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

Mayor Lang called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m., and Mr. Weinbrecht provided the invocation.

_________________________

Mr. Don Carnell of the TTA outlined Exhibit A, the TTA Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, and Exhibit B, the printed presentation. Exhibits A and B are attached to and incorporated in these minutes.

_________________________

(Refer to Exhibit A attached to and incorporated in the operating budget work session minutes dated May 23, 2002 for the proposed budget.)

Mr. Coleman stated every town must present a proposed budget by June 1 and then have a public hearing and adopt it by June 30. He stated the total operating is $103,407,976, and the total budget including capital improvements is $176.7 million. He stated the operating budget increases 10% in the general fund and 4.9% in the utility fund, and funding sources are based on a 42 cent tax rate (no increase), a solid waste fee of $7.67 (no increase), and an overall utility rate increase of less than 1%. He stated the budget also proposes an increase of $5 in the vehicle license fee, and these revenues will help fund the extension of the C-Tran transit service to the general public. Mr. Coleman stated the proposed budget is on file in the town clerk’s office and the town manager’s office and is in the downtown Cary library. He announced that a public hearing will be conducted on June 13, 2002, and the budget is scheduled for adoption by Council on June 27, 2002.

_________________________

Mr. Weinbrecht stated that all 12 Wake County municipalities are working on open space plans, and five of the plans have already been adopted. He stated a county-wide plan is underway to integrate the municipal plans. He stated three options were discussed for spending the county open space money: (1) create an elected body; (2) have a private group or consultants; or (3) a multi-jurisdictional entity. He stated as open space shrinks, then more active open space should be provided.

_________________________

The Planned Unit Development (PUD) document is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit C. The power point presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit D.

Ms. Prince outlined the four proposed PUD amendments:

(1) MR1: proposal to eliminate a portion of the 40 foot common space adjacent to the Cary Glen Boulevard; however, the applicant will maintain the same amount of common open space. Ms. Prince stated the applicant is requesting this amendment to allow more flexibility with design and to allow them to move the buildings closer to the street in keeping with urban design practices.

Mrs. Robinson asked how close the buildings will be to the road with the amendment. Ms. Prince responded that the buildings would be 20 feet from the road.

(2) SF9A and SF9B: currently, 152 single family dwelling units are approved on these parcels. The proposal would allow 172 single family dwelling units; however, they are not proposing an increase to the overall maximum dwelling units in the PUD.

(3) Single family cluster and mixed use residential parcels SF11 and SF12 and MR1 through 9: currently, the code requires minimum lot sizes. The proposal stipulates that no minimum lot sizes apply to the single family cluster or the mixed residential parcels. Ms. Prince stated this amendment will allow more design flexibility and it will reduce the amount of land under individual ownership, and it could potentially save resources for open space. She stated the amendment will not increase the density of the overall PUD. Ms. Prince noted that a later public hearing will address the minimum lot size issue.

(4) MR8, MR9, SF11, TC1: the current master land use plan calls for 15% of the total dwelling units to be affordable and 15% to be age restricted. Ms. Prince stated the developer has committed to a minimum of 222 affordable units and 222 age restricted units. She stated the proposed amendment will remove the affordable designation, and will instead mix the affordable in the development as a whole. The amendment stipulates that 30% of the number of dwelling units will be affordable and/or age restricted (instead of the 15%/15% split).

Ms. Prince stated the maximum build-out for Cary Park is estimated at 2,475 units, based on what has been approved and the parcels that have not yet been built. She stated 75% of the affordable units have been met based on 166 committed units for the MR8 and MR9 tracts that are affordable. She stated none of the age restricted housing has been committed.

Mayor Lang stated it appears that the applicant will increase the affordable housing, but mix the affordable within the entire PUD. He stated it appears that they are moving the age restricted housing out of Cary Park. Mrs. Robinson asked if the Council wants this much concentration of affordable housing in one community.

Mr. Jerry Turner, 905 Jones Franklin Road, Raleigh, on behalf of the property owner, stated the buildings can be as close as 15 feet to the front (amendment #1). He stated they are attempting to put the attractive front to the street. He stated the driveways will be in the rear of the properties.

