agenda packet
DESCRIPTION
1-17-12 agenda packetTRANSCRIPT
AGENDA CITY OF NEWTON
January 17, 2012
AGENDA CITY OF NEWTON
NEWTON CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING
January 17, 2012
7:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order – Mayor Anne P. Stedman
2. Opening – Council Member Mary Bess Lawing
3. Approval of Minutes from the January 3, 2012 Regular Meeting
4. Consideration of Consent Agenda Items
A. Tax Releases – December 2011
B. Sewer Adjustments – January 2012
C. Consideration of Rural Fire District Budget to be Submitted to County
D. Acceptance of $1,000 Grant to Newton Police Department from Target
5. Comments from the Public: (PERSONS WANTING TO MAKE A PUBLIC
COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS ARE REQUESTED TO SIGN IN
WITH THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE MEETING):
6. Public Hearing
A. Rezoning Application #2011-04 – Property located at 2223 Indian Trail
B. Rezoning Application #2011-05 – Property located at 100 SW Blvd.
C. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment #2011-05 – Temporary Signs
7. New Business
A. Closure of City Compost Facility
8. City Manager’s Report
9. Questions and Comments From Mayor and Council
10. Adjournment PERSONS WANTING TO SPEAK ON AN AGENDA ITEM MUST SIGN IN WITH THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE MEETING. PERSONS
WANTING TO BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING MUST CONTACT THE CITY MANAGER AT LEAST SEVEN WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING.
The City of Newton does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the provision of its services as charged by the City Council of the City of Newton. All meetings are held in accessible facilities. Any person with a disability needing special accommodations should contact Teresa Laffon, ADA Coordinator, at
least 48 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
Page
1
5
6
7
11
13
33
54
92
MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE NEWTON CITY COUNCIL
January 3, 2012 – 7:00 P.M.
The regular meeting of the Newton City Council was held on Tuesday, January 3, 2012 at 7:00
p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall.
PRESENT: Mayor Anne P. Stedman, Mayor Pro Tem Bill Lutz, Council Members Wayne
Dellinger, Mary Bess Lawing, Tom Rowe, Robert C. Abernethy, Jr., and Wes
Weaver
STAFF: City Manager Todd Clark, City Attorney Larry Pitts, City Clerk Amy S.
Falowski, City Department Heads, and members of the Management Team.
ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Anne P. Stedman:
Mayor Anne P. Stedman welcomed everyone, and called the meeting to order.
ITEM 2: OPENING – Council Member Tom Rowe
Council Member Tom Rowe provided the invocation and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 13, 2011 REGULAR
CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
Upon motion duly made by Council Member Mary Bess Lawing, seconded by Council Member
Tom Rowe, it was unanimously RESOLVED:
That the Minutes of the December 13, 2011 Regular City Council Meeting be –
APPROVED.
ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS:
Upon motion duly made by Council Member Mary Bess Lawing, seconded by Council Member
Tom Rowe, it was unanimously RESOLVED:
That Consent Agenda be – APPROVED.
A. Consideration to Ratify “Piggyback” Awards
B. Consideration of Annual Fire Department Membership Roster
And Department Certification for Year 2012
ITEM 5: COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC: (PERSONS WANTING TO MAKE A
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS ARE REQUESTED TO
SIGN IN WITH THE CITY CLERK PRIOR TO THE MEETING):
Mayor Anne P. Stedman asked if there was anyone present that would like to make any
comments concerning non-agenda items.
No one appeared.
1
ITEM 6: Old Business:
A. Downtown Historic District Update & Public Meeting
Rob Powell, Commercial Development Coordinator, stated that Ms. Ann Swallow of the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) made a presentation to the City Council and interested
citizens on October 19, 2010 concerning the possible establishment of a National Register
Historic District for the downtown area. Mr. Powell stated that at that meeting, staff was directed
by Council to obtain proposals for preparation of a study list application and nomination for
National Register District designation. He explained that City Council approved the execution of
a contract with Acme Preservation Services for the preparation of a National Register
Nomination at the December 8, 2010 Council Meeting.
Mr. Powell stated that at a meeting in Raleigh on February 10, 2011, the National Register
Advisory Committee (NRAC) approved the addition of the Newton Downtown Historic District
to the National Register Study List, making it possible for the City to pursue a formal
registration.
Mr. Powell explained that the Downtown Newton Historic District National Register draft
nomination has been reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office and that the City’s
historian, Acme Preservation Services, completed final map and text revisions during December
of 2011. Mr. Powell stated that the Newton Downtown Historic District nomination will be on
the agenda of the NRAC at its February 9, 2012 meeting, and that staff anticipates approval at
that meeting. He stated that prior to the NRAC meeting, the City must publish a legal notice in a
local newspaper and must hold a public information meeting which has been set for 5:30 p.m. on
Monday, January 23, 2012 in the Council Chambers. Mr. Powell stated that the meeting will be
conducted by Ms. Ann Swallow of the State Historic Preservation Office and by Mr. Clay
Griffith of Acme Preservation Services. Mr. Powell explained that the purpose of this public
information meeting will be to review the benefits of establishing a National Register historic
district, to describe the process for establishing a National Register historic district, to describe
the final boundary of the proposed Downtown Newton Historic District, to note the non-
contributing properties, and to describe the significance of the “contributing” versus “non-
contributing” status. Mr. Powell stated that a brief history of the Downtown Newton Historic
District and its architecture will be presented as well.
Mr. Powell stated that no action was required by City Council at this time.
ITEM 7: New Business:
A. Recommendation from Recreation Committee Concerning City Pool
Robert Coulter, Parks and Recreation Commission Chairperson, stated that the City Council
appropriated $85,250.00 in the FY 2012 budget for the operation of the city swimming pool.
This includes $17,400.00 to purchase and install equipment required to meet new standards
enforced through the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Coulter stated that after making the
decision to operate the pool this fiscal year, members of the City Council asked staff to meet
with the Recreation Commission so that they could make a recommendation on whether to
permanently close the pool or continue operations.
Mr. Coulter explained that the Newton Recreation Commission met on December 12, 2011, and
discussed the swimming pool at great length. He stated that the Recreation Commission’s
concerns were: (1) whether or not the Department had purchased the required equipment to meet
the ADA mandate, (2) whether the City Council will approve funding for the operation of the
swimming pool in the FY 2012 Budget, and (3) whether or not the money appropriated could be
better spent in the Recreation Department to upgrade existing facilities and/or programs if the 2
City Council chooses not to continue swimming pool operations. Mr. Coulter added that after
extensive discussion, the Recreation Commission was not able to make a formal
recommendation to City Council concerning the future operation of the pool.
Mr. Coulter stated that the Recreation Commission, while a majority of the Commission supports
the pool and its continued operation, needs direction from City Council regarding operation of
the pool as certain purchases will need to be made by March of this year to comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act. He stated that these purchases include a new ADA compliant
swimmer lift system as well as a new ADA compliant set of steps/ladder or ramp.
