Growth and Natural Resources Committee

March 9, 2016

GROWTH AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE

The Growth and Natural Resources Committee of the City of Raleigh met in regular session on Wednesday, March 9, 2016, at2:00p.m. in the City Council Chamber, Room 201, Raleigh Municipal Building, 222 West Hargett Street, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, Raleigh, North Carolina, with the following present:

CommitteeStaff

Chairperson Kay C. Crowder, PresidingAssistant City Manager James Greene

Councilor Bonner GaylordDeputy City Attorney Ira Botvinick

Councilor Russ StephensonPlanner II Doug Hill

Councilor Dickie Thompson

These are summary minutes unless otherwise indicated.

Chairperson Crowder called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m.

The following item was discussed.

Item #15-01 – Z-39-15 – Trailwood Drive Conditional Use District. This item was previously discussed at the Committee’s January 27, 2016 and February 24, 2016 meetings and was held over for further discussion.

Planner II Doug Hill presented this item with the assistanceof a PowerPoint presentation. This was a request to rezone 5.61 acres from R-6 with SRPOD and SHOD-1 to RX-4-CU with SRPOD and SHOD-1. He showed various maps and photos of the site to the Committee, including an adopted zoning map, an aerial view, area topography, future land use, and urban form. He summarized the current proposed conditions, which include:

  1. Dwelling units per acre limited (max. 14 per acre);
  2. Site development restricted to residential uses; and
  3. Transit easement offered.

He then presented the following table comparing existing versus proposed zoning.

Existing Zoning / Proposed Zoning
Residential Density (max.): / 6 DUs/ acre
(max. 33 DUs) / 14 DU/ acre
(max. 78 DUs)
Setbacks (min.):
Front:
Side:
Rear: / 20’ (10’ after 1989)
5’ (15’ aggregate)
20’ / If Apartment Building Type:
5’
0 or 6’
0 or 6’
Retail Intensity Permitted: / -0- / -0-
Office Intensity Permitted: / -0- / -0-

Planner Hill stated that this case is consistent with the Future Land Use Map (Moderate Density Residential) with no Urban Form designation (Center or Corridor). The case is also consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies:

•Policy LU 1.2 - Future Land Use Map and Zoning Consistency

•Policy LU 1.3 - Conditional Use District Consistency

•Policy LU 2.6 - Zoning and Infrastructure Impacts

•Policy LU 5.4 - Density Transitions

•Policy LU 5.6 - Buffering Requirements

•Policy LU 6.4 - Bus Stop Dedication

•Policy LU 8.12 - Infill Compatibility

•Policy T 4.15 - Enhanced Rider Amenities

Despite the consistency with the Future Land Use Map, he stated that two outstanding issues remain. These issues include:

  1. Existing block perimeter exceeds UDO standards; and
  2. Sewer and fire flow matters may need to be addressed upon redevelopment.

Planner Hill reminded the Committee that the Planning Commission had recently recommended approval by a 7-3 vote because they believe the proposal is consistent with the Future Land Use Map and applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission also believes that the proposed rezoning is reasonable and in public interest due to the transit services, current and future sidewalk plans, and compatibility with the surrounding area. In addition, the height of the proposed building could provide a transition between 3-story apartments to the west and potential 5-story development to the east, on Centennial Campus.

Though the Planning Commission recommends approval, the West CAC recommends denial. The CAC voted 27-1 against the caseon November 17, 2015 and 2200on January 19, 2016.

Planner Hill mentioned that Senior Planning Engineer Todd Delk could provide more information regarding the traffic study. Engineer Delk mentioned that the information in the presentation was provided by the applicant. He reminded the Committee of the concerns from the January 27, 2016 Committee meeting, which included capital improvement projects in the area, transit service in the area, and transit easement north of the subject property. He noted that a traffic study was requested at that time, including information regarding the appropriate trip generation for increased bedrooms, Trailwood Drive vehicular capacity, intersection operations (particularly at Avent Ferry Road), and operations at the site entrance on Trailwood Drive.