Mrs. Robinson asked the height/stories of the townhouses. Mr. Turner stated the townhouses are three stories.

Mr. Weinbrecht asked about the collector road being 15 feet from the townhomes. Mr. Turner stated there will be a sidewalk, a landscaped front yard with trees and a streetscape. He stated this will only occur for about 1/3 of the width of the project. He stated where possible, they have made the buffer wider.

Mr. Turner stated he will meet with residents to show them visuals of the development. Mrs. Robinson asked to be informed of the date of this meeting.

Mr. Turner stated the second amendment produces a more efficient design and yields more lots. He stated the third amendment will allow more flexibility and design and will allow for density and more open space. Mayor Lang suggested that the applicant commit to additional open space, and he urged them to make this decision prior to the planning board meeting.

Mr. Turner stated the fourth amendment deals with affordable and age restricted housing. He stated the Amberly plans propose 1500 age restricted units, and the larger age restricted projects can offer more services. He stated Cary Park will go on record stating that there will be no less than 15% affordable housing units. He stated it is likely that the 30% designation of affordable/age restricted will be dedicated to affordable.

Mrs. Robison asked about the market value of the affordable units in Cary Park. Mr. Turner stated the two projects currently going through the approval process are priced within the affordable rent range (under Cary’s program). He added there are some for-sale units, and the approximate market value of the for-sale units is in the $135,000 range (townhomes, patio homes, condominiums). He stated he does not yet know the percentage of affordable rental units vs. affordable for-sale units. He stated the PUD allows flexibility with rental and owner occupied.

Mayor Lang stated some council members feel that too many affordable apartments are being built, but not enough affordable owner occupied units are being built. He suggested zero lot line single family affordable development to meet a need in the community.

Mr. Dave Hartman, a Cary Park homeowner, representing his neighborhood, stated they obtained approximately 50% of the homeowner’s signatures in opposition to the zoning changes on short notice. He stated they do not feel they have been represented by the developer, and the developer has not shown them models, pictures, or information to inform them of the proposed plan. He stated they feel the townhomes being closer to the street is in opposition to existing development in the area with nice setbacks and buffers. He stated they fear safety hazards with the buildings being so close to the street adjacent to a main thoroughfare. He stated more density along the lake is not a good idea. Mr. Hartman stated they do not understand what the developer plans to do with the affordable/age restricted policy. He stated they prefer a balance of the 15%/15%.

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

Mrs. Robison asked Mr. Hartman if his neighborhood has a homeowners association. Mr. Hartman stated the developer has appointed two people from the neighborhood to represent them, but they did not democratically vote for those representatives. Mayor Lang stated the developer controls the homeowners association until a certain percentage of the lots are sold. He stated these details are in the private covenants. Mrs. Robison encouraged the representatives to be involved with the developers.

_________________________

These proposed Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) amendments are designed to provide greater flexibility to the development process for higher density developments in the Residential Mixed (RM), Downtown Residential (DR) and Residential Multi-family 8 & 12 districts (R-MF-8 & R-MF-12). They are also designed to further simplify and clarify the current requirements in these districts through consolidation and the use of tables and graphics.

The proposed revisions are focused on patio dwellings, duplexes, townhouses, and other attached dwellings units, but do not apply to single family dwellings (regulations for single family dwellings remain unchanged). The proposed UDO revisions remove the language which treats these higher-density residential uses differently, and proposes one set of flexible regulations which apply evenly to all. The primary modifications are summarized below:

• Removal of the minimum lot size provisions for patio, attached, townhouse and multifamily developments in the RM, DR, R-MF-8 and R-MF-12 districts. The provisions controlling density have been retained.

• Removal of the combined aggregate front yard provisions in favor of building setbacks which are controlled by streetscape buffer widths and/or off-street parking requirements.

• Removal of separate side and rear yard requirements in favor of combined side and rear setbacks based upon the minimum distances needed for landscaping, parking, or building height requirements.

• Clarification about the minimum building separation distances between structures proposed in a single development.