Mayor Anne Stedman asked if the 1,800 visitors to the pool in 2011 included repeat visitors. Mr.
Coulter stated that yes, and that it included day camps, however not as many as in past years due
to the late opening of the facility.
Council Member Mary Bess Lawing stated that she would like to see the pool opened earlier this
year in order for more day camps to be able to enroll. Council Member Wes Weaver asked if
there was a big difference between the number of camps from previous years. Recreation
Director Sandra Waters stated that yes, there was and that Community Schools was one of the
biggest camps that did not come this past year, and that they would need to know by March if the
pool would be opened. Ms. Waters also commented that day care attendance is down in general.
Council Member Mary Bess Lawing stated that the City of Newton pool is a great pool and that
everybody should have the opportunity to use it.
City Manager Todd Clark stated that it would cost $68,000 to $70,000 plus $17,400 for ADA
upgrades to open and operate the pool this season. Ms. Waters stated that the pool would also
need to be caulked at a cost of $2,500. Mayor Stedman asked if there would be any more
mandatory regulations in the future. Ms. Waters stated that future needs of the pool include a
possible new filtration system drain by 2014 if the current one does not pass inspection, new
shower stalls in the next two to three years, and new lounge chairs and umbrellas.
Mayor Stedman asked the Council if they would like to discuss the matter of opening the
swimming pool. Council Member Mary Bess Lawing stated that she felt like it was a quality of
life issue. Council Member Robert C. Abernethy, Jr. stated that it costs $70,000 to open the pool
and that in the last census the city had around 14,000 people. At about $5 a person, he didn’t
feel like that was too steep to give the pool at least one more year. Mayor Stedman asked
Council Member Abernethy if he supports the opening of the pool, and he stated that he did.
Council Member Bill Lutz stated that the pool is great, but that other recreation programs are
bursting at the seams and he would like to see money go toward some of these programs too.
Mr. Lutz stated that there are no facilities for some of the ball teams to practice in and he asked
Ms. Waters if there are other ways in which the city could serve children with these programs.
Ms. Waters stated that yes, all programs are growing. Council Member Mary Bess Lawing
asked why, if that many teams need space, the Council is just hearing about it now. She stated
that the pool should be opened because it meets a certain need in the city. Council Member
Wayne Dellinger stated that he felt like $70,000 was being spent for 800 to 1,000 people as
opposed to helping other programs that could use the money. Council Member Abernethy stated
that 14,000 people have the opportunity to use the pool, and that it is not about making money.
Council Member Wes Weaver asked about a future water park, and stated that he would like to
table the matter in order to give staff time to explore other alternatives such as the splash park.
Council Member Mary Bess Lawing made a motion to open the pool for the 2012 season. The
motion was seconded by Council Member Robert C. Abernethy, Jr.
3
Mayor Stedman asked if there was any more discussion.
Council Member Bill Lutz stated that the pool is not going to get any cheaper, but that he thinks
it is a great thing for the city to offer. He also stated that he would like to look closely at the
other sports programs that are offered by the Recreation Department and see what their needs
may be in the coming year. Council Members Mary Bess Lawing and Wayne Dellinger agreed
that they would like to see a plan for the future sports programs.
It was RESOLVED in a 5-1 vote, with Council Member Wayne Dellinger voting in opposition,
That the Newton City Pool be OPENED for the 2012 season.
ITEM 8: City Manager’s Report:
Burris Road Pump Station gravity line should be finished by the end of February
Sewer line project on North College Avenue complete
Asplundh is doing tree trimming in South Newton for the next 30 days
The city will begin replacing street signs to meet Federal size and reflectivity regulations
Leaf collection nearly complete
The Water/Sewer study is under way with McGill
Red Flag Requirement renovations will be taking place in the Finance Department for the
next 4-6 weeks
Economic Development will become a function of the Administration Department
Planning Director applications are being reviewed and the position will hopefully be
filled by the end of February or beginning of March
January 24th
at 6:30 p.m. is the WPCOG annual meeting at the Crowne Plaza
January 11th
is the Chamber of Commerce Job Summitt
ITEM 9: Questions and Comments from Mayor and Council:
There were none
ITEM 10: Adjournment:
There being no further business, upon motion duly made by Council Member Mary Bess
Lawing, seconded by Council Member Tom Rowe, it was unanimously RESOLVED:
That the meeting be ADJOURNED.
___________________________________
Anne P. Stedman, Mayor
__________________________________
Amy S. Falowski, City Clerk
4
CITY OF NEWTON
Inter-office Correspondence
TO: E. Todd Clark, City Manager DATE: January 5, 2012
RE: Tax Releases – December 2011
FROM: Serina T. Hinson, Finance Director
The following tax releases have been received from the Catawba County Tax Collector.
The reason for each release is annotated beside the name.
Tax Year Tax Release
Number
Name Reason Amount
of
Release
2011 9 MDT Personnel, LLC Situs Change $35.29
2011 10 Sonic Transport, LLC Secretary of State shows
dissolved in 2010
$22.97
Should you have any questions or need clarification, please notify. Releases are
submitted as required by NCGS § 105-381(b).
5
CITY OF NEWTON
Inter-office Correspondence
TO: E. Todd Clark, City Manager DATE: January 9, 2012
RE: Sewer Adjustments – January 17, 2012
FROM: Serina Hinson, Finance Director
The following sewer adjustment is recommended for approval. The adjustment is
recommended as a result of a water leak at the service address or a pool fill up.
Account
Number
Name Service Address Adjustment
Period
Amount of
Adjustment
3000600-014 Chad Eric Leatherman 1042 S. Brady
Ave.
Dec 40.22
Backup documentation to support each adjustment is on file in the Finance Department.
Should you have questions or require further clarification, please notify.
6
CITY OF NEWTON
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: January 11, 2012
TO: E. Todd Clark, City Manager
FROM: Kevin Yoder, Fire Chief
CONSIDERATION OF: Review and Approval of the Rural Fire District budget to be submitted to
Catawba County Fire Marshal’s Office for FY 2012-2013
Approved for Council Consideration
______________________________
1. The City of Newton Fire Department provides fire protection services to approximately 25 square
miles of rural area adjacent to the City of Newton corporate limits. This area is referred to as the
Newton Rural Fire District.
2. The Fire Protection Services within the Newton Rural Fire District are funded through a Rural
Fire Tax. The current Rural Fire Tax rate is 7.00 cents per $100 valuation.
3. We are proposing an increase in the Newton Rural Fire Tax Rate of two (2) cents per $100 of
property valuation.
4. This increase will primarily fund personnel costs. The increase will allow the department to
increase the hours of three Part-Time Firefighters to Full-Time Status.
5. The Fire Marshal’s Office of Catawba County has requested that the Rural Budgets be submitted
by the respective Fire Departments and Boards as soon as possible during the new calendar year.
6. The Budget and associated Rural Fire Tax Increase is consistent with prior budgets presented to
Catawba County for each of the past three years.