Planner Delk then provided context of the street plan and existing projects in the immediate vicinity. These projects include the FY16 Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (“CAMPO”) Locally Administered Projects Program (“LAPP”) Project and additional sidewalks. He stressed that regardless of the outcome of Z-39-15, the City has a plan for pedestrian connectivity and improvement in this specific area. He provided the Committee with information regarding existing transit services, as shown below:

Transit Service:

  • GoRaleigh #11 (30-minute peak, 1-hour off-peak on weekends)
  • Connections: GoRaleigh #7L, #11L and Wolfline (Avent Ferry, Gorman, Centennial)

*No easement found in property records

He reminded the Committee of its request for a consultant to consider trip generations as an alternative to unit based development (i.e.,utilizing a specific number of bedrooms versus an estimate using number of units). During the traffic study it was discovered that based on 68 units, the projected trips using this method were about 60% higher.

This number is based on the fact that the typical apartment building in the area is comprised of 50% 1-bedroom, 40% 2-bedroom, and 10% 3-bedroom. Engineer Delk noted that in a typical case, none of these increases in traffic would have tripped the need for a traffic impact analysis (“TIA”) based on the levels of increased traffic required. He clarified that the entire Trailwood Drive was evaluated, including the location of the proposed entrances. Ultimately, the study determined that traffic would not be an issue for this case. The data from the TIA study can be found below:

Trip Generation Methodology

Typical Apartment Building:

  • 50% 1-bedroom, 40% 2-bedroom, 10% 3-bedroom
  • 100 units = 160 bedrooms

Trips per… / Daily / AM Peak / PM Peak
Calculated for Proposed Development
…Bedrooms / 4.16 / .32 / .39
ITE Trip Generation Manual
…Units / 6.65 / .51 / .62
…Residents / 3.31 / .28 / .40

Trip Generation

Scenario / Units / Daily / AM Peak / PM Peak
In / Out / TOTAL / In / Out / TOTAL
Existing Zoning / 33 homes / 379 / 8 / 25 / 33 / 25 / 14 / 39
Proposed Zoning / 68 apts / 536
(+157) / 7 / 30 / 37
(+4) / 36 / 19 / 55
(+16)
238 residents / 788
(+252) / 13 / 54 / 67
(+30) / 61 / 34 / 95
(+56)
238 bedrooms / 1000
(+621) / 15 / 61 / 76
(+43) / 60 / 33 / 93
(+54)

Trailwood Drive Capacity

•Capacity (NCDOT): 11,200 veh/day Level of Service D

•No NCDOT Annual Average Daily Traffic counts

•Calculated using peak hour counts (~10% daily)

2016 Volume*8,200 veh/day

+ 2-yr 1% growth365 veh/day

+ Site traffic750 veh/day

TOTAL (2018) 9,115 veh/day LOS C

Trip Distribution

•Trailwood to/from north – 95% of site traffic

–70% to Avent Ferry Road east

–5% to Avent Ferry Road west

–15% to Main Campus Drive

–5% to Thistledown Drive

–

•Trailwood to/from south – 5% of site traffic

–2% to Tryon Road east

–3% to Tryon Road west

Peak Hour LOS

Trailwood Intersection / Existing 2016 / No Build 2018 / Build 2018
AM / PM / AM / PM / AM / PM
@ Avent Ferry / C (22) / C (22) / C (22) / C (22) / C (24) / C (24)
@ Thistledown/
Main Campus / B (11) / B (15) / B (11) / B (16) / B (11) / B (17)
@ Lineberry / D (42) / C (21) / D (46) / C (22) / D (46) / C (22)
@ Tryon / B (19) / C (22) / B (20) / C (23) / C (20) / C (23)

Peak Hour LOS Continued

Trailwood Intersection / Build 2018
AM / PM
Site Entrance 1
(unsignalized) / EB / C (25) / E (35)
NB / A (8) / A (10)
Site Entrance 2
(unsignalized) / EB / C (23) / D (33)
NB / A (8) / A (10)

Chairperson Crowder asked the Committee members if they had any questions. Councilor Gaylord asked what the implications would be for not having a transit easement. EngineerDelk responded that the applicant may be able to offer a transit easement on the site.

