.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Action: None at this time.
6b.
Public Hearing: Zoning Petition
05-REZ-03 - Mr. Jones said that the Town has received a
petition requesting the rezoning of 104.75 acres along
Mr. Jones said the proposed zone change request is in full
conformance with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Growth Plan and is
compatible with the surrounding properties and uses.
Mr. Jones said the developer has offered the following two (2)
conditions to further restrict the uses and development standards for this
property:
1.
Total
project density will not exceed R-15 (2.25 units per acre) standards
2. On parcel
0637.02-79-8419, the density will not be more than 2 units per acre.
Mr. Jones said the planning board
and town staff recommends approval of the rezoning request.
Councilman VanFossen asked why an
R-15 zoning district was not being requested.
Mr. Jones said that the project would provide an R-15 density, but the
developer is seeking to adhere to setbacks as set out in the R-10 zoning
district.
Councilman Atwell asked if “total
project density” referred to total land mass or total developable land. Mr. Jones said the total project density
refers to the total land mass.
Councilman Atwell said the overall
density to the R-15 standard could be a little misleading because the developer
could have an overall density of R-15, but, with all the open space factored
into the equation, the development still could have the appearance of an R-10
development.
He said R-15 sounds good when you expect large lots and
estate-type homes, but the reality is that the density may be concentrated into
a small area of the total land mass and still look like small homes on small
lots.
With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the
public hearing to accept input. The
following comments were recorded:
Robert Blake,
There being no further comments, the public hearing was
closed.
Councilman VanFossen pointed out that whether the property
is zoned R-10 or R-15, the development still would have about the same number
of lots, about 220 units. He said, from
a road standpoint, then, the zoning would not make that much difference
He said he still has a question about how the R-10 setback
requirements might be that beneficial to the developer.
Councilman Atwell said he, too, is concerned about the
condition of
Mr. Jones addressed Councilman VanFossen’s setback
question. He said if the property is
zoned R-10, the lot front setback would be 30 feet; 6 feet on each side and 25
feet in the rear. If the property is
zoned R-15, the lot front setback would be 30 feet; 7 feet on each side; and 25
feet in the rear.
Councilman VanFossen said there was not much difference in
the two.
Action #1: The
Motion By:
Womble
Second
By: VanFossen
Vote: Unanimous
A copy of Annexation Ordinance A05-05
is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages.
Action #2: The
1 Total project density
will not exceed R-15 (2.25 units per acre) standards
2. On parcel
0637.02-79-8419, the density will not be more than 2 units per acre.
Motion By:
Dickson
Second
By: Atwell
Vote: Unanimous
6c.
Public Hearing: Annexation
Ordinance A05-06 - Mr.
Jones said the Town has received a petition for voluntary annexation of land
containing 17.674 acres located adjacent to Sunset Ridge North PUD. The petition meets all the statutory
requirements for annexation.
With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the
public hearing to accept input. The
following comments were recorded: None.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Action: The
Motion By:
Pearson
Second
By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous
A copy of Annexation Ordinance A05-06
is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages.
6d.
Public Hearing: Zoning Petition
05-REZ-04 - Mr. Jones
said that the Town has received a rezoning petition requesting that approximately
417.92 acres located near the intersection of
1.
The maximum density shall be no greater than 2.9 dwelling units per
acre.
2. No detached single-family homes on lots great
than 10,000 sq. ft. shall have slab-on-grade construction.
3. All townhomes will
have brick and/or stone accents as part of the front elevation.
Mr.
Jones said the property is located within the Holly Springs ETJ area and meets
the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Growth Plan and is compatible with
the surrounding properties and uses.
He reported that staff and the
Planning Board recommend approval.
Councilman Dickson said he liked the
condition offered up that no slab-on-grade homes would be built on lots greater
than 10,000 square feet.
Councilman Atwell said he agreed
that he would like to see less slab-on-grade lots being built in Holly Springs;
however, he thinks that the condition is not very meaningful if it applies only
to lots of 10,000 square feet or larger.
He added that while the current developer may be planning to
build above-average slab-on-grade homes (patio homes for the elderly, for
instance), the conditions go with the land.
If another developer were to purchase the property, then that developer
would be free to build any type of slab-on-grade housing product in any
location with lots under 10,000 square feet.
Councilman VanFossen said he liked the 2.9 dwelling units
per acre maximum density. He added that
he felt that patio homes for the elderly are appropriately placed on slabs
since some seniors cannot negotiate stairs.
