Regular Meeting
Sept. 15, 2009
MINUTES
The
Staff Members Present:
2 and 3.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited, and the meeting opened with an
invocation by Rev. Lewis Gentry.
4.
Agenda Adjustment: The
Motion By: Sack
Second
By: DeBenedetto
Vote: Unanimous
Items
Added to the Agenda: Add 7e., to receive comment on proposed
Ordinance 09-20 to approve and enact Unified Development Ordinance amendment
09-UDO-11 regarding sign regulations.
Items
Removed from the Agenda: None.
Consent
Agenda Items Removed for Discussion:
Item 8b., the monthly budget amendment report.
Other
Changes: None.
5.
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 input was recorded: None.
6a. Novartis Project Update – Mayor Sears introduced Jamie Iudica, Director of Engineering at Novartis. Mr. Iudica
presented the Council with a Power Point presentation containing an update on
the Novartis project and facility. Of
note, Mr. Iudica announced that Novartis’ Global
Technical Operations is relocating from
He also noted that the company
expects to be in limited operational mode by the first quarter of 2010.
Action:
None.
7a. Public Hearing: Rezoning Petition 09-REZ-01 – Mr. Zawadski said the Town has
received a request to rezone 0.3 acres of property from R-15: Residential to
R-MF-8: Multi-family Residential and .91 acres from R-MF-8: Multi-family
Residential to R-15: Residential. The
properties are located within the town limits and near the intersection of
Mr. Zawadski said the proposed
zoning change to R-MF-8: Multi-family residential may have some impacts on the
adjacent properties since they are zoned R-15: Residential. The requested R-MF-8: Multi-family residential
district permits up to eight multi-family units per acre, and the adjacent
R-15: Residential district permits up to 2.25 single-family lots per acre.
Mr. Zawadski said that a 30-foot
landscape yard/setback is required at time of development along the perimeter
of the project to reduce the potential impacts of higher density development on
adjacent properties.
He said the proposed zoning change
to R-15: Residential would not have any impact on adjacent properties since
many of the lots that are developed also are zoned R-15: Residential.
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
#1: The Council approved a motion to accept the following
statement as true: “The requested zone map change from R-15: Residential to R-MF-8:
Multi-family Residential and R-MF-8: Multi-family Residential to R-15:
Residential is consistent with the Vision Holly Springs Comprehensive Growth
Plan since the Future Land Use Plan Map indicates this property as Attached
Residential, and the R-MF-8 Multi-family Residential District permits
multi-family development, and the R-15: Residential district is consistent with
the surrounding area.”
Motion By: Sack
Second By: VanFossen
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #2: The Council approved a motion to adopt Ordinance #R09-03
approving and enacting Zone Map Change Petition #09-REZ-01 to change the zoning
of 0.3 acres of PIN 0648-89-2610 from R-15: Residential to R-MF-8: Multi-family
Residential and 0.91 acres of PINs 0648-89-2798 and
0648-89-3512 from R-MF-8: Multi-family Residential to R-15: Residential as
submitted by Doug Ledson.
Motion By: Sack
Second By: VanFossen
Vote: Unanimous.
A copy of Rezoning Ordinance R09-03 is
incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages.
7b. Public Hearing: Ordinance 09-18, UDO Amendment 08-UDO-08b – Mr. Jones explained that in the past
year, staff has proposed several commercial-related amendments to the Unified
Development Ordinance in an effort to improve on commercial regulation in the
Town. Staff in the past has suggested an
amendment to the UDO regarding Commercial front setbacks, but through
discussion at the Planning Board stage this amendment was put back to Staff for
further review and changes.
He said commercial front setbacks
are set in place to create a harmonious streetscape in cities and towns and to
ensure that buildings are set back off of the right of way enough to ensure
public safety. Most cities and towns
create anywhere between five feet at a minimum up to 50 feet and beyond,
depending on the adjacent thoroughfare and the use of the site.
Mr. Jones said the Town of Holly
Springs generally falls in the typical category of anywhere between five feet,
in the TV district, and up to 100 feet, when adjacent to US Hwy. 1 and the future
I-540 rights of way.
He explained that currently the UDO
allows for some reduction of front setbacks in Local Business and Community
Business zoning districts. Standard
setback for Local Business is 30 feet along minor and major thoroughfares, collector streets, local streets, cul-de-sac streets or
residential gateways and 50 feet in Community Business for minor and
major thoroughfares, collector streets, local
streets, and cul-de-sac streets.
The UDO allows for reduction of
these front setbacks down to 20 feet and 15 feet in Local business and down to
30 feet in the Community Business districts.
If the developer chooses to utilize this reduction option they must
provide extras in the form of extra landscaping.
He said staff has some concerns
about requiring more landscaping for these reduced front setbacks when in the
past year the town has adopted new architectural standards for new
developments. Staff wants these
buildings to be seen, especially if the development has met all architectural
standards. Staff is comfortable with and
does encourage buildings to utilize the front setback reduction option when
appropriate, but again we are discouraged that the current option available to
developers is to increase landscaping, thus hiding the buildings.
