6700  The Smithfield Town Council met in regular session on Tuesday, August 20, 2024 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council  Chambers oft the Smithfield" Town Hall, Mayor Pro-Tem Roger Wood presided.  Councilmen Present: Travis Scott, District3 Dr. David Barbour, District4 4 John Dunn, At-Large Stephen Rabil, At-Large  Councilmen Absent M. Andy Moore, Mayor Marlon Lee, District1 Sloan Stevens, District2  Administrative Staff Present Michael Scott, Town Manager Ted Credle, Public Utilities Director Jeremey Daughtry, Fire Chief Lawrence Davis, Public' Works Director Andrew Harris, Finance Director Pete Hedrick, Chief of Police Gary Johnson, Parks & Rec Director Shannan Parrish, Town Clerk Stephen' Wensman, Planning! Director Administrative Staff Absent  Also Present CALLTO ORDER INVOCATION  Robert Spence, Jr., Town Attorney  Mayor Pro-Tem Wood called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm  Thei invocation was given by Councilman Scott followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.  APPROVAL OF AGENDA:  Councilman Scottr made ar motion, seconded by Councilman Barbour, to approve the agenda Remove from the Public Hearings: Item 3: Special Use Permit Request- - Heritage Townes atV Waddell (SUP-24-02): Samuel O'Brien (Shovel Ready. Johnson, Inc)i isi requesting gas special use permiti for Heritage Townes atl Waddell, a 16-unit townhouse development on 1.88 acres ofland int the R-8 Zoning District. The proposed development. is located 19 and 21 Waddell Drive, approximately 460 feet north of the Brightleaf Boulevard and Waddell Drive intersection, and furtheri identified by the Johnston County Tax ID#s 15005023, 15005022, Add to the Consent. Agenda: Item 2. Special Event Amendment: Consideration and request for approval to amend the DSDC Octoberfest event to include closing a portion of the 200  amended asf follows:  and 15005022A.  block of Johnston Street to add additional children's events.  Add Councilmember's Comments Unanimously approved.  PUBLIC HEARINGS:  1. Conditional Zoning Request Massey Street Subdivision (CZ-24-04): Adams & Hodge Engineering, PC is requesting the rezoning of approximately 0.38 acres of land located on Massey Street on the block between South Sixth Street and South Seventh Street, also identified by the Johnston County Tax ID 15026054 and 15026055, from R-8 to R-8 Conditional with a plan for  three detached: single-family residential homes  Councilman Barbour made a motion, seconded by Councilman Dunn, to open the public  hearing. Unanimously approved.  Planning Director Stephen Wensman explained that Adams and Hodge submitted a conditional zoning request to rezone 0.38 acres of land on Massey Street, located between South Sixth and South Seventh Streets (identified by Johnson County IDs 1506054 and 15026055), from R8t tol R8 conditional. The proposal included the development oft three detached, single-family homes designed as an extension of the nearby Spring Branch Commons Phase Two. These homes would feature two-story architecture with board and batten! laps siding and shakes, more elaborate than those int the existing Phase Two, and would be accessed viaa ap private 16-foot-wide alley, providing rear' vehicular access. The development would match the lots sizes The comprehensive plan guides this area for medium-density residential development, supporting a density of9.68 units per acre, while this proposal offers a slightly lower density of eight units per acre. Each oft the three lots would have frontage on Massey Street, and the development would be walkable to downtown, potentially reducing the need for vehicles. Two parking spaces per home would be provided in the rear, Key elements oft the plan included sidewalks in the Massey Street public right-of-way, shared open space  and setbacks of Spring Branch Phase Two.  along with roll-outt trash bins tob bes screened from public view.    6701  (likely used for stormwater management), and a condition for matching fencing with Spring Branch Phase Two. Conditions for approval also included securing an access easement for the alley connecting to South Sixth Street, ensuring stormwater management, and incorporating HOA agreements for the shared maintenance ofa amenities. Staff foundt the development consistent witht thei town's Comprehensive Plan and Councilman Scott asked for clarification on the driveway situation, wondering ift the developer would be responsible for building it. Stephen Wensman explained that the development couldn't proceed without access via ane easement on the adjacent property. Ifthe neighboring development (Spring Branch Commons Phase Two) wasn't completed first, the developer would need to build the driveway and negotiate an Mayor Pro-TemV Wood askedi for clarification ont thev wording ofa condition, and Wensman confirmed itshould state that the project is contingent on the construction of Spring Branch Commons Phase Two or the Councilman Barbour raised concerns