The largest proposed change is the removal of minimum lot size provisions in favor of gross density requirements. This change will allow greater flexibility and market control in the siting of residential dwelling units, but will not increase the overall densities currently allowed in the districts being revised. Provisions requiring a minimum amount of open space have been left intact as well.

The proposed scheduled for adoption of the ordinance amendment is as follows:

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.

This ordinance amends Chapter 8, Parts 8, 9, 10, and 11 of the Cary Unified Development Ordinance.

(b) Yard requirements contiguous to other residential districts. With respect to any yard which is contiguous to property located in another residential zoning district, unless the buffer required by Table 14.1.5 is provided adjacent to that residential zoning district, that yard shall be no less than the corresponding front, side, or rear yard requirement of the adjacent district and one-half of the buffer required in Table 14.1.5.

 

(cb) Maximum building height.

(NOTE TO READER: FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, THE LANGUAGE IN THIS SECTION IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THIS AMENDMENT; ONLY THE SECTION NUMBER HAS CHANGED, THE TEXT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SECTION HAS NOT CHANGED)

(dc) Detached Single family dwellings:

 

(NOTE TO READER: FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, THE LANGUAGE IN THIS SECTION IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THIS AMENDMENT; ONLY THE SECTION NUMBER HAS CHANGED, THE TEXT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SECTION HAS NOT CHANGED)

(ed) Patio dwellings, Duplexes, Subdivided Attached, Semi-Attached and Town House Developments.

 

(1) Minimum Lot Area: One of either of the two following calculations, whichever provides the least density, provided that no property smaller than (i) below can be developed: Density: 6.0 dwelling units per acre.

 

(i) 8,000 square feet including common area and the fee simple lots; or

 

(ii) A gross density of 6.0 dwelling units per acre.

 

(2) Minimum Lot Area: None.

 

(23) Minimum lot width: per dwelling unit: 20 feet. None except that duplexes shall maintain a minimum lot width of 50 feet.

 

(34) Maximum building footprint: same as sub-section 8.8.5(d)(s) above. Minimum Front Setback: The depth of the required front setback varies as indicated in Table 8.8.5 below. The front setback shall be measured from the edge of the public street right-of-way or from the edge of pavement on private streets to the closest point of the closest principal structure.

 

TABLE 8.8.5

(45) Minimum front and rear yards: same as sub-section 8.8.5(d)(3) above. Minimum side and rear setbacks: The depth of the required side and/or rear setbacks varies as indicated in Table 8.8.6 below. When property is adjacent to a street, the setback shall be measured from the edge of the public street right-of-way or from the edge of pavement on private streets to the closest point of the closest principle structure.

 

TABLE 8.8.6

● ● ●

(a) Yard requirements contiguous to other residential districts. Any yard which abuts another residential zoning district shall be not less than corresponding front, side, or rear yard requirement of the adjacent district.

 

(ba) Maximum building height.

(NOTE TO READER: FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, THE LANGUAGE IN THIS SECTION IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THIS AMENDMENT; ONLY THE SECTION NUMBER HAS CHANGED, THE TEXT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SECTION HAS NOT CHANGED)

(cb) Detached single family dwellings.

(NOTE TO READER: FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, THE LANGUAGE IN THIS SECTION IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THIS AMENDMENT; ONLY THE SECTION NUMBER HAS CHANGED, THE TEXT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SECTION HAS NOT CHANGED)

(dc) Patio dwellings, Duplexes, Subdivided Attached, Semi-Attached, Town House Developments and Multi-Family Dwellings.

 

(1) Minimum Lot Area: One of either of the two following calculations, whichever provides the least density, provided that no property smaller than (i) below can be developed: Density: 8.0 units per acre.

 

(i) 7,000 square feet for the first cluster of two dwelling units plus common open space plus an additional 2,000 square feet for each additional dwelling unit; or

 

(ii) A gross density of 8 dwelling units per acre.

 

(23) Minimum Lot Width: 20 feet (25 feet for corner lots for each fee simple building lot) This minimum lot width does not include the required side yards. None except that duplexes and multi-family buildings shall maintain a minimum lot width of 50 feet.

