Minutes of 09/03/2003 Planning Board Meeting [adopted]

Transcription

1 Minutes of 09/03/2003 Planning Board Meeting [adopted] Angel M Kropf on 09/10/2003 at 11:04 AM Category: Planning Board Minutes MINUTES Wake County Planning Board Wednesday, September 3, :30 p.m., Room 700 Wake County Courthouse 316 Fayetteville Street Mall Raleigh, N.C. Members Present (7): Mr. Mason Williams (Chair), Mr. Bill Miller, Mr. John Miller, Mr. Loftee Smith, Ms. Beth Trahos, Mr. Terry Yeargan, Dr. Eleanor Nunn Members Not Present(3): Ms. Robin Hammond, Mr. Bobby Lewis, Mr. Ed Ashworth Staff Members Present (6): Ms. Melanie Wilson (Planning Director), Ms. Melinda Clark (Land Development Administrator), Mr. Keith Lankford (Planner III), Mr. Tim Clark (Planner III), Ms. Jennifer Song (Planner II), Mr. Larry Morgan (Planner II), Ms. Courtney Tanner (Planning Technician), Mr. Mark Harben (Administrative Assistant II) 1. Call to Order - Mr. M. Williams called the meeting to order at 1:35 pm with 6 members present. 2. Petitions and Amendments - Mr. M. Williams asked if there were any petitions or amendments. There were none. 3. Approval of Minutes of August 20, 2003 meeting. Mr. M. Williams asked members if there were any corrections or additions to the minutes. Mr. J. Miller made a motion that the minutes be adopted as written. Seconded by Mr. Smith, the motion carried by a vote of Other Public Concern Matters a. Special Highway Overlay District STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Jennifer Song presented the staff report. Mr. Yeargan asked about other municipalities and their format. Mr. Clark answered that most municipalities had a SHOD and that they were very similar. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES The following people spoke out about the SHOD: 1. Dianne Wall 2. Gerald Ackland 3. Sam Ellis 4. Sam Oliver 5. Linda Powell

2 BOARD DISCUSSION The board had several questions for the staff. Ms. Wilson and Mr. Clark responded to questions from the board on what the SHOD would do and the benefits to implementing it now or tabling it. Mr. Clark suggested that the request could be split into two parts and approving one, while tabling the other. He felt that one part needed to be addressed immediately and that pushing it to a further date would not be beneficial. BOARD ACTION Mr. Williams tabled the motion to the Land Use Committee Meeting that will be held on September 23, 2003 at 11:00 AM. 5. Rezoning a. [ZP ] Optimist Farm Road and West Lake Road: Request to rezone three tracts of land totaling acres from Residential-30 to Residential-20. The property is located on the south side of Optimist Farm Road southwest of its intersection with West Lake Road. The property lies within the Town of Cary's Short-Range Urban Services Area. PIN #s , part of and part of STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Mr. Larry Morgan presented the staff report. Mr. B. Miller asked what the density per acre would be if it was not rezoned. Mr. Morgan answered that if it was done as a regular subdivision, it could be no more than 1.5 units per acre. If it was done as a cluster, the lots could be 12,000 square feet. If it was zoned R-20 and was a cluster, the lots would only have to be 6,000 square feet. Of course, with a cluster subdivision, you would have to preserve some open space. Mr. Miller asked if the real difference between R-30 and R-20 zoning district would be 2.17 units per acre and 1.5 units per acre. Mr. Morgan answered that Mr. Miller was correct. Mr. Miller asked what was located to the south and east of the site. Mr. Morgan answered that it was the site of Cary's Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mr. Miller asked if the current designation was in agreement with Cary's plan. Mr. Morgan answered that it was. Mr. Miller stated that this is an example of cluster subdivisions flocking to land that is not developable and taking advantage of land that could not otherwise be developed. He stated that this rezoning has the additional problem of being close to the sewer plant. He asked if it would be advisable for the board to put additional population in that area. Mr. Yeargan asked for clarification on the town limit line. Mr. Morgan pointed it out to him and stated that Cary supports the proposal. Mr. Miller asked why it wasn't being annexed if they supported the proposal. Mr. Morgan answered that it was beyond their ability to annex at this time. Mr. Morgan stated that in their packet, there was a mention of how this was closer to Holly Springs than Cary. Mr. Miller asked what Holly Springs thought in regards to annexation. Mr. Morgan answered that since it lies within Cary's Short Range Urban Services area, there is an agreement that Holly Springs wouldn't take it in.