about the passive open space, noting its seemed to be designated for stormwater management. Mr. Wensman acknowledged that while the space was labeled as passive open space in the master plan, itv would likely be used for stormwater. Councilman Barbour also inquired ift the developer would pay a fee inl lieu of providing public parks, and Mr. Wensman confirmed that this would be Councilman Scott inquired whether there were any objections from other property owners regarding the rezoning oft the Massey Street block. Stephen Wensman responded that Paul Embler, who represented the neighboring property owner, had made them aware oft the project. Whilet therey weren'tanyf formal objections, there hadn't been extensivei face-to-face discussions. Att the time oft their last conversation, no promises or requests had! been made. Councilman Scottr notedi thati itwould likely bei int the besti interesto ofthe neighboring Councilman Barbour commented that the proposed. design for the development complemented the surrounding block, suggesting it would add value and likely not face objections from neighboring property owners. Her noted the design seemed compatible and did not detract from existing properties. Stephen Wensman agreed, mentioning that as long as details like shared maintenance were worked out through the easement, its should proceed smoothly. Councilman Dunn then asked about an existing house shown int the presentation, to which) Wensman confirmed itwas built during Phase One, with Phase Two set Councilman Dunn expressed concerns that the fencing and architectural designs previously shown might not match what was promised, particularly in terms of shutters and window treatments. He suggested this should be addressed now to ensure the development meets the town's expectations for upgraded architecture. Mr. Wensman agreed to double-check the architectural details, emphasizing the importance of Councilman Dunn expressed that he may have misunderstood the original design plan for the development, particularly regarding architectural details. He suggested adding design requirements, such as contrasting materials like vinyl and board and batten siding, tor reflecty what was previously shown. Councilman Barbour supported this, indicating the houses being built seemed consistent with what was presented, but agreed Stephen Wensman confirmedi thatt the design shown, including shaker siding, would bel held tot the presented images, and Councilman Dunn recommended adding a condition to ensure the homes reflect the Further discussion focused on setbacks and fencing. Mr. Wensman explained that the fencing was consistent with Spring Branch Phase One and that the setback on one side of the property was due to a buffer with a neighboring property. Councilman Scott clarified that the space between homes would be 11 Mayor Pro-Tem Wood asked if there was anyonei in attendance that wished to speak on the matter. There Councilman Barbour made a motion, seconded by Councilman Dunn, to close the public hearing. Councilman Scotte emphasized thei importance of communication! between the developers ofF Phase One and Phasel Two oft the project, considering thet tights space andp potential differences between them. Hes suggested this coordination shoulde either be a condition or clearly notedi in the record. Stephen' Wensman assured that communication with the adjacent landowner would be essential for the project's success, as they need to Councilman Barbour proposed including ai formal condition requiring as signed agreement, to ensure access isl legally recorded. Wensman confirmedi that such a condition was already included, ensuringt the necessary Mr. Wensman then reviewed the conditions for approval: codifying changes, securing a recorded access easement, removing the shared mail kiosk, requiring an HOA to maintain common areas, addressing  unified development code, recommending approval with eight conditions. Mayor Pro-Tem Wood askedi ift there were any questions from Council.  easement ands shared maintenance of amenities.  developer constructing the driveway and handling shared maintenance.  addressed duringt the platp process.  property owner to collaborate with the developer.  tol have similar homes.  maintaining higher standards toi improve the town's appearance.  additional clarity would help.  architectural design showni int the presentation.  feet, with additional buffer space ont the right side for the neighboring property. was no one ina attendance that wished tos speak ont the matter.  Unanimously approved.  secure access. Without an agreement, the project could not proceed.  easement: and agreements.    