I request that a copy of this email be included in the June 16, 2020 public record for rezoning case Z-41-19.
Patrick:
You have been given the facts and supporting references but continue to ignore them. Why?
"The most important factor in my decision is the recognition that this valuable property will be developed soon. If it is developed under current zoning, this would likely mean up to 24 large and expensive single family homes (maybe townhomes), the lot would be clear cut of trees, and massive retaining walls would be installed to support the buildings and the retaining wall would be completely exposed from the lake trail. There would be minimal setbacks from adjacent neighbors and no requirement to coordinate the traffic planning on North Hills Dr."
UDO FACT: R-6 does NOT allow the building of townhomes.
R-6 requires greater setbacks.
R-6 requires a minimum of 10% TCA
R-6 limits impervious surface to a maximum of 51% (less run off than RX)
It would be a challenge to place 24 LARGE and expensive DETACHED homes on the available acreage with the required setbacks and other restrictions. Individuals will likely NOT incur the expense of relocating both the power line and sewer easements.
The massive retaining walls would have to be installed to support the buildings and be exposed from the lake trail (as you state) to place the stormwater management infrastructure required by the RX upzoning.
It is unlikely that individual, private owners would develop the two interior lots currently owned by Mr. Anderson (714 and 716 West Millbrook) as the cost to do so and the issue with the likely intermittent stream make this difficult if not impossible. If it could have been developed, Mr. Anderson would have done so, on his own accord, years ago.
Again-
Recorded in the staff report section of the application:
"The subject site comprises five parcels that are predominantly wooded; three of the parcels are developed with detached houses. The southernmost parcel located at 910 W Millbrook Road is bisected by Millbrook Road. The highest point on the subject site is nearest the intersection of W Millbrook Road and North Hills drive where a detached house sits. From the high point, the property drops west towards Shelley Lake Park and southwest toward Millbrook Road and the Mine Creek. The portion of the subject site south of Millbrook Road is undeveloped and contains a daylit stormwater channel 30 feet below street-level that carries stormwater runoff east to west to the Mine Creek, south of the Shelley Lake dam. The severe topography and utility of this portion of the subject site as a stormwater devise make it highly unlikely that it could be developed at all. The high point on the subject site and the low point on the subject site span a range of 75 feet.”
What the staff report fails to include is the fact that the majority of the property drains to the northwest of the high point.
Additionally this northern area accepts stormwater from North Hills Place, a portion of Spring Garden Townhouses, and a portion of North Hills Drive. From the high point, the property drops northwest towards Shelley Lake Park which was built on Mine Creek.
The topography from the high point traveling north-northwest is sloped. The high point on the subject site and the low point on the majority of the subject site span a range of 69 feet.
This low point in the subject site shares a corner and boundary with property that is NOT part of the rezoning application.
It is likely that an intermittent, jurisdictional stream is located on the property as it can be found on the 1970 Wake County Soil Survey. This will impact the potential for development. It is likely that this stream exits the properties at this shared corner.
You would think the severe topography, sewer and 3-phase power line easements on this side of the subject site coupled with the other information presented above would make it highly unlikely that the site can be developed at all and if so only with great expense and negative impact.
Patrick, we both know that the lower property that is NOT connected to the upper properties will be treated as separate when the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) is applied at the site plan stage. This was confirmed in Mr. Rametta’s response to our questions over contiguity. This leaves the majority of the water running off the subject site traveling north- northwest.
"This rezoning proposal offers several advantages over the current zoning:
Spacing from the Park: There will be a 215 foot setback on the back of the property, next to Shelley Lake. This is in addition to the approximately 100 foot of vegetation on the park property that will further buffer the lake park. The condo buildings for the project will be further away from the lake trail than almost all townhomes and single family homes that are already present."
This was not a condition added, it was the redressing of something that already existed. Notice, there is no mention of the lower property that also abuts the park being held to this condition. It is not wide enough. The lower property was never intended to be build upon and is only present to increase acreage and provide the appearance of adequate TCA for the project's extreme density.
