PRESENT: Mayor Glen Lang, Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith, Council Members Marla Dorrel, Jennifer Robinson, Julie Robison, Nels Roseland, and Harold Weinbrecht

Mayor Glen Lang called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., and Mr. Weinbrecht provided the invocation.

Police Chief Windy Hunter publicly thanked members of Cary’s Indian community for making a contribution to the George Almond trust fund.

_________________________

Mayor Pro Tem Smith presented the award to Scott Fogleman, Cary’s Budget Director.

_________________________

The power point presentation that was illustrated by staff is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit A. Ms. Prince of the planning department stated that the site is adjacent to the Woodwinds Industrial Center, but it is not a part of the industrial center. She stated the previous owner of the property owned the property from 1971 until 2001, and he used the site as a non-conforming heating and air conditioning business. She stated the business was sold to the current owner in 2001, and he continued to use it as a non-conforming heating and air conditioning business. She stated the new owner expanded the business to include a towing service, and the Town cited the owner for a violation as the result of expanding a non-conforming use. She stated as a result of the violation, the owner is requesting to continue to use the site for his heating and air conditioning business and to expand the site to include the towing service. She stated no protest petitions were received.

Mr. Toby Dickens, the engineering company representing the owner, reiterated that the applicant purchased the property in 2001 and continued the non-conforming use. He stated he wants to zone the property to be in conformance with the Town’s requirements.

No one else came forward to speak, and Mayor Lang closed the public hearing.

ACTION: Referred to the May 20, 2002, Planning and Zoning Board meeting

_________________________

The ordinance presented to the P&D Committee in February has been changed based on feedback from the Town’s legal staff to improve the wording relating to the enabling legislation granted by the legislature. In addition to legal review, the planning staff has overhauled the existing provisions related to maintenance and removal of vegetation on developed sites. A fundamental aspect of these regulations is that they are directed towards the protection of vegetation in strategic locations on undeveloped sites. Once an undeveloped parcel has an approved development plan, then the provisions in the UDO requirements related to buffers and other required protected areas are implemented. For non-exempt properties, this ordinance permits harvesting trees on property provided adequate vegetation is left undisturbed around the perimeter of the site for use as buffers and streetscapes to meet development plan requirements. However, the ordinance does discourage property owners from harvesting trees until development plan approval is received. Some of the major components of this UDO amendment package are listed below:

Establishes a Tree Clearing Certificate process for all non-exempt undeveloped properties within the Town’s jurisdiction.

Requires protection of existing vegetation within perimeter buffers having widths of 50 feet from roadways, 65 feet from developed properties, and 32 feet from other vacant properties as well as within stream buffers on all undeveloped properties.

Establishes disincentives for property owners whose properties are exempt from the requirement to get a Tree Clearing Certificate and fail to protect the perimeter vegetation (disincentives include delayed approvals, review by council, and possible requirements to double the amount of required vegetation during development plan review).

Establishes a vegetation protection plan review process to ensure that required vegetation in the appropriate places is protected during timbering activities.

Establishes a tiered penalty/fine structure for properties which are timbered but which do not follow the vegetation requirements. Penalties include the ability to delay development plan approval for sites which removed required vegetation for five years, as well as fines, and the ability to require extra landscaping as part of the development plan approval process.

Clarifies various sections of Chapter 14, which relate to the maintenance of required vegetation on developed sites, including new disincentives for excessive pruning of existing tress.

 

BACKGROUND:

House Bill 910 was passed in 2001 by the North Carolina State Legislature, and granted enabling legislation to the Town of Cary for the purposes of protecting existing perimeter vegetation and specimen trees on parcels within the Town’s planning jurisdiction. This legislation followed the passage of House Bill 684 during the 1999 session. Both pieces of legislation were directed at the preservation of existing trees and vegetation on undeveloped sites. The purpose of protecting this vegetation is to assure the presence of healthy mature vegetation for use as buffers once the undeveloped sites entered the development process.

The staff has developed a Tree Clearing Certificate process to implement the provisions of the above legislation. In addition, several modifications to the UDO are proposed to protect existing required vegetation on developed sites. Additional modifications are proposed for the development review process, landscaping requirements, and fines for damage to existing vegetation. This amendment also adds fines for excessive pruning and/or damage to trees and required landscaping. The proposed UDO amendments are attached for review, and changes to the text are presented in the strike-through/underline format where new text is underlined and removed text is stricken.

The UDO amendments are intended to implement the enabling legislation granted by House Bill 910 from the 2001 general legislative session. The primary components of the legislation deal with the ability of a municipality to regulate the cutting or removal of vegetation within perimeter buffers of undeveloped lots. The Town is authorized to regulate or prohibit the cutting of any trees and shrubs on undeveloped properties within 65 feet of roadways or other developed properties, and within 32 feet of other undeveloped properties. The legislation exempts land taxed at present-use values (farms) and land used for forestry activities. The legislation also allows the Town to protect champion or specimen trees located in the interior of undeveloped tracts.

The regulatory tool to implement this legislation is a proposed Tree Clearing Certificate process. Such a certificate would be required prior to removal of vegetation on properties which do not have an approved development plan or which are not exempt from the provisions (farms and forestlands). Properties with an approved development plan do not need a Tree Clearing Certificate to clear land since the amount of required vegetation to be saved has already been considered in the development review process.

The Tree Clearing Certificate process requires review and approval of a Vegetation Protection Plan as well as tree protection fencing locations. The Vegetation Protection Plan seeks additional information on the types of adjacent uses and the locations of existing riparian buffers, as well as the proposed limits of timbering. In addition to protecting vegetation in the perimeter buffers, the proposed UDO amendments seek to limit clearing within all riparian buffers.