 

(34) Minimum front yard: 24 feet. Minimum Front Setback: The depth of the required front setback varies as indicated in Table 8.9.5 below. The front setback shall be measured from the edge of the public street right-of-way or from the edge of pavement on private streets to the closest point of the closest principal structure.

 

TABLE 8.9.5

FIGURE 8.9.5

(4) Minimum side yard at corner lots: 15 feet. Minimum Side and Rear Setbacks: The depth of the required side and/or rear setbacks varies as indicated in Table 8.9.6 below. When property is adjacent to a street, the setback shall be measured from the edge of the public street right-of-way or from the edge of pavement on private streets to the closest point of the closest principle structure.

 

TABLE 8.9.6

(5) Minimum side yard separation between building groupings principal structures within the same project development: 1216 feet.

 

(6) Minimum interior side yards between buildings: None.

 

(7) Minimum rear yard: 18 feet.

 

(8) No maximum building footprint provided that 36% of the total parcel proposed for development is restricted by appropriate covenants and restrictions which ensure that such area remains undeveloped open space.

 

(e) Duplexes:

 

(1) Minimum Lot Area: One of either of the two following calculations, whichever provides the least density, provided that no property smaller than (i) below can be developed:

 

(i) 7,000 square feet; or

 

(ii) A gross density of 8 dwelling units per acre.

 

(2) Minimum lot width: 67.5 feet for each dwelling not served by an alley; (72 feet for corner lots). For lots served by an alley 50 feet (55 feet for corner lots).

 

(3) Minimum front, side and rear yards: same as Section 8.9.5(d)(2) through (4).

 

(4) No maximum building footprint provided that 36% of the total parcel proposed for development is restricted by appropriate covenants and restrictions which ensure that such area remains undeveloped open space.

 

(f) Subdivided attached, semi-detached and townhouses:

 

(1) Minimum Lot Area: One of either of the two following calculations, whichever provides the least density, provided that no property smaller than (i) below can be developed:

 

(i) 7,000 square feet for the first two dwelling units plus an additional 2,000 square feet for each additional dwelling unit;

 

(ii) A gross density of 8 dwelling units per acre.

 

(2) Minimum lot width: 18 feet (24 feet for corner lots) for each dwelling unit.

 

(3) Minimum front yard: 24 feet.

 

(4) Minimum side yards: one at 6 feet minimum; one at 12 feet minimum; 15 feet for corner setback.

 

(5) Minimum rear yard: 18 feet.

 

(6) No maximum building footprint provided that 36% of the total parcel proposed for development is restricted by appropriate covenants and restrictions which ensure that such area remains undeveloped open space.

 

(g) Multi-family dwellings:

 

(1) Minimum Lot Area: One of either of the two following calculations, whichever provides the least density, provided that no property smaller than (i) below can be developed:

 

(i) 10,000 square feet for each three unit building plus an additional 2,000 square feet for each additional unit per building; 20,000 square feet for each two building development of no more than three units per building, provided that

 

(ii) A gross density of 8 dwelling units per acre.

 

(2) Minimum lot width: 67.5 feet for each dwelling not served by an alley (72 feet for corner lots). For lots served by an alley 50 feet (55 feet for corner lots).

 

(3) Minimum front yard: 24 feet.

 

(4) Minimum side yards: one at 6 feet minimum; one at 12 feet minimum; 15 feet for corner setback.

 

(5) Minimum rear yard: 18 feet.

 

(6) Maximum building footprint: 64%.

 

● ● ●

PART 10. R-MF-8 Multi-Family Residential District.

 

All uses and structures in the R-MF-8 District shall meet the following development standards, except as otherwise provided by this Ordinance:

(a) Minimum lot area/density.

 

(1) Residential uses: the total density of each development shall not exceed 8.0 units per acre. (Except for major special uses under Section 8.10.4.)

 

(2) All other uses: 10,000 square feet.

 

(b) Minimum lot width.

 

(1) Subdivided attached, semi-detached, patio dwelling, and townhouse developments: 20 feet.

 

(2) All other uses: 60 feet (70 feet for corner lots).