ACTION SUGGESTED:
Review and approve the Rural Fire District budget letter to be submitted to the Catawba County Fire
Marshal’s Office for FY 2011-2012.
7
January 12, 2012
Mark Pettit, Fire/Rescue Manager
Catawba County Emergency Services Office
P.O. Box 389
Newton, NC 28658
Mark,
You will find attached to this letter the budget document you distributed in December for the
Newton Rural Fire District. Please note that we are again requesting that the tax rate be increased
by two (2) cents per $100 valuation. This rate increase has been requested in at least two
previous years for the very same reasons you and I have discussed. I have outlined some of the
many needs and justifications in this letter and am willing to discuss this issue at length if you so
desire.
The increase is primarily due to the need for additional staffing. The Fire Department does
not currently meet Nationally Recognized Standards for minimum staffing at the scene of
Structural Fires and Alarms.
As I’m sure you are aware, volunteer participation is at an all time low nationwide. We at the
Newton Fire Department, like most Fire Departments, have experienced a sharp decline in
volunteer response. Numerous attempts have been made to improve the level of response by
volunteers. However, the response has only continued to decline. Without additional staffing
the department will not meet Nationally Recognized Standards (NFPA).
The City of Newton Fire Department serves approximately 25 square miles of rural area. The
total area within the city of Newton is a mere 13 square miles. What this tells us is that almost
65% of our total area of 38 square miles is within the rural areas of Catawba County. Currently
the Rural Fire Tax only supports approximately 15% of our total budget. Based on area we think
you will see that this increase is certainly justified.
The City of Newton responded to a total of 188 incidents within the Newton Rural Area. This
represents approximately 22% of the total call volume of the Newton Fire Department. In
addition, the rural Fire District Tax currently represents only 15% of our total budget. Therefore,
based on call volume we think you will see that this increase is certainly justified.
8
We are requesting the total available fund balance of $8114.00 be forwarded to the City of
Newton as well. These funds will purchase Firefighter protective equipment (Turnout Gear). The
fund balance will purchase approximately six sets of protective gear.
This funding request has been reviewed by the Newton City Manager and Finance Director and
will be reviewed in detail by the Newton City council during the customary annual budget
review process.
I look forward to discussing this year’s annual budget with you and your budget department in
great detail. Please let me know if additional information is needed.
If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Sincerely,
Kevin L. Yoder
Kevin Yoder, Fire Chief
City of Newton Fire Department
cc. Todd Clark, Newton City Manager
Serina Hinson, Newton Finance Director
9
Property Tax Collection Rate 98.44%Motor Vehicle Tax Collection Rate 83.52%2010/11 Actual
Tax Rate 0.0700Budget 335,674Property Tax Collected 343,896
2011/12 BudgetTax Rate 0.0700Revenue
Ad Valorem 315,598Motor Vehicles 28,541Ad Valorem ‐ Prior Year 1,794Motor Vehicles ‐ Prior Year 1,258Fund Balance 4,125
Total Revenue 351,316Expense
Operating Budget 351,316Capital Budget 0
Total Expense 351,316
2012/13 Budget Requested BudgetFire/Rescue Manager Recommendation
Tax Rate 0.0900Revenue
Ad Valorem 403,699Motor Vehicles 34,474Ad Valorem ‐ Prior Year (50%) 2,466Motor Vehicles ‐ Prior Year (50%) 2,383Fund Balance 8,114
Total Revenue 451,136Expense
Operating Budget 443,022Capital Budget 8,114
Total Expense 451,136
Projected Tax Base 2012/13 2011/12Motor Vehicles 45,862,195 48,643,040
Real Estate 438,267,891 441,455,487Personal Property 5,204,604 5,034,189Public Service 10,834,695 10,720,524Discoveries 1,355,526 1,347,522Total excluding Motor Vehicles 455,662,716 458,557,722
At collection rate, 1 cent will produce 49,379Population of District 7,251Square Miles of District 25.05Fund Balance Available (90%) 8,114
Catawba County Fire Districts Budget Request ‐ Fiscal Year 2012/13Newton ‐ Fund 363
10
CITY OF NEWTON
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: January 11, 2012
TO: E. Todd Clark, City Manager
FROM: Donald G. Brown II, Police Chief
CONSIDERATION OF: Budget Ordinance to recognize grant revenues and authorize
expenditure appropriation within the Police Department Budget
Approved for Council Consideration
______________________________
Background:
In October of 2011 the Newton Police Department applied for a public safety grant through
Target Corporation. The dollar amount requested was $2,000 and the funds requested are for the
purchase of “Weather and Alert Radios” to be distributed to all senior citizens on the police
department “Senior Citizen List” and for the assisted living facilities within the city limits of
Newton. The amount granted to the Police Department is $1,000. The grant will allow the
purchase of the weather and alert radios for the individuals on the senior citizen list but not the
assisted living facilities.
Summary:
The above listed grant is for the purpose of purchasing “Weather and Alert Radios.”
Requested Action:
Adoption of the attached budget ordinance to recognize grant revenues and authorize the
expenditure appropriation in the Police Department operating budget.
11
ORDINANCE 2012-1
CITY OF NEWTON
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEAR
2011-2012
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Newton has adopted a Budget Ordinance for
fiscal year beginning July 1, 2011, and ending June 30, 2012, in accordance with the General
Statutes of the State of North Carolina, and
WHEREAS, The City Council has authorized the Police Department to apply for a grant
from Target through their Law Enforcement Grant Program. The Police Department was notified
that it had been awarded a grant in the amount of $1,000. The purpose of this grant is to
purchase weather and alert radios to be distributed to all senior citizens on the Police Department
“Senior Citizen List”, and
WHEREAS, The City Council desires to recognize the grant revenues and authorize the
related expenditure appropriation within the police department operating budget.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
NEWTON, NORTH CAROLINA, THAT:
THE FOLLOWING SOURCE OF REVENUE AND APPROPRIATION ARE HEREBY
APPROVED.
Section 1
General Fund Revenues
Special Project Contributions/Other Grants 11.0000.3845 $1,000
Section 2
General Fund Appropriations
Crime Prevention/Program Supplies 11.4310.5280 $1,000
Adopted this 17th day of January, 2012.
Anne P. Stedman, Mayor
_______
Amy S. Falowski, City Clerk
12
CITY OF NEWTON
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: January 10, 2012
TO: E. Todd Clark, City Manager
FROM: Max Sigler, Planner
CONSIDERATION OF: Rezoning Application #2011-04
Approved for Council Consideration
______________________________
Property Owner: Marvelle Price
Rezoning Application by Albert Kennedy
Location: 2223 Indian Trail
1 parcel with the area of 2.85 acres located approximately 1400 feet to the
Southwest of the intersection of Indian Trail and Smyre Farm Road.
Request: EM-1, Exclusive Manufacturing District to an M-1, General
Manufacturing District
Summary
The Property is located within the Extra Territorial Jurisdiction of the City of Newton.