The proposed UDO amendments also provide clarification on the penalties for non-compliance with the Tree Clearing Certificate process or prohibitions against vegetation removal in perimeter and riparian buffers. The state enabling legislation allows the Town to deny a building permit or development plan approval for a period of up to five years to those properties which remove vegetation within protected areas even if such properties are exempted from the need to obtain a Tree Clearing Certificate. There are additional fines and disincentives for failing to obtain a Tree Clearing Certificate or violating the terms of an approved Tree Clearing Certificate.

In addition to these provisions, some modifications have been made to the development review provisions to reflect that properties which have been clear cut before obtaining development plan approval or a Tree Clearing Certificate may only obtain approval for a development plan from the Council, and that the Council may hold such approval in abeyance for a period of up to five years. In some situations, the amount of replacement vegetation may be doubled if a property owner failed to obtain a Tree Clearing Certificate prior to clearing their property.

Finally, additional modifications were made to the UDO sections on replacement of damaged vegetation to reflect increase fees for severe or extreme pruning of required landscaping (trees and shrubs) whether such trees and shrubs were existing or planted.

The current legislation allows the Town to protect significant or champion trees, however the current provisions do not include protection for such vegetation. It is the intent that the forthcoming Zoning and Development Ordinance, or "ZDO" will address the protection of champion trees as well as integrating this legislation relating to vegetation protection.

ORDINANCE AMENDMENT

Town of Cary, NC

This ordinance amends Chapter 2; Chapter 5, Parts 6, 7, & 12; and Chapter 14 Parts 1 & 6 of the Cary Unified Development Ordinance.

PART12

RESERVED

Table 5.12.1

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES

(c) Review and Action by Director of Planning Development Services. Upon receipt of the subdivision plan for subdivisions that meet the requirements of this Ordinance, the Director of Planning Development Services shall review the subdivision plan, the comments of the Development Review Committee, and other applicable boards and commissions, and shall approve or disapprove the subdivision plan.

 

The Director shall approve the subdivision provided that the following standards are met:

(1) It fully complies with applicable requirements of this Ordinance;

 

(2) It adequately protects other property, or residential uses located on the same property, from the potential adverse effects of the proposed development;

 

(3) It provides harmony and unity with the development of nearby properties;

 

(4) It provides safe conditions for pedestrians or motorists, such as presenting an appropriate arrangement of pedestrian and vehicular ways; and

 

(5) It provides safe ingress and egress for emergency services to the residences of the subdivision.

 

The Director may deny the subdivision plan if it does not meet Town Ordinances and/or standards or the standards specifically listed above (see appeal procedure in Section 5.6.2c). The Director may also defer the decision on the subdivision plan to Town Council when he or she deems that any of the above standards may not be met by the proposed plan or in cases where the parcel or tract involved had vegetation removed without an approved Tree Clearing Certificate, or if the parcel was exempt from a the need to obtain a Tree Clearing Certificate, and cleared trees in a protected area. The Director may also choose to seek input from other Boards and Commissions to assist in making a final decision.

(a) Unless approved by the Town Council along with a Major Special Use, or due to a request for a reduction or deviation from the requirements of this Ordinance, or may not meet the standards in Section 5.7.6(c), or due to approval requirements within the Town Center Overlay District (See Chapter 10, Part 4), the Planning Department of Development Services shall review the site plan, the comments and recommendations of the Development Review Committee, the responses and comments of the applicant, and the requirements of this Ordinance, and either approve or reject the site plan. (NOTE: Delays in the approval process can result if the proposed property within the site plan boundaries requires annexation into the Town limits. Official approval of the site plan connecting to Town utilities is contingent on annexation into the Town (See Section 5.1.4).

(b) The Planning Department of Development Services may approve a site plan only if it meets the standards and requirements set forth in Chapter 14, Part 1 of this Ordinance or any other part of this Ordinance (note: plans within Planned Unit Developments may be subject to different requirements based on the PUD approval) and provides for the dedications and improvements, or payments and guarantees in lieu thereof, required by Chapter 15, Part 2 of this Ordinance.

(c) The Planning Director of the Department of Development Services shall approve the site plan provided that the following standards are met:

(1) That it fully complies with all applicable requirements of this Ordinance;

(2) That it adequately protects other property, or residential uses located on the same property, from the potential adverse effects of a nonresidential use;

(3) That it provides harmony and unity with the development of nearby properties;

(4) That it provides safe conditions for pedestrians or motorists and prevents a dangerous arrangement of pedestrian and vehicular ways;

(5) That it provides safe ingress and egress for emergency services to site.;

The Director may defer the decision on the site plan to Town Council when he or she deems that any of the above standards may not be met by the proposed plan or in cases where the parcel or tract involved had vegetation removed without an approved Tree Clearing Certificate, or if the parcel was exempt from a the need to obtain a Tree Clearing Certificate, and cleared trees in a protected area. The Director may also choose to seek input from other Boards and Commissions to assist in making a final decision.

If the Planning Director of the Department of Development Services rejects the site plan, then the reasons therefore shall be stated in the record of action on the site plan.

(d) Failure of the Planning Department of Development Services to act on a site plan within 90 days of receiving the site plan and recommendations from the Development Review Committee shall be deemed approval of the site plan, authorizing the applicant to proceed with development of the property in accordance with the site plan submitted to the Planning Department of Development Services. This time limit shall not apply where the delay in site plan approval is caused by the applicant (such as failure to obtain any special use approval required for the proposed development, or failure to submit a plan that complies with the requirements of this Ordinance in a timely manner).