Mr. Carl Black with
Councilman Atwell said he is still concerned that the zoning
as conditioned stays with the land. If
the property is sold, a development company that may not be as good as
With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the
public hearing to accept input. The
following comments were recorded: None.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Councilman Atwell pointed out that 2.9 dwelling units might
be misleading because it refers to the total land mass.
Councilman VanFossen pointed out that dwelling units per
acre is how a town measures density. He
asked if there was a way to tie the rezoning to the developer and not to the
land.
Mr. Schifano said the zoning would be applied to the land.
Mr. Dean pointed out that slab-on-grade construction is not
prohibited in
Action: The Council approved a motion to approve Zoning Petition
#05-REZ-04 to change the zoning of Wake County PIN #’s 0750407764; 0750500386;
0659484201; 0659582742; 0659584670; 0659684048; 0659799030; 0659875798;
0750506300; 0659468907; 0659590061; 0659594355; 0659587662; 0659698130;
0659788047 and 0659896136 from R-20: Residential and PUD: Planned Unit
Development to R-10 CU: Residential Conditional Use District as submitted by
Charles Smith with the following conditions as offered by the Petitioner:
1.
The maximum density shall be no greater than 2.9 dwelling units per
acre.
2.
No detached single-family homes on lots great than 10,000 sq. ft. shall
have slab-on-grade construction.
3. All townhomes will
have brick and/or stone accents as part of the front elevation.
Motion By:
VanFossen
Second
By: Womble
Vote: Unanimous
Councilman Atwell said he would like
the Town to examine means of limiting the construction of slab-on-grade homes,
when appropriate.
6e.
Public Hearing: Zoning Petition
05-REZ-05 - Mr.
Jones said that the Town has received a rezoning petition requesting that approximately
60 acres on both sides of
Mr.
Jones said in December of 2004 the Town
In order to change the list of conditions
on the property, the developer was advised he would have to go through the
rezoning process, Mr. Jones said. He
added that the property is located within the Holly Springs ETJ area and the
requested zoning would meet the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Growth Plan
and would be compatible with the surrounding properties and uses.
He reported that the Planning Board
had reviewed the petition and recommends approval.
With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the
public hearing to accept input. The
following comments were recorded: None.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Action: The
1.
No slab-on-grade development shall be allowed.
2. The average lot size for the development
shall be no less than 11,000 sq. ft.
Motion By:
Womble
Second
By: VanFossen
Vote: Unanimous
6f.
Public Hearing: Annexation
Ordinance A05-07 - Mr. Jones said the Town has received
a petition for voluntary annexation of approximately 60 acres located on both
sides of
With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the
public hearing to accept input. The
following comments were recorded: None.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Action: The Council approved a motion to adopt Annexation Ordinance A05-07, annexing 60 acres owned by Mosely Family Ventures I, LLC, and more
particularly described as Wake County Pin: 0659.04-50-6596, into the corporate
limits of the Town of Holly Springs.
Motion By:
Womble
Second
By: VanFossen
Vote: Unanimous
A copy of Annexation Ordinance A05-07
is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages.
6g.
Public Hearing:
He said the plan proposes to construct
a 1,500-square-foot outdoor pool and a 900-square-foot recreation building,
which would include restrooms for men and for women, a vending area, a covered
patio and a pump room. He said the 3,500-square-foot outdoor pool area would be
surrounded by a six-foot-high square aluminum tube fence that would be accessed
from the recreation building.
Mr. Hammerbacher said that the planning board
and staff recommends approval with conditions.
Councilman Atwell asked if the landscaping
shown on the site plan was natural or would be new. Mr. Hammerbacher said the proposed landscaping
is to be installed.
Councilman VanFossen said he felt that neighboring
residents would not like a recreational site moving in next to them, but would not
mind it if had been there first, and they had a choice when they bought their
properties.
With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the
public hearing to accept sworn testimony and qualified evidence. Speakers spoke under oath administered by the
Town Clerk. The following testimony was
recorded:
Armanda Nurinda,
Troy Mangum,
Diane Rokuskie,
Ms. Rokuskie added that noise, parking,
privacy and traffic are her main concerns. She said she feels the developer is building
this site in order to use an otherwise difficult piece of property to develop.
In closing, Ms. Rokusie said she feels the
recreation site will create a division between Arbor Creek and
Tom Spaulding, representing the developer – Mr. Spaulding
addressed concerns raised. He said he
agreed that the proposed landscaping is not enough. He said he also agrees that a berm and
landscaping of an opaque classification would be appropriate. He said he would like neighbors to advise him
what type of fencing and landscaping they would prefer.