The request is to rezone approximately 2.85 acres from EM-1, Exclusive Manufacturing
District, to an M-1, General Manufacturing District. The site is currently undeveloped.
Consistency and Conclusion
The proposed request is consistent with the 2008 Southeast Area Plan’s Future Land Use
Map (see attached Future Land Use map). The property for which the applicant is
applying for the rezoning is located within the Southeast Industrial District (Attached
Economic Development Map). The plan and the associated map document do not
differentiate between the Exclusive and General Manufacturing Districts.
13
M-1 general manufacturing districts. The M-1 districts provide a place for the location of
manufacturing and other uses which would be incompatible with general business areas.
It is intended to permit in these districts any use which is inherently obnoxious to urban
areas because of noise, odors, smoke, light, dust or the use of dangerous material.
EM-1 exclusive manufacturing districts. The EM-1 districts are intended to accommodate
the exclusive use of land and structures for manufacturing purposes. The districts are
established to provide for and maintain manufacturing areas and to prohibit the intrusion
of incompatible uses. It is not intended to permit in these districts any use which is
inherently obnoxious to urban areas, because of noise, odors, smoke, light, dust or the use
of dangerous materials.
Please see attached land use list.
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
The area surrounding the site is currently a mix of vacant land and industrial. The parcel
adjoining the applicant’s parcel to the North is zoned M-1 and was rezoned in 1994 from
an EM-1 classification. The surrounding land is zoned EM-1 and M-1. Please see the
attached zoning map.
Zoning Landuse
Subject EM-1 Exclusive Manufacturing Vacant
North M-1 General Manufacturing Mid-State Contractors Inc.
South EM-1 Exclusive Manufacturing Vacant
East EM-1 Exclusive Manufacturing Sherrill Furniture Company
West EM-1 Exclusive Manufacturing Vacant
Zoning History:
1982 Subject Site Zoned Exclusive Manufacturing
1994 #3-94 – Mid-State Contractors, 2260 Indian Trail. Rezoned from an EM-1
to an M-1 District.
2011 RZ2011-01 – Hmong Christian Life Center. The property at 1175 Smyre
Farm Road was rezoned from an EM-1 to an R-20.
Transportation:
There will be minimal impact on the surrounding transportation network. Average daily
traffic counts for Smyre Farm Road are as follows:
14
Year of Count: Smyre Farm Road:
2001 2,000
2003 2,100
2005 2,500
2007 2,500
2009 2,500
Utilities:
The site will utilize a well and septic system
Public Notice:
Public notice for this rezoning case been performed as follows:
Newspaper: published on January 6th
and January 13th
, 2012
Sign posted on-site: posted December 2nd
, 2011
Mailed notices: sent notice to 16 property owners on January 6th
, 2012 (Attached)
Recommendation:
It is the Newton Planning Commission’s recommendation that the Newton City Council
approve the application as requested as the application was found to be in compliance
with the intent and policies the Southeast Area Plan adopted by the City Council in 2008.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Minutes
Newton Planning Commission
December 14, 2011
Council Chambers
City Hall
The regular meeting of the Newton Planning Commission was held at 7:00 p.m. on December
14, 2011 in the Council Chambers at City Hall.
Members Present:
Jim Granny
Donnie Setzer
Mark Stalnaker
Stan Gabriel
Ken Simmons
Jim Smith
Melinda Travis
Members Absent:
none
Staff Present:
Glenn Pattishall, AICP, Planning Director/Asst. City Manager
Alex Fulbright, AICP, Assistant Planning Director
Max Sigler, Planner
Rob Powell, Community Development Coordinator
Todd Clark, City Manager
Item 1: Call to Order
Chairman Simmons called the meeting to order and requested that Mr. Pattishall introduce a
new member of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Pattishall introduced Mrs. Melinda Travis as an ETJ member of the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Todd Clark, City Manager requested to speak to the Planning Commission about Glenn
Pattishall’s upcoming retirement. He stated that he appreciated Glenn’s professionalism and
service with the City. He explained the process that would be used to select a new planning
director. He also took a moment to thank the Planning Commission for all that they do.
Mr. Simmons thanked Mr. Clark and presented Mr. Pattishall a card that was signed by all the
members of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Pattishall expressed his gratitude for the card.
28
Item 2: Consideration of Minutes November 22, 2011 Meeting
Chairman Simmons asked for consideration of the minutes of the November 22, 2011 meeting.
There being no corrections or additions, Chairman Simmons ruled that the minutes were
approved as presented.
Item 3a: Public Hearing – Text Amendment 2011-05 – Temporary Signs
Chairman Simmons called to order a Public Hearing as scheduled and advertised, and
recognized Mr. Glenn Pattishall to make a presentation to the Planning Commission. Mr.
Pattishall stated that at the November 15, 2011 City Council meeting, the Council by consensus
directed staff to request that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on a proposed
Zoning Ordinance text amendment concerning temporary signs.
Mr. Pattishall explained that the Planning Commission took up the matter for a second time in
2011 at its September meeting as a result of the Mayor making a personal appearance and asking
the Planning Commission to reconsider the matter, and after considerable discussion directed
staff to prepare additional information on the matter for continued discussion at its October
meeting. The Commission at its October meeting reviewed the additional information requested
and after lengthy deliberation voted in favor of keeping the existing ordinance with no changes.
Mr. Pattishall went on to explain that in order for this or any amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance to be adopted under the Newton City Code, it must first be considered during a public
hearing by the Planning Commission who must make a recommendation on the proposed
ordinance and then considered during a public hearing held by Council before it may be adopted
by Council. Any deviation from this protocol would result in an invalid ordinance.
Mr. Pattishall stated that the proposed ordinance would allow temporary signs, balloons, aerial
signs or banners may be erected for a period not to exceed seven (7) days for the purpose of
announcing commercial and non-commercial openings, closings, management changes, special
events and sales. There shall be no limit to the number or location where such signs may be
placed including street rights of way provided such signs do not create a hazard to public safety.
Mr. Pattishall then recapped the Planning Commission concerns that were expressed in the past
about proposed ordinance, which were that there would be no limits to the number of signs, that
the time limit would be difficult to enforce with no permit, and that buy not regulating the
number or the location that the proposal would lead to visual clutter.
Mr. Simmons asked if there were any questions.
Mr. Simmons stated that he did not want signs in his neighborhood and that under the proposal
presented that temporary signs could be placed on any street in the City. He commented that the
Planning Commission has considered the issue two times already and each time voted
unanimously against amending the current ordinance.
With no further discussion, Chairman Simmons closed the Public Hearing and asked for a
motion. A Motion was made by Mr. Jim Granny, second by Mr. Jim Smith to recommend
29
that the City Council not approve the proposed changes and that the sign ordinance remain
unchanged. There was no discussion on the motion, and the motion carried 7 to 0.