(e) In the event the Planning Department of Development Services disapproves a site plan, an appeal may be filed with the Town Council within ten (10) days of disapproval. If an appeal is filed, the Town Council, at its next regularly scheduled meeting, shall decide whether to consider the appeal by majority vote and may affirm, reverse or modify the Director's disapproval. The Council may also direct that the Planning and Zoning Board and Town Council process the site plan.

(i) Additional Requirement for Clear-Cut Sites or Sites with Removed Vegetation in Required Vegetation Protection Areas: Larger trees up to four (4) inches in caliper and/or up to double the amount of the required number of trees and vegetation may be required by the Director of Development Services Planning if the site and/or the required vegetation protection areas specified in Section 5.12.4 were clear cut within three five (3) (5) years prior to the submittal of a development plan.

14.1.15. Maintenance Responsibility, Replacement of Damaged Vegetation, and Associated Fines.

(a) Maintenance responsibility. The owners of the property and their agents, heirs, or assigns shall be responsible for the installation, preservation, and maintenance of all planting and physical features (installed or vegetated natural areas) required under this Section, or Chapter 10., Part 1. Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer District, and Part 3 Reservoir Watershed Protection District, Section 5.12.4 Vegetation Protection Areas, or Section 14.6.3 Protecting Riparian Buffers. Damage to these areas results in revegetation requirements and fines (see 14.1.15(c)) or other penalties as required under this Ordinance.

(1) Any dead, unhealthy, or missing vegetation, or vegetation disfigured by severe pruning, shall be replaced with locally adapted vegetation that conforms to the standards of this Section, Chapter 10. Part 1. Ordinance and to the approved development plan. In the case of removal of existing original vegetation from required vegetation protection areas specified under Chapter 5 Part 12 of this Ordinance or Chapter 14 Part 6, the replacement requirements of Section 14.1.9 shall apply.

 

(2) In the event that any vegetation or physical element functioning to meet the standards of this Section or Chapter 10. Part 1.Ordinance is severely damaged due to an unusual weather occurrence or natural catastrophe, the owner may be required to replant if the buffer standards are not being met. The owner shall have one growing season to replace or replant after reconstruction is complete.

 

(3) All required buffers, streetscapes, vehicular use areas, and other landscape areas shall be free of refuse and debris, and treated for pest/diseases in accordance with the approved development plan, and shall be maintained so as to prevent mulch, straw, dirt, or other materials from washing onto streets and sidewalks.

 

(4) The owner should take actions to protect trees and landscaping from unnecessary damage during all facility and site management operations. Plants must be maintained in a way that does not obstruct sight distances at roadways and drive intersections, obstruct traffic signs or devices, and/or interfere with the use of sidewalks or pedestrian trails (see Appearance Specification Manual). Healthy plants, whether located within undisturbed buffers, vegetation protection areas, or within planted areas (required by the development plan) shall not be removed, damaged, cut, or severely pruned so that their natural form is impaired (shrubs within existing vehicle use areas, streetscapes and street fronts may be pruned, but no less than must maintain at least three feet in height).

 

(5) In the event that existing required vegetation located within any required buffers, streetscapes, vehicular use or other landscape areas, poses an immediate or imminent threat to improved structures on private or public property, severe pruning and/or removal of the vegetation is allowable provided prior approval from the Planning Director is obtained, and the performance standard of the landscape area is maintained consistent with this Ordinance. Failure to obtain prior approval for severe pruning and/or removal of vegetation in non-emergency situations will result in the assessment of fines consistent with Section 14.1.5 (c).

 

(b) Replacement of disturbed and damaged vegetation. The disturbance or damage of vegetation within any required buffers, streetscapes, vehicular use areas, or other landscape areas any landscaped area or vegetation required by this Part or Chapter 10. Part 1.Ordinance, or by zoning condition shall constitute a violation of this Ordinance.

(1) The natural death of existing vegetation within the buffer any required landscape area does not constitute a violation and would not require revegetation to replace the tree(s) plant material unless it the required landscape area no longer achieves the required performance standards of this Ordinance.

(2) All disturbed or damaged landscaped areas and natural vegetation shall be replanted so as to meet the standards of this Section and/or Chapter 10. Part 1.Ordinance as well as the approved development plans, if applicable. A replacement-planting plan for review and approval by the Town shall be submitted prior to replacement. This plan will ensure proper replacements are made.

(3) In situations where existing required vegetation on a developed site or vacant site with an approved development plan has been removed or damaged in violation of this Ordinance, the Planning Director may require that the entire site be reviewed and revegetated consistent with the current provisions of this Ordinance in addition to any applicable fines.

 

(c) Fines and replacement of existing, original or installed vegetation. Where the vegetation that has been disturbed or damaged existed on the site at prior to the time of approval of a Tree Clearing Certificate, or the time a development plan was approved, or was installed at a later date, the owner shall be fined and shall replace the disturbed or damaged vegetation in accordance with the standards set forth as listed below or as required in other parts of this Section and/or Chapter 10. Part 1 and Part 3Ordinance taking into account any unique site conditions and significant vegetation remaining within the landscaped area. This Section shall also apply to all stream or riparian buffers, required vegetation protection areas, and vacant, undeveloped properties that due to zoning conditions and/or requirements of the Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer District this Ordinance have protective protected vegetated areas (including but not limited to vegetation in the Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer) and all requirements of Chapter 14, Part I, Building Design, preservation of Existing Natural Areas and Installation of New Landscape Areas.