6702  architectural standards, managing stormwater, matching fencing to Spring Branch Phase Two, providing trash/recycling storage att the rear of homes, and ensuring the design shown in the presentation matches Councilman Dunn suggested that the new condition about architectural design be included under the architectural: standards condition. Lastly, Councilman Scott raised a concern abouti the HOAS structure, noting the potential issue ofhaving separate HOAS for Phase One and the three! houses in Phase Two. Wensman clarified that the three homes would have their own HOA unless they chose to combine with the larger Town Attorney Bob Spence clarified thati fort the three-lot development, restrictive covenants might be more appropriate than an HOA, especially given the small number of homes. These covenants would ensure shared responsibilities, such as repaving a common driveway or maintaining a stormwater pond, withoutt the needf for at formal HOA. Mr. Wensman agreed that the condition regarding an HOA could be amended to Councilman Barbour raised concerns aboutt the long-term viability of having two separate HOAS (for Phase One and the new development), suggesting itv would benefit future homeowners if the two projects were combined under one HOA. Mr. Wensman agreed to discuss this with the developers but noted it couldn't be enforced. Barbour emphasized that a single, unified HOAV would help avoid future issues, as smaller HOAS The conversation also touched on stormwater management, with Mr. Wensman assuring that there are mechanisms in place for yearly stormwater reports and code enforcement if maintenance lapses. Councilman Barbour and Mr. Spence discussed the legal options available ifthe HOA or homeowners fail tor maintain the stormwater pond, including the town steppingi in and placing al lien ont the property to cover  whati is built.  subdivision, which wouldr requirel legal agreements.  include restrictive covenants as an alternative.  oftens struggle with management and maintenance responsibilities.  costs.  Councilman Barbour made a motion, seconded by Councilman Dunn, to approve approval oft the conditional zoningr map amendment, CZ-24-04, with 8 conditions ofa approval, finding the rezoning consistent with the Town of Smithfield Comprehensive Growth Management Plan and other adopted plans, and that the amendment is reasonable andi int the public interest. Unanimously Ina accordance with Article 4, Part II, the Town of Smithfield Town Council imposes the following 8 1. Thatt the future development plans fort the project bei in accordance with the approved  approved.  additional conditions ont this Conditional Zoning request:  Master Plan and other UDO regulations with the deviations: Minimum loti frontage reduction from 70f feet to 41 feet. Minimum lot arear reduction from 8,000 sf. to 3,444sf. Driveway (alley width) 16f feet. Front Setback from 301 feett to 10f feet. Side Setback from 10f feet to 5.51 feet. Rear Setback from 251 feett to 201 feet.  2. That a recorded access easement be obtained fort the alley access to S Sixth Street. Thatt the approval be contingent on the construction oft the Spring Branch Commons Phase 2 development or permission to construct the driveway within ane easement. That ank HOA orr restrictive covenants be established tor maintain common areas and That amenities. architectural standards be provided andi incorporated in al homeowner's association (HOA) documents and the homes will be! built as depicted in thei image below:  FRONTI ELEVATION    6703  6. Stormwater management be addressed" with the future preliminary subdivision plat and 7. Fencing bei installed alongt the street frontage matching thati in Spring Branch Commons 8. Storage pads fort trash and recycling rollouts shall be provided alongt the rear façade of  construction plans. Phase 2 each home.  Town Clerk Shannan Parrish administered affirmations tot those wishing to offer testimony during the Public 2. Special Use Permit Request - Hartley Drive Townhomes (SUP-24-01): TerraEden Landscape &D Design LLC is requesting a special use permit for Hartley Drive Townhomes, a 94-unit townhouse development on 9.611 acres of land int the R-82 Zoning District. The property is located north-west of the Hartley Drive and Coates Drive intersection, also identified by the Johnston  Hearing.  County Tax ID 15K09010A, 15K09010P, and 15089019A.  Councilman Barbour made a motion, seconded by Councilman Dunn, to open the public  hearing. Unanimously approved.  Planning Director Stephen Wensman presented a special use permit request for a proposed townhouse development consisting of 94 units on 9.611 acres in the R8 zoning district. Multifamily housing is allowed through a special use permit in this district, meaning the project must adhere to all UDO (Unified Development Ordinance) codes. Unlike conditionalzoning, whicha allowsf flexibility, the developer muststrictly The development is located near Hartley Drive, which currently ends at an intersection and needs to be extended to provide access to the property. Though Coates right-of-way also exists nearby, itis currently unbuilta and used as a residential driveway. The developer chose to extend Hartley Drive for access rather than use Coates. The surrounding areai includes industrial, R20, R8, and