The Committee requested clarification on the location of the property in relation to the photos provided. Planner Delk provided this clarification and reiterated the plans to add sidewalks and pedestrian improvements. Chairperson Crowder thanked Engineer Delk for his assistance with clarification and asked Attorney Lacy Reeves to speak on the issue.

Attorney Lacy Reeves, 150 Fayetteville Street, representing the applicant, confirmed both Planner Hill and Engineer Delk’s summary; however, he stated his client was prepared to submit a revised list of proposed conditions that include reducing the maximum density to 10 units per acre, whether it is done with an R-10 zoning or with an RX-3, which would maintain the 3-story height limit. Additionally, he added that his client is prepared to provide the transit easement that was discussed in Engineer Delk’s presentation and will be conserving as many trees as possible, whether that includes a Parkway frontage or a zoning condition.

Attorney Reeves next spoke about the other conditions that the applicant is prepared to offer, including no more than 50% 4-bedroom units out of the total dwelling units developed. He added that the case has evolved significantly over the last several months and he would be happy to answer any further questions.

Chairperson Crowder commented that Parkway frontage would be more appropriate with the existing area, and that with an R-10, Parkway frontage cannot be applied because of the residential nature of the zoning. She added that with RX-3 zoning with a conditionof 10 units per acre, Parkway frontage could be applied. Attorney Reeves responded that he is aware of that issue; however, his client is not at the point of including that in a specific proposal.

Councilor Stephenson asked Attorney Reeves why the applicant was not prepared to offer a condition for Parkway frontage at this time. Attorney Reeves responded that there has not been enough real-site analysis in order to determine what the possibilities are in regards to the streetscape along Trailwood Drive. He did note that his team is in the process of addressing the issue and is aware of the Committee’s concerns. He believes that with time, his team will address the issue in a manner that is satisfactory. Attorney Reeves asked the landscape architect to provide further information.

Landscape architect Tony Tate, 5011 South Park Drive in Durham, spoke briefly about the two zoning options. Upon Councilor Stephenson’s request for clarification, Attorney Reeves provided assurance that although it is not determined how at this point, the issue will be addressed.

Chairperson Crowder stated her appreciation to the applicant for his willingness and effort to engage in conversation with the neighbors. She added that the Committee’s initial concerns of traffic and density have been adequately addressed, noting that she would prefer to have less than 50% 4-bedroom units. Wanting to clarify expectations, she stated that another important concern is regarding trees in the area. An RX-3 with a limit of 10 units per acre and a parkway frontage would meet the expectations. Next, she asked Attorney Reeves if the applicant would be willing to build a bus shelter. Attorney Reeves responded that his team would certainly consider that option.

As a continuation of conditions, Chairperson Crowder stated that she would like to prohibit the use of the following materials on the exteriorfinish of the proposed structure:

  • Vinyl siding;
  • EIFS;
  • Exposed treated lumber;
  • Masonite;
  • Hardipanels; and
  • Concrete masonry units less than architectural grade.

Attorney Reeves stated that these suggestions were very helpful and thanked Chairperson Crowder for her comments. Chairperson Crowder then asked Assistant Planning Director (APD)Travis Crane to give specific information relative to the project timeline and setting a public hearing, including clarification on when the new conditions could be applied. APD Travis Crane stated that the next step for the Council would be to set a Public Hearing date, emphasizing that the deadline to do so was near. He then offered the following information:

  • The City Council must conduct a public hearing;
  • City staff can choose to accept new zoning conditions that are more restrictive at the conclusion of the public hearing. Once the public hearing is closed, the applicant can offer new zoning conditions that are more restrictive than what was advertised; and
  • City Council has 30 days to consider the new, revised conditions. The applicant does not have the ability to offer new conditions after this point.

Chairperson Crowder suggested adding this item to the March 15, 2016 Council meeting agenda as a request for a public hearing on April 5, 2016. She confirmed with Attorney Reeves that this would be enough time for him to specify his applicant’s request in regards to the Parkway frontage, zoning, and trees.