(1) Where the size (caliper, height, spread) and quantity of damaged vegetation can be documented, an equal amount of new vegetation ("inch for inch") shall be used to quantify replacement vegetation. Replacement vegetation shall meet or exceed the current requirements of this Chapter. Fines and replacement shall consist of item (i) and a any combination of any of the measures listed in items (i) through (iv).

 

(i) A base fine between $2.00 and $4.00 for every square foot area used by the of damaged vegetation damaged within any areas required to be protected under this Ordinance including but not limited to: vegetation protection areas, riparian buffer zones on undeveloped sites, buffers, streetscapes, vehicular use areas, and other landscape areas on developed sites. The base fine shall not exceed a total of $40,000. Penalties for excessive or severe pruning to trees shall be assessed based upon Section 14.1.15(c)(1)(ii) below. In determining the amount of the fine, the Director shall consider the degree and extent of harm caused by the violation, the cost of rectifying the damage, whether the violation was committed willfully. Payment of fines shall be made to the Town of Cary at a time deemed appropriated by the Director of Development Services Planning.

 

(ii) In cases of severe or excessive pruning of required existing trees on developed sites or vacant sites with an approved development plan, a base fine of two hundred dollars ($200) per caliper inch of any tree severely or excessively pruned shall be applied.

 

(iii) Developed sites or vacant sites with an approved development plan shall rRevegetate according to the requirements of Section 14.1.15(c)(3). Vegetation protection areas on undeveloped sites shall be required to be revegetated at the time of development plan approval according to the provisions in Chapter 14 of this Ordinance.

 

(iv) Replace damaged significant vegetation in both buffers and interior areas and native ornamental species in buffers only with an equal amount of new vegetation according to the size of vegetation removed (also called "inch for inch" replacement, see below).

 

(2) Inch for inch replacement. Any tree with a caliper of at least six inches which is damaged or removed shall be replaced with one or more trees which have a caliper of at least two and one-half inches and a cumulative caliper equal to or greater than the original tree.

 

(3) For all other cases where existing vegetation is damaged or removed, the type and amount of replacement vegetation required shall be of the type and amount that is necessary to provide the type of landscaped or natural buffer required under this Part or interior save area (outside of perimeter buffers) identified on the landscape plan or as required by Chapter 10 Part 1. (Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer District) this Ordinance. This shall require one or more of the following for each 2,000 square feet of disturbed area (if area is less than 2,000 square feet, then a revegetation plan that meets the general intent of the requirements below may be approved by the Director of Development Services Planning):

 

(i) Two canopy trees of at least two- (2) inches caliper and approximately 8 feet tall;

 

(ii) Two native ornamental trees of at least one and one-half (1 1/2) inches caliper and at least seven feet high above ground level at the time of installation;

 

(iii) Two evergreen trees of at least two (2) inches caliper and at least eight feet high above ground level at the time of installation;

 

(iv) Seven evergreen shrubs of at least 24" or 18" high x 15" wide inches in height and three-gallon container size at the time of installation;

 

(v) Eight deciduous shrubs of at least 24" or 18" high x 15" wide inches in height and three-gallon container size at the time of installation;

 

(vi) On slopes equal to or greater than a ratio of two and one-half to one (2 1/2:1), 22 ground cover plants with a container size of one gallon at the time of installation.

 

The specific quantities of plants listed above may be adjusted by the Director of the Department of Development Services Planning in order to meet the standards for the required buffer type or protected area based upon location, topography, and other site features.

 

(4) Location of replacement trees: Revegetation should be located within the vicinity of the violation. If revegetation is not practical within the vicinity, a more suitable location on the site may be selected. If no suitable location can be found, a monetary payment may be required. This monetary payment will be based on the current market price for any replacement tree(s) and/or shrubs. This payment shall be used to fund plantings on public properties.

 

(5) Fines and stop work orders. Fines and/or stop work orders shall also apply for damaging and/or destroying significant vegetation, interior specimen significant vegetation, buffers or tree save areas. The requirements of Chapter 18 apply.

 

(6) Appeals of this Section may be made to the Town Council within 10 days of the letter of violation or related correspondence from the Town.

 

CHAPTER 14.

PART 6.

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT.

 

(a) Establishment of Buffer. All perennial and intermittent streams including lakes, ponds, and other bodies of water as indicated on the most recent version of the 1:20,000 scale (7.5 minutes) quadrangle topographic maps prepared by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) shall have a 100-foot wide riparian buffer directly adjacent to such surface waters, excluding wetlands. All other surface waters as indicated by the most recent version of the Soil Survey of Wake or Chatham County, North Carolina shall have a 50 foot-wide riparian buffer adjacent to such waters. In the Neuse River Basin, where obvious conflicts between actual field conditions and USGS and Wake county Soil Survey maps exist, appeals may be made to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. All other appeals for obvious conflicts may be made to the Town Manager or his designee. Appeals to the 100-foot wide riparian buffer may be made as allowed by Section 14.6.8(a).

(b) Delineation of Buffer Zones. There are hereby established three zones of the riparian buffer as follows:

(1) Zone 1 (30' landward adjacent to streambank, severe development restrictions)

(2) Zone 2 (20' landward adjacent to) zone 1, strict development restrictions)

(3) Zone 3 (50' landward adjacent to zone 2, moderate development restrictions)

The buffers must be measured horizontally from the edge of the water body, i.e. from top of bank.