 

(c) Minimum front yard. The width of the required front yard varies as follows, depending on the type of street on which the lot fronts, and shall be measured from the edge of the street right-of-way:. Minimum front setback. The depth of the required front setback varies as indicated in Table 8.10.5 below. The front setback shall be measured from the edge of the public street right-of-way or from the edge of pavement on private streets to the closest point of the closest principal structure.

 

TABLE 8.10.5

TABLE 8.10.6

(1) Non-residential: 10 feet, plus an additional four feet for each full story of building height over two stories.

 

(2) Residential:

 

(i) Between building groupings 16 feet, divided between both side yards.

 

(ii) Between buildings: 0

 

(e) Minimum rear yard. 20 feet for non-residential uses; 40 feet, split in any way between front and rear yards for residential uses. separation between principal structures within the same development. 16 feet.

 

(f) Yard requirements contiguous to other residential districts. With respect to any yard which is contiguous to property located in another residential zoning district, unless the buffer required by Table 14.1.5 is provided adjacent to that residential zoning district, that yard shall be no less than the corresponding front, side, or rear yard requirement of the adjacent district and one-half of the buffer required in Table 14.1.5.

 

(gf) Maximum building footprint.

 

(1) Residential uses:

 

(i) 40 percent with a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet, or

 

(ii) No maximum building footprint provided that 60% of the total parcel proposed for development is restricted by appropriate covenants and restrictions which ensure that such area remains undeveloped open space.

 

(2) All other uses: 30 percent.

 

(hg) Maximum building height.

 

(NOTE TO READER: FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, THE LANGUAGE IN THIS SECTION IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THIS AMENDMENT; ONLY THE SECTION NUMBER HAS CHANGED, THE TEXT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SECTION HAS NOT CHANGED)

● ● ●

PART 11. R-MF-12 Multi-Family Residential District.

 

All uses and structures in the R-MF-12 District shall meet the following development standards, except as otherwise provided by this Ordinance:

(a) Minimum lot area/density.

 

(1) Residential uses: the total density for each development shall not exceed 12 units per gross acre. (Except for major special uses under Section 8.11.4.)

 

(2) All other uses: 10,000 square feet.

 

(b) Minimum lot width.

 

(1) Subdivided attached, semi-detached, patio dwelling, and townhouse developments: 20 feet.

 

(2) All other uses: 60 feet (70 feet for corner lots).

 

(c) Minimum front yard. The width of the required front yard varies as follows, depending on the type of street on which the lot fronts, and shall be measured from the edge of the street right-of-way: Minimum front setback. The depth of the required front setback varies as indicated in Table 8.11.5 below. The front setback shall be measured from the edge of the public street right-of-way or from the edge of pavement on private streets to the closest point of the closest principal structure.

 

TABLE 8.11.5

TABLE 8.11.6

(1) Non-residential: 10 feet, plus an additional four feet for each full story of building height over two stories.

 

(2) Residential:

 

(i) Between building groupings 16 feet, divided between both side yards.

 

(ii) Between buildings: 0

 

(e) Minimum rear yard. 20 feet for non-residential uses; 40 feet, split in any way between front and rear yards for residential uses separation between principal structures within the same development. 16 feet.

 

(f) Yard requirements contiguous to other residential districts. With respect to any yard which is contiguous to property located in another residential zoning district, unless the buffer required by Table 14.1.5 is provided adjacent to that residential zoning district, that yard shall be no less than the corresponding front, side, or rear yard requirement of the adjacent district and one-half of the buffer required in Table 14.1.5.

 

(gf) Maximum building footprint.

 

(1) Residential uses:

 

(i) 40 percent with a minimum lot size of 2,000 square feet, or

 

(ii)No maximum building footprint provided that 60% of the total parcel proposed for development is restricted by appropriate covenants and restrictions which ensure that such area remains undeveloped open space.

 

(2) All other uses: 30 percent.

 

(hg) Maximum building height.

(NOTE TO READER: FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, THE LANGUAGE IN THIS SECTION IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THIS AMENDMENT; ONLY THE SECTION NUMBER HAS CHANGED, THE TEXT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SECTION HAS NOT CHANGED)

Refer to Exhibit E attached to and incorporated in these minutes.