R10: zoning districts. Water and sewer willl be provided by the Town of Smithfield, while Duke Energy will supply electricity. The site, currently vacant and wooded, features drainage ditches running east to west, with no wetlands or floodplains present.. A 20-foot sanitary sewer easement runs along the western edge oft the site, and there are landlocked parcels nearby, but they do not affect the project's access or development. While the developer isn't required to provide access to these landlocked properties, some future development might The proposed layout includes two entrances from Hartley Drive and three rows of townhouses. The development willi include a private parking lot, mail kiosk, and amenity area. The design complies with the UDO, with a Type A buffer on the sides and rear of the property and a Type C screening fence along the industrial boundary. The townhouses will be set back 40f feeti from the perimeter, and there will be a 30-foot Hartley Drive, currently a 20-foot-wide DOT standard road, will be widened to 27 feet to meet the town's local streets standards, with ditchesf for drainage. Ther roade extension willi include a' "hammerhead" turnaround forl large vehicles, which has beena approved byt thei fire marshal. Sidewalks willl be constructed along Hartley Drive. Eacht townhouser willl have small entrance porches, patios, ands storage areas, with façade modulations tob break upi the mass oft the units. The materials willl be a combination of vinyl, brick, and stone, but specific The 17.5-foot-wide townhouses willl be among ther narrowest int the town, similar tot those atE East River. The buildings will be 301 feett tall, and each townhouse will have over 36 square feet of storage space, exceeding ther requirements. Rolloutt trash containers willl be storedi int the rear oft the buildings and movedt to designated The development includes a 5,000-square-foot recreation area at the northern end, with parking and a mail kiosk. Whilet therei isr no current plan for a playground ort tot lot, the recreation area meets the requirements of the UDO. The project will have an impervious surface of 42.8%, necessitating the construction of a stormwater pond, which! has been provided int the plans. The HOA will maintain the stormwater system and The developer planst tor run public water and sanitary sewer lines to the individual units, requiring a 30-foot- wide easement for these utilities.. Although nos signs have beenp proposed yet, if they are included, they will bep placed int the open space near the entrance. Atraffic study will be required because the developmenti is projected to generate moret than 8001 trips per day. This study will determine whether additional streets are  followt the established rules.  negotiate additional: access points.  separation between buildings, adhering to building heightr requirements.  materials have not been fully identified.  medians for trash pickup.  other common amenities.  necessary tor manage the increasedi traffic. STAFF'S OPINION ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT  Mr. Wensman reviewed: staffs opinion oft the findings. They are asi follows:  4.9.4.5.1. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the special use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public! health, safety, or general welfare. The project will not be detrimental to ore endanger the public health, safety or general welfare. There are no environmental impacts, public utilities will  be, provided, stormwater. managed, anda adjacent properties will be buffered.    6704  4.9.4.5.2 The establishment oft the special use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement oft the surrounding property for uses permittedi int the district. The project will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted 4.9.4.5.3.. Adequate utilities, drainage, parking, or necessary facilities have been or are being provided. The development will provide adequate utilities, drainage, parking and necessary facilities. 4.9.4.5.4. The proposed use shall not be noxious or offensive by reason of vibration, noise, odor, dust, 4.9.4.5.5. Adequate measures have been orv will bet taken to provide ingress and egress so designed ast to minimize traffic congestion int the public streets. Proper ingress and egress will be provided. A traffic study willl be required as part oft the development of the site to determine ift there are any other traffic 4.9.4.5.6. That the use will not adversely affect the use or any physical attribute of adjoining or abutting property. The use will have no adverse. impacts on the abutting or adjoining properties. 