(c) Activity within Buffer. Prior to the approval of a development plan, all existing healthy vegetation which does not pose an immediate or imminent threat to public or private property located within a riparian buffer shall be maintained pursuant to the requirements contained in Chapter 5 part 12 of this Ordinance. Removal or damage to this existing vegetation shall result in the assessment of fines and/or penalties associated with Chapter 5 Part 12 and Chapter 14 Part 1. Activity may take place within any stream buffer zone as defined by 15A NCAC 2B.0233. Likewise, those activities are also allowed within Zone 3.

Within the Neuse River Basin development activity within Zone 1 and Zone 2 of the may take place within a riparian buffer provided that the landowner has one of the following:

(1) An authorization certificate that documents that the NC Division of Water Quality has approved an allowable use.

(2) An opinion from the NC Division of Water Quality that vested rights has been established for that activity.

(3) A letter from the NC Division of Water Quality documenting that a variance has been granted for the proposed activity.

PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE: 5/23/02

The power point presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit B.

Mr. Meadows stated that the tree clearing certificate provisions are aimed at undeveloped sites, and once an undeveloped site has an approved development plan, then the landscaping and buffering provisions in the UDO govern. He stated the ordinance does not prevent clearing, but it does create some standards for the retention of vegetation as well as fines for removal.

Mr. Meadows stated the provisions for the tree clearing certificate do not apply to Town-owned property or to situations where existing vegetation needs to be removed to maintain public safety. He stated the exemptions to the certificate are a result of the legislation that was adopted by the General Assembly (see Exhibit B). He stated even for the properties that are exempt, there are disintentives to the property owners should they desire to remove protected vegetation. He outlined the procedures for obtaining a tree clearing certificate (see Exhibit B). He stated the tree clearing certificate is valid for 12 months.

Ms. Dorrel asked if people who are exempt from the certificate requirements could still incur penalties. Mr. Meadows responded affirmatively. He stated the Town already has the ability to send development plans of sites that are clear-cut to the Town Council and the Town can also determine whether vegetation requirements should be doubled on sites that have been clear-cut when the property owner seeks development plan approval. He stated the legislation gave the Town the ability to also delay the approval of a building permit or a development plan for five years on a site that had been clear-cut, even for properties that were exempt. He stated penalties could be invoked for the removal of all or substantially all vegetation within the perimeter boundaries.

Ms. Dorrel clarified that no one is really exempt. Mr. Meadows stated the owner could cut the trees, but the legislation and the ordinance provides a disincentive if the owner intends to develop the property within five years.

Mr. Meadows stated the role of the planning staff in this entire process is to educate people who are planning to clear-cut their property and try to convince them to not clear-cut until a development plan approval is in place.

Mr. Meadows stated the ordinance also protects existing vegetation on undeveloped properties and provides disincentives for extreme clearing or severe, excessive pruning on developed sites that have approved development plans on existing developments. (Refer to Exhibit B.)

Mr. Meadows stated the provisions of the ordinance will not prevent single family homeowners from pruning or removing vegetation from their properties.

Mr. Meadows stated that dead or unhealthy vegetation can be removed without fines or replacement requirements provided the removal of the vegetation does not impact the performance standard of the buffer of the landscape area. He stated the ordinance contains an imminent danger clause to allow the pruning or removal of vegetation in cases of emergency.

Mr. Meadows clarified that the portion of the ordinance pertaining to developed sites is not assocated with the legislation; however, staff felt this was a good opportunity to address the developed sites.

Mayor Lang stated that public education is a critical part of this ordinance.

Mr. Roseland asked how Cary knows the existing tree canopy/cover. He stated he feels it is important to have a baseline inventory, and he suggested accessing an existing aerial database, and if this is not available, staff should determine the cost of creating this information. Mr. Meadows stated Cary will soon have 2001 or 2002 aerial photos and is currently working with 1999 data.

Mr. Roseland suggested a wider buffer in select sub-waterbasins on the multi-family and non-residential development. He stated he feels that Cary has this authority. Mr. Meadows stated staff will explore this opportunity. Mr. Henderson, Town Attorney, stated he thinks the current legislation was a compromise to protect the perimeter until development occurs, and interested parties may view a wider buffer as excessive, and they may strongly object to it.

Mr. Meadows stated staff continues to add clarification to the ordinance as it goes through the process. He stated staff will meet with the homebuilders association in April.

Ms. Dorrel asked why Town-owned property is exempt. Mr. Meadows stated the Town needs the ability to clear trees from a life-safety standpoint.

Mrs. Robinson asked about a roadway buffer if the road is planned to be widened. She added that it is important that the Town not require a 50 foot roadway buffer, but later eliminate the buffer to widen the road. Mr. Meadows stated the 50 foot buffer begins from the teriminus of the ultimate right-of-way as depicted in the transportation plan.

Mr. Robert London, 202 Laurie Lane, Cary, stated the ordinance is not intended for single family homeowners, but he stated most people with a single family home do not have an approved site development plan and would not be exempt. Mr. Henderson stated if a homeowner is in a subdivision, then the homeowner would be exempt. Mayor Lang stated staff will explain this situation fully for the public as the process moves forward. Mr. London stated he is looking for verbiage in the ordinance that will exempt a single family home in a developed subdivision from the ordinance.

No one else came forward to speak, and Mayor Lang closed the public hearing.

_________________________

Review

Staff is requesting that the Town Council set a Public Hearing for March 14, 2002, on the Town Center Design Guidelines. The guidelines are likely to form a component of future zoning regulations for the Town Center. The zoning ordinance changes to implement the plan will be part of the town wide rezoning scheduled for later this year.