Councilman Pearson suggested that the public
hearing be continued, giving the developer time to meet with the neighbors to
see what could be done to change the proposed plan so that it would have a less
negative impact.
Councilman Atwell asked if there were any
other sites in the
Mr. Spaulding said the proposed location is
the best in that it would help market the community. He added that the Council had directed the
developer to provide an amenity and the reason the recreation site is being
developed at this time is because of the road construction that is going on in
the vicinity.
Mr. Spaulding said he would meet with neighbors
and get their input and suggestions.
Action:
The council approved a motion to continue the public hearing until
Motion by:
Pearson
Second By:
Womble
Vote:
Unanimous
6h. Public Hearing: Ordinance 05-03 (05-UDO-02) – Mr. Jones explained that at the March
Technical Review Committee (TRC) meeting,
the committee discussed the UDO definition of
the term "building height." He
said currently, the Town’s definition of building height is the measurement
between the average front elevation grade to the peak of the roof. With a 35-foot height limitation in most
residential zoning districts, staff has determined that some development
projects are finding it difficult to meet the 35-foot height requirement, he
said. Mr. Jones said that this request
is to amend Section 11.02, Definitions, by modifying the definition for
building height measurements and by adding a definition for "eave line."
Mr.
Jones said the
With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the
public hearing to accept input. The
following comments were recorded: None.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Action: The
Motion By:
Womble
Second
By: Atwell
Vote: Unanimous
A copy of Ordinance 05-03, (UDO
Amendment 05-UDO-02) is incorporated into
these minutes as addendum pages.
6i.
Public Hearing: Ordinance 05-04
(05-UDO-03) – Mr. Jones said at the February and March Technical Review Committee (TRC) meetings, there
were discussions regarding small lots in larger development incentive projects
of three hundred acres or more. He said
the committee discussed that up to 10% of the total number of dwelling units in
a 300-acre or more project should be able to use the next intense district according
to Section 1.20 except for subdivision or projects in the R-8 district.
Mr. Jones said that this change would allow
developers of large projects to have more housing choices within the overall
project. He said for example, a property
zoned R-10 could have 10% of the proposed units at 5,000 sq. ft., which is the
reduced lot size for R-8. He said currently,
in the R-10 district, lot area may be waived to a minimum of 7,500 square feet. Using a 400-acre development as an example,
the total number of lots allowed out of a possible 1,300 lots, would be 130
lots at 5,000 square feet each. With the
change, the overall density would still be 3.25 units per an acre, he said.
Mr. Jones said the
Councilman VanFossen said when the TRC was
talking about the amendment, he was under the impression that the amendment
would limit the number of lots a developer could use with incentives.
Councilman Atwell said he would not be in
favor of allowing a developer to use the next lower density zone. He said such a development could be done well,
but that there is no guarantee.
Councilman Dickson asked what brought this proposed
modification about.
Ms. Bobber said when the development
incentives were written into the UDO, the Town was trying to do away with Planned
Unit Developments. The Development Incentive section, however, provides no
other incentives for larger tract developments. This change would be a way to discourage
developers from submitting PUDs. She
added that the large-tract incentive would be much more user-friendly than the PUD
regulations.
Councilman Atwell asked if the 10% requirement
was a good thing. If the Town intends to
create latitude, he said, is 10% enough to be a real incentive.
Staff said it felt that 10% was adequate.
Ms. Bobber pointed out that the Town wants
to attract bigger projects because they create a better scenario in which the Town
can plan its own infrastructure more efficiently.
With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the
public hearing to accept input. The
following comments were recorded: None.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Action: The
Motion By:
Pearson
Second
By: VanFossen
Vote: Unanimous
A copy of Ordinance 05-04, (UDO
Amendment 05-UDO-03) is incorporated into
these minutes as addendum pages.
7.
Consent Agenda: All
items on the Consent Agenda were approved following a motion by Councilman Atwell,
a second by Councilman Dickson and a unanimous vote. The following actions were affected:
7a. Engineering
Design and Construction Standards Manual – The
7b. Budget Amendment $2,000 – The
7c.
Budget Amendment $18,000 - The
7d. Minutes – The Council approved minutes of
the Board’s regular meeting held on
8a.
Town-wide Windchannel Services – Mr. Tayler
explained that at the March 15
He introduced Mr. Randy
Chalkum of Windchannel, who addressed the
In agenda packets, Mr.
Tayler had briefed the
Mr.
Tayler said it would be the Town residents' responsibility to provide their own
wireless network adaptor cards as well as the initial installation and set up
on their computers. He said a
third-party firm would provide technical support to the residents through
Windchannel Wireless.