4.9.4.5.7. That the location and character oft the use, ifdeveloped according to the plan as submitted and approved, will bei in harmony with the areai in which itist to be located. The location and character of the use willl bei ini harmony with the area which consists of medium density residential, both single family 4.9.4.5.8. The special use shall, in all other respects, conform to allt the applicable regulations of the district 1. That the parking lote entrances be constructed in accordance with the Town's standard driveway 3. Thata a 30' wide public utility easement be provided over the proposed water and sewer lines. Planning Director Stephen Wensman has incorporated his entire record and provided it to the Council in Councilman Barbour: askedI Mr. Wensman to display the area oft the proposed development on Google Maps ora GIS tool tob better understand the roads and current conditions, particularly Coates Road and Hartley Drive. Mr. Wensman explained that Coates Road was paved until iti intersects with Hartley Drive, at which point it becomes: a residential driveway and is unbuilt tot the north. Similarly, Hartley Drive degenerates into Councilman Scotti inquired about the planned locations for trash receptacles, which Mr. Wensman clarified would be placed in designated medians between parking stalls on trash day, ensuring the cans aren't Councilman Dunn raised a concern abouty whether end-unit townhouses might installi fences that could block the access for middle units tot take outt their trash. Wensman confirmed that each unit would have access to common open space behind the homes, preventing such issues, and that fencing restrictions could be The discussion then returned to stormwater management, with Councilman Barbour highlighting that a significant amount of water flows through the area, especially from nearby apartments, creating a drainage issue. Wensman explained thatt thes stormwater would be managed by a retention pond on the development site and confirmed thatt the flow ofwaterv would! be directed awayf from thee existing neighborhood. Councilman Barbour emphasized that addressing these drainage issues would likely improve conditions for the Mr. Wensman discussed: a utility easement that runs alongside the proposed development, explaining that itmust ber respected within the design plan. Councilman Barbour then asked about a large cul-de-sac and access road near the end ofH Hartley Drive, which had previously required cleanup due tov water damage. Mr. Wensman confirmed that Hartley Drive, ini its undeveloped: state, currently consists ofa gravel drive and that the traffic study could potentially require further road development, including the extension of Hartley Drive Mr. Wensman clarified that the developers would extend Hartley Drive as part oft the project, but it was not clear whether the entirel length of Hartley and Adams should be built out, which was something that would depend ont ther results oft thet traffici impacta analysis (TIA). Hel highlighted that Adams Roadi is currently paved Mayor Pro-Tem Wood askedt the applicanti if he agreed with the testimony provided by Mr. Wensman and if he had additional testimony to offer. Paul Embler testified that he was in agreement with the testimony  int the district.  smoke, or gas. The use will not create. such nuisances.  orr roadway improvements necessary.  and townhomes int the area.  inv whichi itis located. The special use will meet all applicable regulations. Planning Staffr recommends approval of SUP-24-01 with thet following conditions: 2. That at traffici impact study be conducted priort to the preliminary plat.  detail.  written form int the August 20, 2024 agenda packet.  Mayor Pro-Tem' Wooda askedi ift there were any questions from the Council.  agravel trail with a large ditch neari its end.  scattered. Thet trash receptacles will be stored behind the homes when not in use.  managed! by thel HOA.  surrounding community, which had raised concerns about flooding.  and Adams Roadt tol help disperse traffic.  for about2 20-30f feet before transitioning into an undeveloped area.  offered by Mr. Wensman.    6705  Paul Embler testifiedi that the projectr met allt thet town's ordinance requirements for multifamily development associated with townhomes under the special use permit request. He added clarification regarding Hartley Drive, explaining that the properties fronting Hartley Drive, opposite the project, are actuâlly owned by residents living on Powell Street. These property owners bought the land behind their homes, and the accessory buildings on those properties are associated with their Powell Street homes, a detail that wasn't Embler offeredi to answer any questions and noted that the project's surveyor and engineer were present to Councilman Scott raised a concern aboutt the long-termi impact oftrash collection for the proposed townhome development, particularly regardingt the potential wear andt tear ont thep parking lotf fromt trashi trucks. He asked Mr. Embler whethert the development couldo considera a centralized dumpster kiosk instead ofi individual trash cans for each unit. Embler explained that while a dumpster could be an option, the current design oft the parking lot would handle the weight of trash trucks if needed, as it would be built