The Town Center Area Plan a long range land use and transportation plan for the development of the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods was adopted by Town Council August 9^th, 2001.

In anticipation of and in order to implement the plan recommendations the Town contracted with the Chesapeake Group to prepare Downtown Design and Signage Guidelines and a market feasibility study in June 2000.

The private signage guidelines and amendments to the Ordinance that put these in place were completed last year. The market feasibility study was completed in November of 2001.The Design guidelines are the final part of the contract.

A committee consisting of downtown business representatives assisted by Town staff working with the consultant has shaped the guidelines.

A final meeting of the committee and a public open house showing the draft guidelines was held February 19^th. A Planning and Zoning Board work session was held March 18^th. Any revisions required as a result of the final round of public consultation will be made prior to the public hearing.

Describe the general urban design vision, type of built environment desired for the Town Center Area.

Assist in focusing design principles in order to preserve property values, promote the public health, safety and general welfare, and develop a satisfactory visual appearance within the Town.

Provide clear design standards for development ,redevelopment and revitalization based upon the Town Center Area Plan’s recommendations

Educate property owners, developers, the public, and plan reviewers on what is expected and desired for new development in the Town Center;

Assist the Town in developing practical approaches for the treatment of public spaces and public infrastructure in the Town Center

The design vision for the guidelines was outlined in the Town Center Area Plan. This envisions that the town center should be a compact, pedestrian friendly environment with good connections to surrounding neighborhoods. The heart of the center was defined as an area centered on the intersection of Chatham and Academy Streets extending out 2 to 3 blocks in all directions. A distinction was made that buildings south of the CSX railroad should be about 2-3 stories and reflect traditional architecture, whilst north of the CSX line, buildings could transition to more contemporary architecture of 3-6 stories. An emphasis was placed on providing street trees, wide sidewalks, bringing buildings closer to the street, discouraging voids and frontage parking lots providing the majority of parking in public decks

Application of the Guidelines

Convey what is allowed "as a matter of right" or provide direction to development interests and property owners. Compatible development that employs these guidelines will seek review and approval by a Town Center Development Review Committee.

Apply to new buildings and to the remodeling or expansion of existing buildings.

Apply to all new Town infrastructure provision and publicly maintained spaces in a defined core area.

Be viewed as one part of a larger set of ordinances and regulations governing land use within the Town Center. Development applicants and interested citizens will need to refer to other sources such as the Town’s Sign Ordinance for signage issues, the Unified Development Ordinance for more detailed land use regulations within Town Center District(s), and the Town’s Standard Specifications and Details for more precise construction and engineering requirements.

The guidelines are broken into three parts covering development of the private realm, treatment of the public realm and recommendations for wayfinding and trailblazing to the Town Center as a destination.

Private realm. Guidance is set out for the composition and site layout of private developments including: Building height, arrangement and siting, design, colors, materials, facades, windows, entrances, awnings, storage and service areas, security gates and cameras, exterior lighting, outdoor cafes, sidewalk displays, views, parking and landscaping.

Public realm. A proposed design treatment for the public streetscape along the town centers principal streets, including guidance, standards and specifications for benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, planters, bollards, tree guards and grates, landscaping (including tree planting recommendations), street lighting, pavers, pavement treatments, utilities, and public signage.

Wayfinding and Trailblazing. A trailblazing sign system to direct people to the town center and specific destinations in the center such as government offices, library public parking structures. The recommendation is for the sign system to employ the image and form of the clock, which is located at the intersection of Chatham Street and Academy Street. The potential locations of signs are indicated on a map of the town and a re chiefly located at the intersections of principal roadways entering the town.

The power point presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit C. The draft town center guidelines are attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit D.

Mrs. Robison asked if staff is proposing the development committee as a subset of the Planning and Zoning Board, made up of a variety of citizens, downtown business owners, etc., and if they will review every proposal. Mr. Parajon responded that the committee will be integrated into the process so as not to add time to the process. He stated it will allow staff to utilize the knowledge of an extra group of people, and this group will interface with the private development entity to help the staff better understand the broad guidelines. He added the committee is advisory to the Planning and Zoning Board and the Town Council, and they have no decision making authority.

Mr. Arne Tune, 105 Devine Way, Cary, stated he is a downtown business owner and is the president of the Heart of Cary Association. He stated he and the Heart of Cary supports the guidelines.

Mr. David Tyree, 102 Luxon Place, Cary, stated he served on the committee, and he noted that the committee went to great lenghts to address private citizen concerns. He urged the Council to support this document.

No one else came forward to speak, and Mayor Lang closed the public hearing.

_________________________

Mr. Henry Balboni, 1329 Doylin Drive, Cary, stated with the rezoning of Walnut Street, he is concerned with flooding. He stated they have experienced flooding with the widening of Walnut Street, the expansion of the Cary Towne Center and the construction of First Union Bank. He stated they are losing their land to the creek. He stated with the proposed rezoning of Walnut Street, he is concerned that the problem will worsen.

Mr. Jeffrey Wotus, 214 Kilbreck Drive, Picardy Pointe Subdivision off of Lake Pine Road, Cary, stated they feel they have been subjected to unfair treatment by the Wake County School System. He distributed materials to Council (Exhibit E attached to and incorporated in these minutes), and asked the Council to do whatever possible to assist the Cary citizens. He stated the Board’s actions do not always agree with their words. Exhibit E contains the verbatim comments made by Mr. Wotus; Ms. Samantha Herring, 106 Severen Court, Cary; Ms. Allison Connors, 201 Kilmorack Dirve; and Ms. Patience Stevens, 407 Kettlebridge Drive.