He said staff is proposing to remove
all options related to extra landscaping when the front setback reduction is
used and replacing that language with options that no parking waiver or
alternate architectural compliance is requested for the development along the
yard of the reduction. This, we would
hope, ensure that if the reduction option is used, the Town will get
development that meets the current UDO, giving the Town a better looking
development in the end.
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
#1: The Council approved a motion to accept the following
statements as true: “The requested UDO text amendment is consistent with the
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: DeBenedetto
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #2: The Council approved a motion to adopt Ordinance #09-18 to
approve and enact UDO Text Amendment #08-UD0-08b to modify of UDO Section 3.02
and 3.05 regarding commercial setbacks.
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: DeBenedetto
Vote: Unanimous.
A copy
of Ordinance 09-18 is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages.
7c. Public Hearing: Ordinance 09-19, UDO Amendment 09-UDO-08 – Ms. L. Powell said that staff has
been working and researching this UDO amendment since the start of 2009. The FMI efficiency study also noted that the Town’s
landscaping regulations were confusing and hard to understand. This is the first phase of landscaping UDO
amendments in an effort to address that issue.
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
#1: The Council approved a motion to accept the following
plan consistency statements as true: “The
requested UDO text amendment is consistent with the
Motion By: Sack
Second By: DeBenedetto
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #2: The Council approved a motion to adopt Ordinance #09-19 to
approve and enact UDO text amendment #09-UDO-08 to modify the text of UDO
Section 7.01 Landscaping Regulations.
Motion By: Sack
Second By: DeBenedetto
Vote: Unanimous.
A copy
of Ordinance 09-19 is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages.
7d.
Public Hearing: Zoning Vested
Rights Petition 09-REZ-01,
She said phases 2 & 3 were
created under the old TN: Traditional Neighborhood zoning district, which is
different than any district in the Town's current UDO. The developer would like to continue with
those regulations so the entire project may be developed with the existing
phases 1 and 2, and be in character with the neighborhood. The main difference between R-8 and TN, is the setbacks as shown below:
|
Setback: |
TN: Traditional Neighborhood: |
R-8: Residential: |
|
Front |
8-foot minimum 24 feet maximum |
30 feet |
|
Side |
Side: 8-foot maximum Corner Side: 8-foot maximum |
Side: 5 feet Aggregate Side: 15 feet |
|
Rear |
30 feet |
20 feet |
With that explanation completed, Mayor Sears opened the
public hearing to accept input. The
following comments were recorded:
Wayne Mauldin of Mauldin Watkins Surveying -- Mr. Mauldin, as applicant, spoke in favor of the
petition, noting that the request is
being made because the project was delayed during an economic downturn. Now, developers are ready to return to the
project.
There being no comments, the public hearing was closed.
Action
#1: The Council approved a motion to accept the following
plan consistency statements as true: “The
requested UDO Text Amendment is consistent with the
Motion By: DeBenedetto
Second By: Sack
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #2: The Council approved a motion to approve zoning vested rights
petition #09-ZVR-01 to extend zoning vested
rights orginally granted on
Motion By: DeBenedetto
Second By: Sack
Vote: Unanimous.
7e.
Public Hearing: Ordinance 09-20, UDO Amendment 09-UDO-11 – Mr. Zawadski said that staff has
been reviewing and evaluating the text of the UDO since the adoption in
2002. While using the UDO staff comes
across minor errors, interpretations that are unclear, and sometimes
regulations that need to be added/changed. The result is a comprehensive list of
proposed amendments that will help to clarify and improve the UDO as well as
correct minor spelling/grammatical errors.
Completing these amendments will help to update the UDO resulting in a
more user friendly document.
He said staff suggests making the following revisions to
help clarify and improve UDO Section 7.03 Sign Regulations, Section 3.08
Architectural and Site Design Requirements, and Section 5 Planned Unit
Development:
UDO
Section 7.03 Sign Regulations
· Permit monument signs to be placed
in subdivision interiors for phase identification.
· Permit banners on light poles in TV
for Town events.
· Require all signage be removed when
a business moves out of a building.
· Revise the sign surface and
structure ratio requirements to permit more flexibility.
· Permit one governmental flag per lot
up to a maximum size and height.
Section
3.08 Architectural and Site Design Requirements
· Reduce the minimum window %
requirements in commercial zoning districts.
Section
5 Planned Unit Developments
· Require accessory structures in PUDs to follow setbacks in most comparable zoning
district instead of R-30.
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
#1: The Council approved a motion to accept the following
plan consistency statements as true: “The requested UDO Text Amendment is
consistent with the
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: DeBenedetto
Vote: Unanimous.
Action #2: The Council approved a motion to adopt Ordinance #09-20 to
approve and enact UDO text amendment #09-UDO-11 to modify the text of UDO
Section 7.03 Sign Regulations, Section 3.08 Architectural and Site Design,
Section 5 Planned Unit Development, and Section 2.08 General Regulations for
Residential Districts as submitted by the Town of Holly Springs.
Motion By: VanFossen
Second By: DeBenedetto
Vote: Unanimous.
A copy
of Ordinance 09-20 is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages.
8.