to support that traffic. However, duet tot thel linearr nature ofthe development, having individual trashp pickup near each building was considered morep practical, as residents are less likely to walk long distances to a centralized dumpster and Mr. Embler then showed the design for the trash bin areas, explaining that each row of townhomes would have designated trash areas between units, with as sidewalk and roll curb fore easy placement of bins. These areas would bel large enought to accommodate upt to eight bins, and each biny would ber numbered fors specific units. He also notedt thatt the design allows for easy access toi the trash areas without excessive walking. Councilman Scott and Councilman Dunn both inquired about the potential for end-unit residents to install fences that might block access to theset trash areas. Mr. Embler recommended that the development not allow fences in at townhome setting fort this very reason. He confirmed that behind each unit, there would be as storage building with a screened areai for trash bins, ensuring the bins are hidden when not in use. The homeowners' association (HOA) would also have rules in place to prevent individual fencing that could Mr. Embler further explained that the development would be governed by an HOA to maintain the Councilman Barbour then remarked that the location oft the development, being in West Smithfield and off the main roads, would likely result in lower traffic. He noted that the area was not a high-traffic zone and primarily served the people who live there, reinforcing the idea that the developments location would be Mr. Embler explained that the traffic impact from the proposed townhome development would be minimal, as most residents would likely headi toward Wake County for work in the morning and returni int the evening. He noted that only around eight to ten homes int the residential area would bei impacted by traffic, as most ofitv would pass through the nearby commercial andi industrial areas. Additionally, there would be no access Councilman Barbour asked ifi it was the developers' intent to pave Hartley Drive, to which Mr. Embler confirmed that they plan to pave the road up to the second entrance to the park, including curbing and guttering. He also clarified that the drainage ditches along the road would be piped to properly manage Mayor Pro-Tem Wood askedi ifthere was anyonei in attendance that was duly sworn iny who wishedi tot testify  clear from thet tax map.  address any specific inquiries regarding stormwater and utility needs.  mighti instead uset their vehicles to drive trash over.  obstruct access tos shared spaces.  appearance and long-term functionality oft the units.  somewhat secludedf from public view.  from Derwood Stevenson Road due toi its controlled access status.  stormwater runoff.  ont the matter. There was no onei in attendance who wished tot testify ont the matter.  Councilman Dunn made a motion, seconded Councilman Rabil, to close the public hearing. Councilman Barbour made a motion, seconded by Councilman Dunn, to approve Special Use Permit SUP-24-01 for Hartley Drive Townhomes, a 94-unit townhouse development on 9.611 acres ofl land int the R-8 Zoning District with 3 conditions based on the finding off fact for special 1. That the parking lote entrances be constructed in accordance with the Town's standard 2. That a traffici impact study be conducted prior tot the preliminary plat. 3. Thata a 30' wide public utility easement be provided over the proposed water and sewer  Unanimously approved.  use permits. Unanimously approved. Conditions ofA Approval are asf follows: driveway detail. lines.  CITIZEN'S COMMENTS: None CONSENT AGENDA:  Councilman Barbour made a motion, seconded by Councilman Dunn, to approve the following items as  listed ont the Consent Agenda: 1. Minutes a. July 9,2024- - Regular Session . July 9,2024 - Closed Session July 11,2024 Special Session with DSDC    6706  2. Special Event Amendment: Approval was granted to amend the DSDC Octoberfest event toi include closing a portion oft the 200 block of Johnston Street to add additional children's events.  BUSINESS ITEMS: None Councilmembers Comments:  Councilman Scott Councilman Scott briefly expressed. his appreciation to the Smithfield Police Department, specifically Officer Julie Carrol, for organizing a successful National Night Out event, despite challenges with rescheduling duet tor rain. He acknowledged the effort andi involvement of others  inr making the event well-organized.  Town Manager's Report:  Town Manager Michael Scottp provided a brief update tot the Council on the following items:  Cancellation oft the River Rat Regatta due tot the high watersi int the Neuse River.  DSDC event on Friday Evening meeting adjourned at approximately 8:20 pm.  Adjourn  Councilman Barbour made a motion, seconded by Councilman Dunn, to adjourn the meeting. The  KA M.Andy Moore, Mayor  OFSHITRA  ATTEST:  puabansd Shannan L. Parrish, Town Clerk