Item 3b: Public Hearing – Rezoning Application 2011-04 - Albert Kennedy
Chairman Simmons called to order a Public Hearing as scheduled and advertised, and
recognized Mr. Sigler who read from his December 7, 2011 memo. He stated that the property
was owned by Marvelle Price and is located at 2223 Indian Trail. The property was 2.85 acres,
approximately 1400 feet to the Southwest of the intersection of Indian Trail and Smyre Farm
Road. The request was to rezone the property from and existing EM-1, Exclusive
Manufacturing District to an M-1, General Manufacturing District. He then recommended that
the Planning Commission approve the application as requested because the application is in
compliance with the intent and policies the Southeast Area Plan adopted by the City Council in
2008.
Mr. Smith asked about the applicant’s intent.
Mr. Sigler explained that the applicant has expressed interest in operating a truck repair garage
on the site; however, any use allowed in the M-1 General Manufacturing District would be
permitted if the request were approved.
Mr. Mark Stalnaker asked about what types of the uses would be allowed if the request was
approved.
Mr. Alex Fulbright listed uses that could be allowed if the request was approved and explained
that the asphalt plant adjacent to the site was also zoned M-1.
Chairmen Simmons asked Mr. Albert Kennedy, applicant if he would like to speak.
Mr. Kennedy approached the commission and explained that he intended to build a 3 bay
garage, which could eventually be expanded in the future if need. He went on to explain that the
property was great for his needs.
Mr. Stalnaker asked about the access to the site.
Mr. Kennedy explained that he would use Indian Trail and Wagon Wheel Road to access the
property.
Mr. Smith asked Mr. Kennedy about what function would the facility serve.
Mr. Kennedy explained that he would perform the regular maintenance on his fleet of truck
such as changing the oil, replacing brakes, and similar maintenance related task.
There was conversation about the asphalt plant and the noise that it produces and that grouping
obnoxious uses would be desired if possible as opposed to spreading out the intense
manufacturing uses.
Mr. Kennedy stated that his garage would be quieter than the asphalt plant.
30
Mr. Stalnaker asked if the Church that was recently the subject of a nearby zoning request was
notified of the public hearing.
Mr. Sigler stated that they were notified as required.
With no further discussion, Chairman Simmons closed the Public Hearing and asked for a
motion. A motion was made by Mr. Granny, second by Mr. Stalnaker to recommend that the
City Council approve the request as presented. There was no discussion on the motion, and the
motion carried 7 to 0.
Item 3c: Public Hearing – Rezoning Application 2011-05 - Catawba County
Chairman Simmons called to order a Public Hearing as scheduled and advertised, and
recognized Mr. Fulbright. Mr. Fulbright read from his memo dated December 9, 2011. He
stated that the property was located at 100 Southwest Blvd and is owned by Catawba County.
The property is physically located on Southwest Boulevard at the Southwest corner of the
intersection of Southwest Boulevard and Radio Station Road. The applicant Catawba County is
requesting to rezone the property from the existing R-20 Single Family Residential District to a
PD-O&I Planned Development Office and Institutional District. The property is currently being
used for the County Government Center Complex and it will continue to be used as such.
Mr. Fulbright explained that the intent of the rezoning was to allow for the County to have
more flexibility over what can occur on the site and eliminate the need to amend the current
special use permit which was approved in 1977. The original special use permit has been amend
several times since.
Mr. Jackie Eubanks, County Planning Director explained the site plan to the planning
commission and expressed their desire to have a master plan to accommodate their future needs.
The planning commission expressed concerns about the adjoining neighborhood and need for a
buffer to be maintained. It was explained the site plan shows the extent of development on the
site and would have to be amended if there was substantial changes.
Mr. Todd Clark, City Manager discussed the site plan and its relation to the City’s Heritage
Trail Greenway. He explained that the site plan shows a parking area that would be used to
provide parking for users of the greenway.
Mr. Stan Gabriel expressed concerns about the traffic along Radio Station Road.
Mr. Fulbright responded that while the site plan shows new components that does not mean that
the amount of trips generated by the facility would increase at the same rate. It will provide
more space for existing activities that are currently occurring. He also explained that staff has
expressed concerns about the government center’s driveway on Radio Station Road to the North
Carolina Department of Transportation. These discussions were the driving reason that created
the driveway at the maintenance facility, which serves the detention facility on the site. He also
explained that the topography and the historic stack rock wall near the original driveway on
Radio Station Road limits what could be done to improve the situation.
31
Mr. Eubanks concurred with Mr. Fulbright and stated that looping the access road and
connecting it to the newer driveway could improve the situation. He explained that the second
driveway on Radio Station Road was created when the Western Piedmont Transit Authority was
looking at locating a maintenance facility on the County’s property.
With no further discussion, Chairman Simmons closed the Public Hearing and asked for a
motion. Motion made by Mr. Stalnaker, second by Mr. Granny to recommend that the City
Council approve the request as presented with the exception that any major modification to the
plan is brought before the Planning Commission and that public hearings are held. There was no
discussion on the motion, and the motion carried 7 to 0.
Item 4: Old Business Presentation of Draft – B-1 Discussion
Chairman Simmons recognized Mr. Fulbright. Mr. Fulbright reminded the Planning
Commission that there would be a public meeting held at the January Planning Commission
meeting and that notices would be sent to the residents in the North Rankin Avenue and East 20th
Street Area.
Item 5: New Business
None
Item 6: Reports
Mr. Fulbright reviewed the monthly departmental reports for November 2011.
Item 7: Training
Mr. Fulbright spoke to the Planning Commission about the stormwater permit that was recently
approved. He reminded the Planning Commission of their duties as the stormwater advisory
board and discussed the actions that would be needed to comply with the permit over the next
five (5) years.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alex S. Fulbright/AICP
Recording Secretary
32
CITY OF NEWTON
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: January 11, 2012
TO: E. Todd Clark, City Manager
FROM: Alex Fulbright, AICP, Assistant Planning Director
CONSIDERATION OF: Rezoning Application #2011-05
Approved for Council Consideration
______________________________
Property Owners: Catawba County
Applicant: Catawba County
Location: 100 Southwest Blvd
The property is located on Southwest Boulevard at the Southwest corner
of the intersection of Southwest Boulevard and Radio Station Road.
Request: R-20 Single Family Residential District to a PD-O&I Planned
Development Office and Institutional District.
Summary
The Property is located within the City of Newton.
The area requested to be rezoned is approximately 115 acres from R-20, Single Family
Residential, to PD-O&I Planned Development Office and Institutional District.
Consistency and Conclusion
The 1988 Land Development Plan indicates the property as being residential. The
current use is allowed as special use in the R-20 District. The request is not a change of
use, but changing the zoning to facilitate the development of the County’s property
without utilizing the special use permit process. See attached land development plan
map.