3 Mr. Miller asked about another gray area on the map. Mr. Morgan answered that the gray area is Holly Springs jurisdiction. He stated that Cary would be serving the area. Mr. Miller asked why Holly Spring couldn't just annex the parcel because they had just done so on another parcel. Mr. Morgan stated that it lies within Cary's Short Range Urban Services Area and they have an agreement to not do that. Ms. Wilson stated that the parcel could have been located in disputed area and that there have been a lot of discussions because of the Holly Springs' annexation of land. PRESENTATION OR COMMENTS FROM APPLICANT Mr. Mike Stewart stated that part of the issue was that Cary reached an agreement with the property owners prior to them annexing a strip of land adjacent to this property. He stated that there was not residential area in the areas annexed. He stated that they had an annex agreement for Cary to annex the land after the homes were built. He stated that the rezoning came about because other land in the area was rezoned to R- 20. The development they are proposing is consistent with Cary's Land Use Plan. COMMENTS FROM OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES Mr. David Danehower, 4009 Optimist Farm Road, Apex, NC 27539, passed out some key points he wanted to make about the rezoning. He then proceeded to go over the points with the board. BOARD DISCUSSION Mr. Miller asked for clarification on whether the R-20 zoning agrees with Cary's plan. Mr. Morgan stated that in the board member's packet is a letter from the Town of Cary that states they are in agreement with the proposed rezoning. Mr. Morgan stated that the cluster part of the equation is the important part. Mr. Yeargan asked if it was correct that if the board approves the rezoning, they wouldn't be able to do anything until they get water and sewer from Cary. Mr. Morgan answered that Mr. Yeargan was correct. Mr. Morgan stated that it can be developed at a low density with a septic or a higher density with municipal sewer. BOARD CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION TO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Mr. J. Miller made a motion to approve the rezoning. Ms. Trahos seconded the motion. Mr. Miller stated he was opposed because it was close to the Cary sewer plant and the land surrounding the site is R-30, not R-20. Mr. Miller also stated he was concerned about the traffic situation. With a vote of 6-1 with Mr. B. Miller opposing the motion, the motion passed. 6. Subdivision Variance Requests a. [SV-31-03] Rocky Branch Creek Variance: Request for variance for length of culde-sac. Mr. Smith recused himself because he is working with the consultant on another project. INTRODUCTION OF VARIANCE REQUEST BY STAFF

4 Mr. Keith Lankford presented the staff report. Mr. Williams asked if the property wasn't being subdivided, would there be any regulation about access to the property. Mr. Lankford answered that if they left it as one big piece, it would not. The extend of a variance must be limited to the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship. In order to approve a variance application and grant a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance, the Planning Board must first reach each of the following conclusions (as defined by North Carolina General Statutes and Section of the Wake County Subdivision Ordinance). 1. Practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships would result from carrying out the strict letter of the regulation. 1a. Strict compliance with the regulation allows the property owner no reasonable subdivision of the property. For example, it is not sufficient that the regulation would result in a subdivision of fewer lots or a subdivision that might be less profitable or marketable. 1b. The hardship results from application of the regulation to the property. For example, a hardship resulting from a characteristic of the property that is not affected by the regulation is not a relevant hardship. 1c. The hardship is one that affects the property directly. For example, the regulations hindrance to providing a benefit to neighboring properties or to the public is not a relevant hardship. 1d. The hardship is not the result of the property owner's own actions. For example, the hardship may not be one that the property owner inflicted on himself or could have avoided. 1e. The hardship is peculiar to the property. For example, the hardship must be due to conditions specific to the property, and not to conditions that are neighborhood-wide or widespread throughout the jurisdiction. 2. The variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Subdivision Ordinance and preserve its spirit. For example, a variance may not permit a lot density that is not already permitted (varying lot density standards, which help define zoning districts, may be done only through the rezoning or text amendment process). 3. In the granting of the variance, the public welfare will have been assured and substantial justice done. For example, a variance may not permit development that would be dangerous to neighbors, change the essential character of the neighborhood, or create additional difficulties with regards to traffic, fire, water supply, sewerage, flooding, etc. The harm to the property owner from denying the variance must outweigh the harm to neighbors and the public interest from granting the variance. TESTIMONY AND PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE RE HARDSHIP BY APPLICANT Tara A. Schwenzfeier, 530 Causeway Drive, Wilmington, NC, stated that she was there on behalf of the owners of the property. She stated that in their packet was a sheet