Consent Agenda: The Council approved a motion to
approve all remaining items on the Consent Agenda. The motion carried following a motion by
8a. Minutes – The
Council approved minutes of the Council’s meeting held
8b. Budget Amendment Report – This item was removed during Agenda
Adjustment.
8c. Personnel Policy Amendments
– The Council adopted amendments to the Town’s personnel policy.
8d.
8e. Minority Participation Goal
– The Council adopted a minority participation goal for the Town of Holly
Springs. A copy of Minority
Participation Goal policy is incorporated into these minutes as addendum pages.
8b. Budget
Amendment Report – Councilman DeBenedetto asked why the Council
was adopting a budget amendment before the Town goes to the Local Government
Commission for approval of the financing for the project. Mr. Holland explained that the budget
amendment contained in the monthly report already was approved by the Town
Council on Aug. 18. Mr. Holland said the
budget amendment was not being presented to Council for approval but was being
presented as part of a routine monthly report of budget amendments received by
the Council.
Councilman DeBenedetto
asked what would happen if the LGC does not approve the Town’s application.
Mr. Holland explained that the
project budget would go away because all approvals and the funding for the
accounts enumerated in the budget amendment were contingent upon LGC approval
and the obtaining of installment financing.
Mr. Dean explained that the project
budget has to be provided with the LGC application so that the board can review
where the project would be funded and how the money would be spent.
Mr. Dean explained the role of the Local
Government Commission.
Action: The
Council approved a motion to receive a report of amendments to the FY 2009-10
budget approved by the town manager and the Town Council.
Motion By:
VanFossen
Second By:
Sack
Vote:
The motion carried following a 2-1 vote.
Councilmen FanFossen and Sack voted for the
motion. Councilman DeBenedetto
voted against.
A copy
of the budget amendment report is incorporated into these minutes as addendum
pages.
9a. Yard Waste Disposal Alternative – Mr. Weeks
and Mr. McNeil addressed the Council.
Mr. Weeks explained that over the past few weeks, staff has been in
conversations with a Sanford-based company called Earthtec,
which is offering to accept the Town’s yard waste for free.
Earthtec is able to accept the Town’s yard waste tonnage
for free because the company would process the yard waste and ultimately turn
it into a usable product. The company
currently performs this process with other organizations that need to dispose
of yard waste.
He
said Town representatives had visited the
He
said the Town currently hauls and disposes of yard waste at a facility near
Fuquay-Varina (Bryant Grading Inc.) at a rate of approximately $45 per
ton. Accordingly, staff budgeted $75,000
for landfill fees. The Public Works
Department uses eight-cubic-yard trucks to haul the yard waste to the current
disposal site, which equates to an average of 12 trips per week during non-leaf
season and 110 trips per week during leaf season. Round trip per truck is about 20 miles. After factoring in fuel and labor costs, the
total cost for the current option comes to $118,000 annually.
Mr.
Week said the option staff is proposing (Earthtec)
would save the Town a significant amount of money in terms of both labor and landfill
costs. The Town would need to make one
up-front purchase of a 110-cubic-yard trailer, which would be pulled by an
existing truck.
He
said the new trailer would allow the Town to cut the number of trips it makes
to the disposal site significantly.
Instead of 12 or 110 trips per week for non-leaf and leaf seasons,
respectively, the new trailer would allow the Town to average 0.8 or 8 trips
per week.
He
said the estimated cost for the trailer is $45,000. Fuel costs would decrease as less trips are
needed, which would more than offset the additional miles needed to get to
Sanford (round trip would be about 80 miles.)
Labor costs would also decrease from approximately $37,000 now to $5,000
with the proposed method. The total
projected cost of the proposed option comes to $18,000 annually starting in Year
2. Cost for Year 1, with purchase of the
trailer, would be approximately $63,000.
Town staff is proposing the Council enter into a five-year contract with
Earthtec to accept the Town’s yard waste.
It
is estimated that the Town in Year 1 would save approximately $55,000.
In Year
2 and subsequent years, the Town can expect to save roughly $100,000. Projected out five years, the estimated
savings by going with the free-tipping fee, the Earthtec
option would provide savings in excess of $450,000. Moreover, the Town would possess a 110 cubic
yard trailer for other potential uses.
Action:
The Council approved a motion to enter a five-year contract with Earthtec for disposal of yard waste and to adopt an
amendment to the FY 2009-2010 budget in the amount of $45,000 to
purchase a 110-cubic-yard trailer.
Motion By:
Sack
Second By:
VanFossen
Vote:
Unanimous.
A copy of a budget amendment is incorporated into these minutes as an
addendum page.
10. Other Business: Councilman Sack apologized for missing the
Sept. 16 meeting but took his wife on a 40th wedding anniversary
trip on the
11.
Manager’s Report: Mr. Dean reminded the Council
that Chic-Fil-A restaurant would have its ribbon
cutting on Thursday morning; Dog Day in the Park is set for Saturday; a
contingent from
12.
Closed Session: None.
13. Adjournment: There being no further business for the evening, the
Respectfully Submitted on
_________________________________
Addendum pages as referenced in these
minutes follow and are a part of the official record.