Ms. Lib McGowan spoke about the school’s reassignment plan. Refer to Exhibit F attached to and incorporated in these minutes for her verbatim comments.

Ms. Mary Phillips, 104 Pande Circle, Cary, stated the school board did not follow policy or process in their most recent reassignment process. She suggested that the money that Cary gives to schools is an incentive to send Cary students to non-Cary schools. She asked the Council to withhold this money in the coming year.

Mr. Bill Lundy, 104 Pande Circle, spoke to the importance of neighborhood schools.

Mayor Lang informed the public that the Cary Town Council has no authority over the school system, but they do try to do everything possible to improve working relations and to indirectly influence them. He stated over the past couple of years, the Town has been successful in working with the school system and developers to get additional schools built. He stated the school system does not bus Cary children away from Cary schools because of the money that Cary gives to the schools. He stated the Cary Council is unable to influence the school’s policy on a node by node granularity. He stated he will try to ensure that the citizens’ comments are heard by the school board.

Mrs. Robinson stated Cary did not pass a resolution against the redistricting proposal, because it would have been counter-productive to Cary’s efforts to strength the relationship and open lines of communication.

_________________________

There were no Planning and Zoning Board items to report for this meeting.

_________________________

There were no consent agenda items for this meeting.

_________________________

_________________________

REVIEW: In response to recent feedback received from Cary citizens and emergency services staff regarding the recent construction of speed humps and raised pedestrian crosswalks, staff has reviewed its policy and procedure and is recommending revisions to both.

The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) has collected a large volume of data related to traffic calming device’s impacts to emergency vehicle response times. Their research identifies claims of impacts ranging from 20 seconds per device to as little as no impact per device. Cary’s own Fire Department and EMS stated that they believe speed humps may increase response times. Both recommended more consistent construction methods, better identification of the devices, and better communication regarding future installations. Staff has revised the policy and procedure accordingly.

Citizens have requested that more information be included with the petition lists, information pertaining to response times, visual and audible impacts, and costs. Citizens requested clarifications about the extent of affected properties included on the petitions "areas of influence". They also wanted clarification on what constitutes a valid signature. Staff has incorporated improvements related to each of these in the attached policy and procedure statements.

At the March 14, 2002 Town Council Meeting, staff was instructed to gather citizen’s comments on the proposed changes to the Policy and Standard Procedure and report back at the March 26 Town Council Meeting. Staff has received comments from three citizens, all of whom live along streets with speed humps. The comments are summarized as follows with staff comments added in bold:

Disagrees with staff having the option to collect speed data

Endorsement by the Homeowner’s Association should be required

Clarify that the monies could come from many different sources or one source

Only homeowners or spouses should sign petitions

Distinguish between a vacant lot and a vacant home

Distinguish between "modifications" and "corrections"

Does staff intend to verify signatures?

Modifications should not be restricted to the one-year time frame.

Disagreement with the 70% requirement for speed hump removal

Establish a maximum time allowed to collect signatures

After Council approval, require 100% approval of property owners abutting each hump location

Recommends a method for removing one’s signature before final approval or installation

The revised Policy and Standard Procedure follow. Revisions were based on citizen and Council comments.

POLICY PURPOSE

To adopt an official policy for the appropriate and consistent application of traffic calming measures.

COVERAGE

This policy, upon adoption by the Town Council, shall be applicable on town maintained streets until such time that the policy statement is altered, modified, or rescinded by the Town Council. This is a Town of Cary Policy Statement. As such, Town Council has full authority waive any and all obligations under this Policy at its discretion.

POLICY

Traffic calming measures are only applicable in residential neighborhoods, where speeding vehicles and/or cut-through traffic are the primary concerns and traditional police enforcement is not feasible. The following policy and procedure are meant to ensure the measures are used as intended and receive the support of the community and Town of Cary staff.

1. Streets must be residential in nature with: a posted speed limit of 25 mph, a roadway width of 35 feet or less, and two or fewer lanes of travel.

The Town of Cary Engineering Division may elect to conduct speed studies to determine 85^th percentile speeds. If so, the 85^th percentile speeds should exceed the posted speed limit by five or more miles per hour. Otherwise, the requestors may elect to withdraw their request for traffic calming devices.

3. The Engineer will solicit feedback and approval to continue from the Chief of the Fire Department before developing a petition list.

The Town of Cary Engineering Division will develop a petition list based on an "area of influence" defined by the Engineer on a case-by-case basis. The Town desires to have neighborhood acceptance levels at 70% or greater but may approve devices at its discretion. Should the Town approve devices, the fee for each device is $400. All checks should be made payable to the "Town of Cary".

A map showing proposed locations of the devices shall be attached to the petition list. A photograph of a speed hump and "humps" warning sign shall be attached to the petition list. Information pertaining to the various impacts of the devices shall be included on the petition list. Each resident in the area of influence shall first have access to the map, photographs, and information in an effort to make an informed decision before signing the petition.

For requests received from neighborhoods with Homeowner’s Associations, feedback from the Association is desired. The Town may, however, approve of installation without Homeowner’s Association input.

Once items 2-5 have been completed and all criteria is met, each resident in the area of influence shall be notified of the next "Public Speaks Out" session of a Town Council Meeting should anyone wish to comment on the proposal.

 

Upon final review of all comments and paperwork, a report will be submitted to Town Council for review and approval.

The Engineer will identify the location of each device in the neighborhood to provide residents with a minimum of two additional weeks to comment before construction begins. Minor revisions in the location of the devices may be allowed before construction begins.