Mr. Tayler explained that it was his understanding
that Council is considering providing wireless internet to residents at no
cost. He said the ongoing costs of this
system would cost the Town approximately $5 per month per computer user (multiple-user
homes would cost the Town $5 per user) using the service in addition to the
approximately $10,000 equipment cost for each area established.
Mr. Tayler said that residents would need
to understand that the internet connection speeds would not be as fast or the
same as DSL or Road Runner. He added that
service outages that occur after hours would not be restored before the next
business day, which would include weekend outages. Mr. Tayler said the more users that begin
using the system would demand that the Town buy additional bandwidth as time
goes on.
He said providing a cost estimate to
install wireless throughout the entire town would be difficult to determine because
there is no way of knowing how many users would ultimately use the system and
how much bandwidth would be needed to serve them.
Mr.
Tayler said that high-speed internet through DSL and Road Runner is available
in all areas of Town, including the
Consensus:
The
8b.
FY 2005-06 Budget Workshop - Ms. Powell asked the
Consensus:
The
8c.
Brook Manor, 05-MAS-02 –
Mr. Hammerbacher said the Town has received an application for subdivision
approval that proposes the subdivision of an approximately 60-acre site into145
residential lots. He said the average lot size noted on the plan is 12,175
square feet, and the lot sizes range from 10,000 square feet for the smallest
lot to 26,948 square feet for the largest lot. He said the plan is proposing to dedicate 6.52
acres toward open space, which would be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's
Association.
He noted that the Planning Board had
reviewed the application and recommends approval with conditions.
Action: The
1.
Prior to first construction drawing submittal, the following items will
be required:
a.
Documentation of easements for downstream off-site sewer.
b.
The Gable Ridge and Remington Flood Studies will need to be updated to
reflect this development and to show that the development of this site would
not raise established flood levels.
Absolutely no rise in downstream floodplain elevations will be
permitted.
c.
Written documentation will be required if Riparian Buffer map
information differs from field verification.
d.
Drainage area map and supporting calculations must be provided and
reviewed.
e.
Verify size and adequacy of all downstream sewer lines and pump
stations.
2.
A developer’s agreement is to be finalized at the
a.
Widening of sidewalk on the west side of
b.
Off-site construction of
3. Verification of
the downstream pump station in regard to capacity to handle development of this
project. A fee-in-lieu of pump station
upgrade and/or actual upgrade will be required.
This decision will be made after documentation for offsite sewer is
reviewed by the Town.
4.
A UDO permit for sign installation in addition to all other applicable
permits will need to be secured prior to any sign installation.
5.
Prior to Final Plat, the following must be completed:
a. Payment of fees-in-lieu of land dedication in
the amount of $847/unit.
Motion
By: Womble
Second
By: Pearson
In discussion, Councilman Atwell
asked for more information about the open space designated on the plan.
Jeff Smurko, representing the
developer – Mr. Smurko addressed the Council, explaining that the open area
is located behind a huge powerline easement and that the developer will be unable
to get a road back to this corner. He
said his intention at this time is to leave it as an open, passive recreation space.
Vote: Unanimous
9. Public Comment: At this time, an opportunity was
provided for members of the audience who had registered to speak to address the
Council on any variety of topics not listed on the night’s agenda. The following citizens were heard: None.
10.
Other Business: Councilman Atwell said, for the
record, that the Holly Springs Town Council conducts open meetings and welcomes
public comment. He reported that the
Town will soon have webstreaming of meetings so citizens can go online and see
what really happens.
11.
Manager’s Report: Mr. Dean reminded
12. Closed Session: The Council approved a motion to enter into
Closed Session, pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11(a)(3) to consult with the Town
Attorney regarding a matter of potential litigation.
Motion
By: Atwell
Second
By: Dickson
Vote: Unanimous
General Account Closed
Session April 19, 2005
In Closed Session, Councilmen Atwell
and VanFossen shared their feelings with the Town Council regarding the
information that a member of the Town organization had mentioned retaining
legal services, potentially in dispute with the Town. In discussion, it was decided that a legal
case would have no merit and that no further action should be taken.
Action: The Council approved a motion to return to Open Session.
Motion By: Atwell
Second
By: Womble
Vote: Unanimous.
13.
Adjournment: There being no further business for
the evening, the April 19, 2005, meeting of the Holly Springs Town
Respectfully
Submitted on
_________________________________
Addendum pages as referenced in these
minutes follow and are a part of the official record