Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning board recommends approval of Traymore 2 annexation and rezoning to council

Town of Harrisburg Planning and Zoning Board · August 20, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Town of Harrisburg Planning & Zoning Board voted to recommend that the town council approve H2023-04-R (Traymore 2), a conditional rezoning and annexation of roughly 25.2 acres for a 23-lot single-family subdivision with modified conditions addressing buffers, tree protection and roadway design.

The Town of Harrisburg Planning and Zoning Board on Aug. 20 recommended that the town council approve H2023-04-R, a proposal to annex and conditionally rezone roughly 25.2 acres for a 23-lot single-family subdivision known as Traymore 2.

Shelley, planning staff, told the board the proposal would rezone the site to a residential low conditional district, with lot sizes ranging from about a half-acre to three-quarters of an acre and a density of below one dwelling unit per acre. Shelley said the plan includes about 6.74 acres of open space and transportation work limited to a turn lane into the development and a two-lane collector road through the site. "It is staff's recommendation to ask this board to recommend approval to the town council and make the associated findings," Shelley said.

Staff described several modifications made after prior discussion. The roadway cross-section was revised to preserve two 11-foot lanes and a center landscape median while accommodating a 10-foot multiuse path on one side and a 5-foot sidewalk on the other; planting strips of about 6 feet are proposed on both sides to accommodate street trees where feasible. Shelley said the town engineer opposed placing street trees in private easements, so the design keeps planting opportunities within public right-of-way where possible.

Buffering and utilities drew extensive attention. Staff clarified the Type D buffer along Hickory Ridge Road is intended to be clear of utilities "overhead or underground" where feasible, but noted the town does not control third-party providers: "We do have authority over its own utility placement water lines, sewer lines, stormwater. When it comes to utilities like Union Power or Duke, we don't have authority," Shelley said. She explained that if a utility company's required relocation forces changes greater than 10% to the approved plan, the UDO treats that as a major modification requiring return to the process.

Shelley also said condition 6 was revised to require protection of critical root zones for existing vegetation in the 20-foot Type C buffer behind Lots 16–23; any vegetation counted toward the buffer must be inventoried by species and health during the construction-plan phase and shown on the landscape and limits-of-disturbance plans.

Applicant representative Alan Curley, of Taylor Morrison Homes, said the developer had addressed concerns raised at the prior meeting and would provide required construction-phase documentation. "Joe did a great job kind of going over the changes that were made from our previous meeting last month," Curley said, and he offered to answer further questions.

A board member raised broader concerns about continued annexation near the town's fringe and potential impacts on schools, infrastructure and emergency services. Shelley and staff said annexation requests are vetted by the development review committee (fire, public works, engineering, planning) and noted the project lies in a very-low-density area identified in the Harrisburg Area Land Use plan. Staff emphasized that the town evaluates public-facilities adequacy, and that some elements (for example third-party power-line placement) may require coordination with outside utilities.

After discussion, a board member moved to recommend approval, citing consistency with the low-density land-use goals and transportation objectives; another member seconded. The motion was moved, seconded, and the chair called the voice vote. The board voted in favor and the motion carried; the board will forward its recommendation and the findings of reasonableness to the town council.

Next steps: if the town council follows the board's recommendation, the developer must return for preliminary plat and construction-plan review, at which time inspectors and construction-phase requirements will be enforced and landscape and root-zone protections will be documented.