The Engineer shall make every effort to have the devices installed as soon as schedules permit. Each device shall be clearly marked with pavement markings and warning signs within 24 hours after installation. Temporary markings may be allowed for an interim period.

 

Note: Item 11 shall be retroactive and applicable for any neighborhood that has traffic calming devices in place as of the date of adoption of this Policy.

 

Once approved by Town Council, requestors may request to have the devices removed after an adequate review and analysis period of no less than one year after installation. These requests for removal shall be required to follow the process defined in items 2-6 above. There are no fees associated with the removal of devices.

This procedure is meant to ensure that traffic calming measures are used as intended and receive the support of the community. This is a Town of Cary Standard Procedure Statement. As such, Town Council has full authority to waive any and all obligations under this Standard Procedure at its discretion.

PROCEDURE

ACTION: Mr. Weinbrecht made a motion to approve the policy, and Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second.

Ms. Dorrel stated she has heard some concerns from the public, and the Council was not clear enough with their expectations at the last meeting about who should be allowed to comment on this issue. She stated she does not think citizens had enough time to comment. She stated she expected that staff would allow the people involved in the past four to five requests to comment on the policy, and the applications that are pending also provide good groups to contact to provide information about the policy. She stated she would like to table the issue further.

Mrs. Robinson stated the proposed policy is better than the existing policy, and she suggested that Council approve the policy, allow citizens from the community to comment on it, and if necessary based on the comments, amend the policy in the future.

Mayor Lang stated the proposed policy closes loopholes and is a good interim measure while additonal comments are allowed from citizens.

Mrs. Robison suggested that staff go back three to four cycles and ensure that anyone who contacted the Town for or against speed humps is contacted for comments. She suggested that staff put a notice in the paper and include a deadline for comments. She stated she would prefer to offer additional time and have a more sustainable policy. She suggested to allocate another month, and have more formalized notification to citizens and work to address the concerns of the citizens.

Ms. Dorrel asked how the process will work if staff continues to solicit comments from the public. Mr. Bailey stated staff will allow a period of time for comments, probably more than 30 days to allow staff to adequately respond to the comments and allow time for compromises. He proposes to obtain the area of influence list of the people involved in past and current speed hump projects and mail the policy to all these people to solicit their comments. He stated staff will also publish a notice in the newspaper and on the website about the comment period.

Mayor Lang suggested that Mr. Bailey come up with the method, send an email to the Town Council and get Council concurrence. Ms. Dorrel stated it is important to let people know they were selected to participate because they were involved with the process.

Mr. Bailey stated anyone who picks up a petition after tonight will operate under the policy approved tonight, and all others fall under former policy.

_________________________

Mayor Lang announced the following appointments to the Town Center Area Plan implementation committee: Belinda Blackwood, Nancy White, Nellie Tomlinson – Chair, Jeff Fike, Joe Hucks, William Van Eck, Mike Gallagher, Ralph Ashworth, Dan Tomczak

The purpose of the citizen committee is to involve Cary citizens in setting the pace and process for implementing the Town Center Area Plan (TCAP). The Committee will become familiar with the TCAP, and then explore and evaluate various implementation alternatives. The overall goal of Committee is to conduct a rapid appraisal and make recommendations to the Town Council as to a preferred implementation strategy.

General implementation issues involve topics such as:

(1) Timing of TCAP implementation

(2) Financing alternatives for key infrastructure investments -- focus on public vs. private investments or public- private partnerships (incentives, property tax abatement/rebates, TIF district creation, loans for redevelopment or rehabilitation of disadvantaged property)

(3) Land acquisition alternatives

(4) Park and Open Space as part of TCAP

(5) Other key issues identified by the Committee.

The Committee will evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of implementation options and provide insight and suggestions as to how the Town of Cary should progress on implementation of the TCAP. Special attention should be paid to identification of potential problems to Cary citizens and possible measures to address concerns.

The committee will be composed of a range of stakeholders including residents who live in the TCAP area, business owners invested in the area, chamber of commerce representatives, local developers, and members of the community at-large. The group will be composed of individuals who express interest and apply to serve. Appointments will be made at the discretion of the Mayor.

The Committee will meet over a 3-6 month period. The Committee should meet initially with key Town planning staff and consultants to become fully familiar with the TCAP. Follow-up meetings should occur at least twice a month and involve discussions and presentations with town staff, downtown improvement/redevelopment experts, and discussions with town center residents and landowners that have a stake in the outcome of the work of the Committee. An extended work session to develop suggestions on implementation options should involve an external facilitator to guide the Committee in evaluating options and in prioritizing implementation recommendations.

The committee will work in liaison with Town staff and a chair. Staff will initially set the agenda for the work of the committee with the Mayor. The agenda may be modified by the chair and the committee with concurrence of the Mayor and Town Manager during the course of work. The Town Manager will identify a key staff person to provide necessary administrative and technical support to the Committee.

At the end of the work of the Committee, the Chair will present key findings and recommendations to Council at a regularly scheduled Council Meeting or Special Work Session. The recommendations will serve to inform staff and Council when making decisions on TCAP implementation.

No Council action was required.

_________________________

Mayor Lang announced the following Council board/commission liaision appointments:

Harold Weinbrecht: Planning & Zoning Board

Jack Smith: Utility Board of Adjustment and Economic Policy Commission

Julie Robison: Sister Cities Commission

Marla Dorrel: Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Advisory Board

Nels Roseland: Information Services Advisory Board

Jennifer Robinson: Zoning Board of Adjustment

No Council action was required.

_________________________

Closed session was not called.

_________________________

The meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m.