33
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
Zoning Landuse
Subject R-20 Single Family Residential Government Center Complex
North PD-MX Planned Development Mixed Use Court Street Commons
R-20 Single Family Residential Assisted Living Facility and Residential
South B-4 General Business Restaurant
R-20 Single Family Residential Residential
R-11 Single Family Residential Residential
East B-4 General Business Bowling, general commercial, & bank offices
R-20 Single Family Residential Residential
West R-20 Single Family Residential Residential
Zoning History:
The site has been zoned R-20 Single family residential dating back to 1982. This campus
is home to the Government Center, the Justice Center, the Sheriff’s Department, Vehicle
Facility Maintenance, childcare homes, and an animal shelter. The original special use
permit was granted in 1977 and has been amended over the years to include some of the
above uses, most recently the Charter Communications substation on Radio Station Road
and an operation and maintenance facility for Piedmont Wagon Transit System.
Transportation:
Southwest Boulevard is a major arterial. The cross section is five-lane urban
thoroughfare. Average daily traffic counts are as follows:
Year of Count Volume
2003 23,000Vehicles per Day
2005 21,000
2007 22,000
2009 19,000
Radio Station road is a collector street. The cross section is two-lane rural with shoulder
and swales. Average daily traffic counts are as follows:
Year of Count Volume
2003 4,800 Vehicles per Day
2005 4,700
2007 5,100
2009 4,700
34
Utilities:
City water, sewer, and electric are available to the site.
Public Notice:
Public notice for this rezoning case been performed as follows:
Newspaper: published on January 6th
and January 13th
, 2012 (Attached)
Sign posted on-site: posted December 2, 2011
Mailed notices: 164 letters sent January 6th
, 2012
Comment:
A copy of the application, site plan, and supporting information is attached for the City
Council’s perusal.
Recommendation:
It is the Newton Planning Commission’s recommendation that the Newton City Council
approve the application as requested
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
CITY OF NEWTON
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: January 13, 2012
TO: E. Todd Clark, City Manager
FROM: Alex Fulbright, Assistant Planning Director
CONSIDERATION OF: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment 2011 - 05
Approved for Council Consideration
______________________________
Background:
In early spring of 2011 the City Manager, at the request of the Mayor, asked that the Planning
Commission study the existing ordinance as it relates to temporary signs located within public
road right of ways.
Planning Commission took the matter up at its June 2011 meeting (see attached memo June 21,
2011). They heard a report from me explaining our Ordinance and giving background to the
Planning Commission as to the various portions of the City Code and other regulations enforced
by the DOT with regard to signs in the public rights of way. The Planning Commission
determined at that meeting to take no action to make any changes to the Zoning Ordinance.
The Mayor made an appeal to the Planning Commission at its August 2011 meeting to
reconsider its position with regard to the temporary signs. At the subsequent September and
October meetings, the Planning Commission took the matter up (see September 22, 2011 memo
and October 6, 2011 memo attached). The Planning Commission determined at its October 25th
meeting that it would not recommend any changes to the Zoning Ordinance with regard to
temporary signs or signs in right of way (see attached minutes October 25, 2011 Planning
Commission Meeting).
Review:
As outlined in the September 22, 2011 memo to the Planning Commission the Mayor had
requested that the Planning Commission consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that
would allow an unlimited number of on and off premise signs to be placed anywhere, including
city property and street rights of way. This would include residential zoning districts. In
54
addition, he requested that a time limit for temporary signs be set at seven days; however no
permit would be required for these signs.
The proposed draft ordinance to be considered by the City Council was considered at the
December 14, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting, wherein the Planning Commission voted
unanimously to not recommend adoption of the attached ordinance.
The Planning Commission indicated that their reasons for not recommending any changes are
that there are prohibitions against signs in public rights of way on state maintained roads, that not
requiring permits would make it difficult to enforce, and that allowing temporary signs anywhere
would create a clutter issue throughout the city and diminish the aesthetic appeal of the city.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the proposed Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment (attached) at its December 14, 2011 meeting.
55
Ordinance 2011-__
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF NEWTON, NORTH CAROLINA
BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWTON, NORTH CAROLINA, THAT:
Section 1. Section 102-341 “Intent” of Chapter 102 “Zoning” of the Newton City code shall be amended by deleting Section 102-341 in its entirety and inserting a new Section 102-341 to read as follows:
Sec. 102-341. Intent.
It is the general intent of this article to prohibit permanent signs of commercial or non-commercial nature in districts in which commerce is barred; to limit permanent signs in the commercial districts in relation to the intensity of the use of the district and its surroundings; and to control the number, area and location of permanent signs in other districts and to ensure that all permanent signs and supports are properly secured and located upon buildings, under canopies or roof overhangs or on properties so as to minimize potential danger to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the city and its planning area. These regulations are designed, among other purposes, to stabilize and protect property values, maintain the visual attractiveness of the city and its environs and promote public safety.
Section 2. Subsection 102-348(a)”Signs not requiring permit” of Section 102-348 “Temporary Signs” of Chapter 102 “Zoning’ of the Newton City Code shall be amended by adding a new subsection (a)(4) to read as follows:
(4) Temporary signs, balloons, aerial signs or banners may be erected for a period not to exceed seven (7) days for the purpose of announcing commercial and non-commercial openings, closings, management changes, special events and sales. There shall be no limit to the number or location where such signs may be placed including street rights of way provided such signs do not create a hazard to public safety.
Section 3. Subsection 102-348 (b) “Signs Requiring Permit” of Section 102-348 ”Temporary Signs” of Chapter 102 “Zoning” of the Newton City Code shall be amended by deleting Subsection 102-348 (b) in its entirety and inserting a new Subsection 102-348 (b) to read as follows:
(b) Signs requiring permit. The following temporary signs require a zoning clearance permit:
(1) Temporary signs for the sale of produce, Christmas trees, crafts, seafood or
similar items sold on a seasonal or temporary basis shall not exceed 32 square
feet in area or six feet in height. Only one such sign per temporary business
shall be erected and shall be safely affixed the ground or a permanent
structure on the lot. A copy of the peddler’s license for the temporary
business shall be included in the permit application and the permit shall be
56
kept at the business site. Such signs shall be removed within seven days of
the termination of sale activities. Such signs shall not be placed in any street
right of way.
(2) Two temporary off-premises signs directing construction traffic during the
construction period of a new business. Such signs may not exceed six square
feet in area or three feet in height, shall be limited to one sign per zoning lot
with the written permission of the property owner, may not be located in any
residential or office district, may be located in required yards and must be
removed upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
(3) Trailer signs. A-frame signs or signs on vehicles or electrified signs shall not
be permitted to be used as temporary signs.
Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective from and after the date of its adoption. Adopted this the __ day of __________, 2011. Robert A. Mullinax, Mayor Amy S. Falowski, City Clerk
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
Asheville
Banner Elk
Boone
Catawba County
Conover
Florence
Franklin
Gates County
Hickory
Hillsborough
Lake Lure
Lenoir
Lincoln County
Maiden
Mathews
New Hanover County
Newton
Raeford
Siler City
Sugar Mountain
SummerField
Waxhaw
Wendell
Wilmington
Wilson’s Mills
Whispering Pines
Do
es y
ou
r ju
risd
icti
on
allo
w t
emp
ora
ry s
ign
s?Ye
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
s
Do
es y
ou
r ju
risd
icti
on
req
uir
e a
per
mit
fo
r
tem
po
rary
sig
ns?