You are not considering the sloped land from the park, the limited number of trees on the park side (remember most of what you are seeing park side is invasive shrubs of Autumn Olive and Chinese Privet,) and the loss of all the trees from the stormwater management infrastructure and paved parking leading up to the building that can not adequately mask the structures. To attempt to deflect with a comment about the other existing buildings in the area, that have double tree coverage depending on where you are on the lake, doesn’t change the facts.
Trees on the subject site do more than mask the view. Trees provide sound buffering, temperature cooling, oxygen exchange, habitat, and erosion control. The preservation of mature trees is a must.
"Neighborhood transitions: the rezoning conditions include neighborhood transitions to reduce impact on the neighbors to the north."
The transition includes Zone B and Zone C which do not provide masking mature tree coverage, and the coverage that will be provided will take years to begin masking the structures. Smaller buildings and lower building height would be more appropriate. And remember again, the property on the subject site is sloped, contains the sewer easement, the likely intermittent stream, and one property contains the power line easement as well. This land is NOT land that would be easily developed, if at all, were it R-6. A better zoning for this area would be private open space as conservation management. The City staff report cautions that the inclusion of parking limited (PL) in the rezoning application will negatively impact the developer's ability to reach needed TCA minimum requirements. It was recommended that the PL request be removed from the application or find TCA elsewhere on the subject site- a tall order to achieve given the proposed density and the already clearcut areas existing on the property.
"Stormwater controls: the rezoning would require stormwater controls, which may be the first stormwater facility near the lake."
RX allows for a maximum of 65% impervious surface, R-6 is 14% lower at maximum 51% impervious surface. Both require tree conservation at a minimum of 10%. Most of the acreage is unbuildable or very difficult/ costly to prepare for building. The reality is that much of the land would not be built on and would not contain R-6 maximum allowed build. Even if it were, the 20 homes/ 24 maximum would not produce the stormwater issues threatened by the developer’s attorney.
"Coordinated Traffic Planning: the rezoning conditions require the developer to work with the City on restriping North Hills drive to mitigate the existing blind spot and to coordinate with the entrance across the street to North Hills Place. I am committed to seeing that this is done appropriately to ensure traffic safety in the area."
Only the City traffic engineer determines if a safety issue is present that requires a TIA (Traffic Impact Analysis). If one is done, then the “restriping” plan will be found to be inadequate as a mitigation for the number of issues involved. The issue you are NOT ADDRESSING is the traffic that appears out of nowhere from the North Hills/ West Millbrook intersection at full or beyond the speed limit. This can’t be solved with restriping. The issue is change in elevation at this location.
"New landscaping on North Hills Dr.: the rezoning conditions require the developer to landscape the property along North Hills Dr., after the relocation of the existing power line (which will likely go underground)."
Power Line easements do not allow you to plant within the easement below or above ground (per City Tree Manual). The easement that goes with the 4.1 acres (reference- Book: 017052 Page: 02340-02341) states a 30-foot wide easement clear of vegetation and trees. The existing easement in the interior of the property is already cleared. The relocation of the power line removes more TCA potential and clear cuts all trees along North Hills Drive that abut this property. The parking limited condition further impacts the ability to place significant landscaping here. As stated above, the City staff report cautions that the inclusion of parking limited (PL) in the rezoning application will negatively impact the developer's ability to reach needed TCA minimum requirements. It was recommended that the PL request be removed from the application or find TCA elsewhere on the subject site- a tall order to achieve given the proposed density and the already clearcut areas existing on the property.
Throughout this process we have sought to understand all the facts regarding this rezoning application, and we have worked diligently to consult experts in our quest for the truth. We have attempted to work with the developer. but as you recall on 2/18/2020 the developer told us the it was economics. The developer refused to lower the density and on 2/25/2020 at the Planning Commission vote, the attorney refused all requests to reduce density or make any changes to the rezoning application. We have continually shared what we have learned with you, as you are the voice for District A’s citizens. You were elected to serve your constituents. We ask the you do so.