Deputy City Attorney Ira Botvinick reminded the Committee that any new conditions must be received two full working days prior to the March 15, 2016 Council meeting, meaning the deadline for the new conditions would be Thursday, March 10, 2016. Planner Crane suggested that the Committee report out this item out to the full Council and suggest a public hearing date of April 5, 2016. After the public hearing, the Committee would be able to consider any new conditions.

Attorney Botvnick asked for clarification on what the public hearing would be advertising. APD Crane responded that the public hearing would be advertised with the conditions as were presented today. Attorney Botvnick expressed his concern with advertising this issue to the public with conditions that are not accurate. APD Crane agreed; however, he stated that due to the restrictive time window of the Code, the information must be presented as is.

Attorney Reevestold the Committee that it would be possible to submit specific information on the zoning district they would be requesting, adding that any further conditions would be more restrictive than the conditions that are currently advertised. APD Crane agreed, as did Chairperson Crowder. She added that she would like to address the 10-day window dilemma with Assistant City Manager Jim Greene and the Planning Department. She also added that she appreciates the effort that the applicant has been willing to put in at the request of the Committee in order to create a product that everyone can feel comfortable with.

Chairperson Crowder provided an opportunity for any neighbors present at the meeting to speak.

Wendell Gilliam, 1129 Trailwood Drive, expressed his concern about the project and his difficulty communicating with the developer. He stated that although he believes R-10 zoning is reasonable, he wanted clarification on the specifics between R-10 and RX-3 zonings. He additionally expressed concern over the fate of the existing structure on the property should the current occupants decide to move. Chairperson Crowder asked APD Crane to speak on the differences as they relate to placing Parkway frontage on the property.

APD Crane stated that R-10 is residential and allows for a maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre (equating to 56 dwelling units for this particular proposal). He added that there are other potential uses for this type of zoning, including civic and institutional uses (i.e., churches and schools). RX zoning is a base-level residential mixed use district with a height component that offers a wider range than R-10; however, he noted that RX-3 with the current zoning conditions is as close to R-10 as possible due to the limit of 10dwelling units per acre, the height restriction, and residential-only conditions. He added that the benefit of zoning as RX is the ability to add Parkway frontage, which cannot be done with R-10 zoning. With the concern of saving trees, this would be a good solution.

Councilor Thompson asked APD Crane to define Parkway frontage. He responded that Parkway frontage would require 50 feet of trees from the edge of the street and would require at least one pedestrian path through the trees to the structure. In regard to Mr. Gilliam’s concern with the existing structure on the property, Attorney Reeves stated that there is no intention for that portion of the property to develop at this time, adding that the current inhabitants of the home intend to remain living there. It is important to note that the current house on the property counts as one dwelling unit, meaning no more than 55 units could be included in the new project.

Councilor Stephenson asked APD Crane for clarification on the Parkway frontage, asking if the developer would be required to start planting trees if the Parkway frontage were to be applied. APD Crane replied that the developer would, in fact, have to plant more trees under the Parkway frontage.

Patricia Beach, 1209 Trailwood Drive, stated that further clarification was needed regarding the existing structure. She inquired what type of development would be allowed on that parcel if and when the current family decides to leave the house. Councilor Gaylord responded that the dwelling units on the entire property could not exceed 56. For further clarification, he stated that if the developer had already built up to the maximum 56 units, no additional dwelling units could be added unless the property was rezoned.

The Committee discussed the next steps, with Councilor Stephenson recommending that all items discussed during this meeting become a part of the potential upcoming public hearing. The Committee suggested the following accumulated list as conditions to the expected RX-3 zoning proposal:

  • 4-bedroom units will not exceed 50% of total units;
  • Construction of a transit shelter in the proposed transit easement;
  • Maximum of 10 units per acre density cap;
  • Parkway frontage or its equivalent; and
  • Exclusion of the following materials for the exterior finish:
  • Vinyl siding;
  • EIFS;
  • Exposed treated lumber;
  • Masonite;
  • Hardipanels; and
  • Concrete masonry units less than architectural grade.

There being no other questions, a motion was made by Councilor Stephenson to place a request on the March 15, 2016 agenda for a public hearing to be held on April 5, 2016. The motion was seconded by Chairperson Kay Crowder and carried unanimously 4-0.