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
If s
o w
hat
is t
he
fee
any?
$25
$0$0
$0$0
$2
5$4
0$0
$28.
2
5$2
0
$55
+
$1 p
er
day
$0/$
7
5$0
$0$0
$4
5$5
0*$0
$0$2
5$5
0$1
1$1
0$3
0$0
$0
Do
es y
ou
r ju
risd
icti
on
allo
w t
emp
ora
ry s
ign
s to
be
pla
ced
wit
hin
rig
hts
-of-
way
s?
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Do
es y
ou
r ju
risd
icti
on
limit
th
e lo
cati
on
in w
hic
h
tem
po
rary
sig
ns
can
be
pla
ced
?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes/
N
oN
oYe
sYe
sN
oYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
s
Do
es y
ou
r ju
risd
icti
on
limit
th
e si
ze o
f
tem
po
rary
sig
ns
allo
wed
?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes/
N
oYe
sYe
sYe
sN
oYe
sYe
sYe
sN
oYe
sye
sYe
sN
oN
oYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sN
oYe
sYe
s
Do
es y
ou
r ju
risd
icti
on
regu
late
th
e n
um
ber
of
tem
po
rary
sig
ns
that
can
be
pla
ced
wit
hin
yo
ur
juri
sdic
tio
n b
y a
bu
sin
ess
or
enti
ty?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes/
N
oYe
sYe
sYe
sN
oYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sN
oN
oYe
sN
oN
oYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
sYe
s
Do
es y
ou
r ju
risd
icti
on
limit
th
e d
ura
tio
n in
wh
ich
a t
emp
ora
ry s
ign
can
be
dis
pla
yed
?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Tem
po
rary
Sig
ns
Surv
ey
Sum
mar
y
* -
Tem
po
rary
sig
n b
on
d (
refu
nd
able
)
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
Minutes Newton Planning Commission
December 14, 2011 Council Chambers
City Hall
The regular meeting of the Newton Planning Commission was held at 7:00 p.m. on December 14, 2011 in the Council Chambers at City Hall. Members Present:
Jim Granny Donnie Setzer Mark Stalnaker Stan Gabriel Ken Simmons Jim Smith Melinda Travis
Members Absent:
none Staff Present:
Glenn Pattishall, AICP, Planning Director/Asst. City Manager Alex Fulbright, AICP, Assistant Planning Director Max Sigler, Planner Rob Powell, Community Development Coordinator Todd Clark, City Manager
Item 1: Call to Order Chairman Simmons called the meeting to order and requested that Mr. Pattishall introduce a new member of the Planning Commission. Mr. Pattishall introduced Mrs. Melinda Travis as an ETJ member of the Planning Commission. Mr. Todd Clark, City Manager requested to speak to the Planning Commission about Glenn Pattishall’s upcoming retirement. He stated that he appreciated Glenn’s professionalism and service with the City. He explained the process that would be used to select a new planning director. He also took a moment to thank the Planning Commission for all that they do. Mr. Simmons thanked Mr. Clark and presented Mr. Pattishall a card that was signed by all the members of the Planning Commission. Mr. Pattishall expressed his gratitude for the card. Item 2: Consideration of Minutes November 22, 2011 Meeting
87
Chairman Simmons asked for consideration of the minutes of the November 22, 2011 meeting. There being no corrections or additions, Chairman Simmons ruled that the minutes were approved as presented. Item 3a: Public Hearing – Text Amendment 2011-05 – Temporary Signs Chairman Simmons called to order a Public Hearing as scheduled and advertised, and recognized Mr. Glenn Pattishall to make a presentation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Pattishall stated that at the November 15, 2011 City Council meeting, the Council by consensus directed staff to request that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on a proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment concerning temporary signs. Mr. Pattishall explained that the Planning Commission took up the matter for a second time in 2011 at its September meeting as a result of the Mayor making a personal appearance and asking the Planning Commission to reconsider the matter, and after considerable discussion directed staff to prepare additional information on the matter for continued discussion at its October meeting. The Commission at its October meeting reviewed the additional information requested and after lengthy deliberation voted in favor of keeping the existing ordinance with no changes. Mr. Pattishall went on to explain that in order for this or any amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to be adopted under the Newton City Code, it must first be considered during a public hearing by the Planning Commission who must make a recommendation on the proposed ordinance and then considered during a public hearing held by Council before it may be adopted by Council. Any deviation from this protocol would result in an invalid ordinance. Mr. Pattishall stated that the proposed ordinance would allow temporary signs, balloons, aerial signs or banners may be erected for a period not to exceed seven (7) days for the purpose of announcing commercial and non-commercial openings, closings, management changes, special events and sales. There shall be no limit to the number or location where such signs may be placed including street rights of way provided such signs do not create a hazard to public safety. Mr. Pattishall then recapped the Planning Commission concerns that were expressed in the past about proposed ordinance, which were that there would be no limits to the number of signs, that the time limit would be difficult to enforce with no permit, and that buy not regulating the number or the location that the proposal would lead to visual clutter. Mr. Simmons asked if there were any questions. Mr. Simmons stated that he did not want signs in his neighborhood and that under the proposal presented that temporary signs could be placed on any street in the City. He commented that the Planning Commission has considered the issue two times already and each time voted unanimously against amending the current ordinance. With no further discussion, Chairman Simmons closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion. A Motion was made by Mr. Jim Granny, second by Mr. Jim Smith to recommend that the City Council not approve the proposed changes and that the sign ordinance remain unchanged. There was no discussion on the motion, and the motion carried 7 to 0.