5 with their justifications on it and that Mr. Lankford did a good job explaining why they need to have the long cul-de-sac. She stated that with the cul-de-sac, they would only gain access to 3 lots and that the land is land-locked. TESTIMONY AND PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE BY OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES There were none. BOARD DISCUSSION There was none. BOARD CONCLUSIONS RE HARDSHIP AND ACTION ON VARIANCE REQUEST Ms. Trahos made the motion to approve the variance. Mr. J. Miller seconded the motion. With a vote of 6-0, the motion passed. b. [SV-32-03] Ruth's Landing: Request for variance for length of cul-de-sac. INTRODUCTION OF VARIANCE REQUEST BY STAFF Mr. Keith Lankford presented the staff report. Mr. Williams asked if they were subdividing and if there were two existing lots. Mr. Lankford stated that they weren't subdividing, they wanted to recombine the lots. Mr. Miller asked why the applicant needed to come to the Planning Board if they weren't subdividing. He stated that in the last case, Mr. Lankford said that if the applicant only wanted access to the property, the variance would not be needed. Mr. Lankford stated that this case was unusual. Ms. Clark stated that the lots were not legally subdivided, so by going through this process, it would legally subdivide. The extend of a variance must be limited to the minimum necessary to alleviate the hardship. In order to approve a variance application and grant a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance, the Planning Board must first reach each of the following conclusions (as defined by North Carolina General Statutes and Section of the Wake County Subdivision Ordinance). 1. Practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships would result from carrying out the strict letter of the regulation. 1a. Strict compliance with the regulation allows the property owner no reasonable subdivision of the property. For example, it is not sufficient that the regulation would result in a subdivision of fewer lots or a subdivision that might be less profitable or marketable. 1b. The hardship results from application of the regulation to the property. For example, a hardship resulting from a characteristic of the property that is not affected by the regulation is not a relevant hardship. 1c. The hardship is one that affects the property directly. For example, the regulations hindrance to providing a benefit to neighboring properties or to the public is not a relevant hardship.

6 1d. The hardship is not the result of the property owner's own actions. For example, the hardship may not be one that the property owner inflicted on himself or could have avoided. 1e. The hardship is peculiar to the property. For example, the hardship must be due to conditions specific to the property, and not to conditions that are neighborhood-wide or widespread throughout the jurisdiction. 2. The variance would be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Subdivision Ordinance and preserve its spirit. For example, a variance may not permit a lot density that is not already permitted (varying lot density standards, which help define zoning districts, may be done only through the rezoning or text amendment process). 3. In the granting of the variance, the public welfare will have been assured and substantial justice done. For example, a variance may not permit development that would be dangerous to neighbors, change the essential character of the neighborhood, or create additional difficulties with regards to traffic, fire, water supply, sewerage, flooding, etc. The harm to the property owner from denying the variance must outweigh the harm to neighbors and the public interest from granting the variance. TESTIMONY AND PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE RE HARDSHIP BY APPLICANT Mr. Jimmie Hunter, 4913 Jesse Drive, stated that Mr. Lankford summarized what he was trying to do. He stated they were trying to gain access to the back property. TESTIMONY AND PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE BY OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES There was none. BOARD DISCUSSION There was none. BOARD CONCLUSIONS RE HARDSHIP AND ACTION ON VARIANCE REQUEST Ms. Trahos made the motion to approve the variance. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. With a vote of 7-0, the motion passed. 7. Reports a. Subdivision Committee: Mr. Ashworth, Chair, was not present. b. Code and Operations Committee: Mr. J. Miller, Chair, asked if September 23 at 11:45 AM is an acceptable date for a meeting. c. Land Use Committee: Ms. Trahos, Chair, stated that the next meeting will be September 24 at 11:00 AM. d. Transportation Committee: Ms. Hammond, Chair, was not present. Mr. Smith stated that there is a meeting next week about the connector roads. It is on September 10 at the County Commons Building.

7 8. Planning Director s Report.- Ms. Wilson stated that the Hazard Mitigation Plan is going forward. Mr. Lankford gave a brief announcement about the plan. 9. Chairman s Report - There was none. 10. Adjournment - Mr. Williams asked if there was any other business to come before the Board. With no other business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:50 pm. Respectfully Submitted: Angel Kropf Secretary to the Board 09/09/03