88
Item 3b: Public Hearing – Rezoning Application 2011-04 - Albert Kennedy Chairman Simmons called to order a Public Hearing as scheduled and advertised, and recognized Mr. Sigler who read from his December 7, 2011 memo. He stated that the property was owned by Marvelle Price and is located at 2223 Indian Trail. The property was 2.85 acres, approximately 1400 feet to the Southwest of the intersection of Indian Trail and Smyre Farm Road. The request was to rezone the property from and existing EM-1, Exclusive Manufacturing District to an M-1, General Manufacturing District. He then recommended that the Planning Commission approve the application as requested because the application is in compliance with the intent and policies the Southeast Area Plan adopted by the City Council in 2008. Mr. Smith asked about the applicant’s intent. Mr. Sigler explained that the applicant has expressed interest in operating a truck repair garage on the site; however, any use allowed in the M-1 General Manufacturing District would be permitted if the request were approved. Mr. Mark Stalnaker asked about what types of the uses would be allowed if the request was approved. Mr. Alex Fulbright listed uses that could be allowed if the request was approved and explained that the asphalt plant adjacent to the site was also zoned M-1. Chairmen Simmons asked Mr. Albert Kennedy, applicant if he would like to speak. Mr. Kennedy approached the commission and explained that he intended to build a 3 bay garage, which could eventually be expanded in the future if need. He went on to explain that the property was great for his needs. Mr. Stalnaker asked about the access to the site. Mr. Kennedy explained that he would use Indian Trail and Wagon Wheel Road to access the property. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Kennedy about what function would the facility serve. Mr. Kennedy explained that he would perform the regular maintenance on his fleet of truck such as changing the oil, replacing brakes, and similar maintenance related task. There was conversation about the asphalt plant and the noise that it produces and that grouping obnoxious uses would be desired if possible as opposed to spreading out the intense manufacturing uses. Mr. Kennedy stated that his garage would be quieter than the asphalt plant. Mr. Stalnaker asked if the Church that was recently the subject of a nearby zoning request was notified of the public hearing. Mr. Sigler stated that they were notified as required. With no further discussion, Chairman Simmons closed the Public Hearing and asked for a
89
motion. A motion was made by Mr. Granny, second by Mr. Stalnaker to recommend that the City Council approve the request as presented. There was no discussion on the motion, and the motion carried 7 to 0. Item 3c: Public Hearing – Rezoning Application 2011-05 - Catawba County Chairman Simmons called to order a Public Hearing as scheduled and advertised, and recognized Mr. Fulbright. Mr. Fulbright read from his memo dated December 9, 2011. He stated that the property was located at 100 Southwest Blvd and is owned by Catawba County. The property is physically located on Southwest Boulevard at the Southwest corner of the intersection of Southwest Boulevard and Radio Station Road. The applicant Catawba County is requesting to rezone the property from the existing R-20 Single Family Residential District to a PD-O&I Planned Development Office and Institutional District. The property is currently being used for the County Government Center Complex and it will continue to be used as such. Mr. Fulbright explained that the intent of the rezoning was to allow for the County to have more flexibility over what can occur on the site and eliminate the need to amend the current special use permit which was approved in 1977. The original special use permit has been amend several times since. Mr. Jackie Eubanks, County Planning Director explained the site plan to the planning commission and expressed their desire to have a master plan to accommodate their future needs. The planning commission expressed concerns about the adjoining neighborhood and need for a buffer to be maintained. It was explained the site plan shows the extent of development on the site and would have to be amended if there was substantial changes. Mr. Todd Clark, City Manager discussed the site plan and its relation to the City’s Heritage Trail Greenway. He explained that the site plan shows a parking area that would be used to provide parking for users of the greenway. Mr. Stan Gabriel expressed concerns about the traffic along Radio Station Road. Mr. Fulbright responded that while the site plan shows new components that does not mean that the amount of trips generated by the facility would increase at the same rate. It will provide more space for existing activities that are currently occurring. He also explained that staff has expressed concerns about the government center’s driveway on Radio Station Road to the North Carolina Department of Transportation. These discussions were the driving reason that created the driveway at the maintenance facility, which serves the detention facility on the site. He also explained that the topography and the historic stack rock wall near the original driveway on Radio Station Road limits what could be done to improve the situation. Mr. Eubanks concurred with Mr. Fulbright and stated that looping the access road and connecting it to the newer driveway could improve the situation. He explained that the second driveway on Radio Station Road was created when the Western Piedmont Transit Authority was looking at locating a maintenance facility on the County’s property. With no further discussion, Chairman Simmons closed the Public Hearing and asked for a
90
motion. Motion made by Mr. Stalnaker, second by Mr. Granny to recommend that the City Council approve the request as presented with the exception that any major modification to the plan is brought before the Planning Commission and that public hearings are held. There was no discussion on the motion, and the motion carried 7 to 0.
Item 4: Old Business Presentation of Draft – B-1 Discussion
Chairman Simmons recognized Mr. Fulbright. Mr. Fulbright reminded the Planning
Commission that there would be a public meeting held at the January Planning Commission
meeting and that notices would be sent to the residents in the North Rankin Avenue and East 20th
Street Area.
Item 5: New Business
None
Item 6: Reports
Mr. Fulbright reviewed the monthly departmental reports for November 2011.
Item 7: Training
Mr. Fulbright spoke to the Planning Commission about the stormwater permit that was recently
approved. He reminded the Planning Commission of their duties as the stormwater advisory
board and discussed the actions that would be needed to comply with the permit over the next
five (5) years.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alex S. Fulbright/AICP
Recording Secretary
91
CITY OF NEWTON
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: January 17, 2012
TO: E. Todd Clark, City Manager
FROM: Wilce Martin, Director of Public Works and Utilities
CONSIDERATION OF: Closure of the City Compost Facility
Approved for Council Consideration
______________________________
Background:
The City of Newton obtained a permit from the State of North Carolina in 2008 to operate a
Land Clearing and Inert Debris Landfill (LCID) on 65 acres of land on Boston Road. The cost to
construct the landfill that was going to be built for the purpose of accepting debris generated by
the city and contractors of the city was estimated at $360,000.
Over the next couple of years it was apparent that an LCID was not needed since it became clear
that Catawba County would receive clean concrete and asphalt for free at the County Landfill.
Consequently, the City obtained a modified permit from the State in 2010 that would allow the
City to dispose of leaves collected within Newton.
On December 1, 2011 a North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) inspector made a site visit to the compost facility. As a result of this inspection, the
City was cited for not having an approved erosion control plan or sufficient measures in place to
prevent erosion. The corrective measures required by the inspector were to complete an erosion
control plan for the site by December 15, 2011and install silt fencing around the entire two acre
site at an estimated cost of $1,120. In addition, the City would have to construct an all-weather
access road for fire protection at an estimated cost of $22,970. While construction of a silt pond
is not presently required, the staff believes this may be a requirement at a later time. In
consideration of these requirements, the City staff contacted DENR to request an extension of
time for the purpose of determining whether or not the city wanted to continue the compost
operation. DENR agreed to an extension of time to allow the staff to review this matter and
discuss it with City Council.
Review:
The current expense of building an all-weather road and installing silt fencing is estimated to
cost $24,090 which is not included within the current budget. With the continued new
requirements that are being issued by the Federal Government, staff believes that it is just a
matter of time before the city will be required to install a silt pond estimated at a cost of $35,000,
92
and to also perform testing on the silt pond overflow at an underdetermined cost. The cost of
testing is presumed to be costly however since the samples will have to be sent out to a
commercial laboratory.
If the City decides to close the landfill, DENR will require the City to haul all of the leaves and
any other debris on the site to the landfill. The chippings can still be given away or hauled to the
landfill. Once the site is cleared and reseeded, DENR will do a final inspection and approve the
closure.
Staff does not believe the current and future cost of maintaining the landfill is worth the benefit
of using the site only for the disposal of leaves. The estimated cost to haul leaves and mulch to
the County Landfill is approximately $9,000 per year. This includes the cost for fuel and tipping
fees.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council authorize staff to proceed with closure of the City
Compost Facility.
93