Mr. Meadows of the planning department stated some of the parcels in town, including vacant and underdeveloped infill parcels, have special constraints which have made them difficult to develop. He stated the ordinance amendment is limited and focused to Cary’s current development standards for higher density housing types in districts that allow these housing types. He stated the districts include the following districts: residential mixed, residential multi-family 8 and 12, and the downtown residential district. He stated the proposed changes are targeted to the following four higher density housing types: townhouses, duplexes, patio homes, and multi-family structures (including condominiums and apartments). (Refer to Exhibit E for additional information.) He stated these amendments do not apply to single family homes.

Mayor Lang asked why the staff would encourage people to build on the empty lots in the downtown area prior to the implementation of the town center area plan. Mr. Meadows responded that the move towards higher density in this area is consistent with what the town center area plan is calling for in the downtown area.

Mr. Weinbrecht stated he understands the concept of applying these amendments to the downtown area, but he stated he does not understand applying the amendments to other areas of town. He stated he feels that this diminishes open space opportunities. Mayor Lang concurred, and he added that these amendments make sense in the areas where new urbanism design is desired.

Mr. Meadows stated it would be possible to apply an overlay district to the parcels under these specific zoning designations, and this could be based on the areas that the council feels are appropriate to have reduced or no lot sizes. He stated staff will explore this.

Mrs. Robison asked the staff’s goals with the periphery with these proposed amendments. Mr. Meadows stated the goals come from the land use map. He stated activities are located near the Town’s current downtown area, and there are planned activity centers in the peripheries. He stated the proposed amendments are not geared towards properties in the periphery, but rather to the properties more internal. He stated staff will explore treating the periphery different. Mr. Meadows stated the removal of a minimum lot size provision could create more open space. He added that some people want less private space and more open space (maintenance purposes), and these amendments would allow that.

Mrs. Robinson asked for an explanation of how additional open space might result with these ordinance amendments. Mr. Meadows stated more open space might result because the density remains the same. Mrs. Robinson asked if there are scenarios in which a few stray lots in a development were not large enough to develop; however, if the minimum lot size is removed, then the developer can build and no additional open space would be seen. She added that it will only result in more development. Mr. Meadows stated this issue is usually handled when property is subdivided.

Mr. Meadows stated with the current UDO, staff relies on front, side and rear yard provisions. He stated there are also setback provisions associated with streetscape, landscape buffers, building height limitations and side offsets. He stated these code provisions are in a completely different part of the UDO. He stated they propose to streamline the setback provisions so that everything flows from the requirements for landscaping, parking and building heights. He stated this will not reduce any setbacks, but instead, it will streamline them into one section of the UDO. He stated it will make the UDO easier to use and easier to understand.

Mr. Meadows stated with the removal of lot sizes, it is also necessary to remove lot widths. He stated they retained lot widths for duplex structures to allow for separate driveways.

Mr. Meadows stated the building separation provisions is a clarification that single or groups of attached structures should maintain adequate spacing from each other. He stated this is done for light, air and fire prevention purposes. He stated the current code provisions are confusing regarding building grouping setbacks. He stated staff is considering additional amendments that will allow the planning director to deviate on a case-by-case basis based on a site plan or conceptual plan.

Mr. Meadows stated these amendments do not apply to single family structures. He stated there is no increase in overall allowable density. He stated there are no changes to any landscaping buffer provisions. He stated there are four main benefits associated with the ordinance amendment: (1) increased clarity of regulations; (2) increased flexibility to promote infill development; (3) increased market control for housing type or placement; (4) it creates the potential for increasing owner-occupied housing.

Mr. Meadows stated staff will research a way to provide more geographic control of this ordinance and how the density works.

Mr. Jerry Turner, 311 Kelso Court, stated his neighborhood contains houses with 1800 to 2800 square feet, and the lot sizes outside the periphery are five feet outside the houses. He stated this is impossible when there are minimum lot sizes. He stated this development would not be allowed in Cary today, and it may not even be possible with the proposed amendments, due to the way single family houses are defined in the current code. He encouraged staff to look at how cluster and single family patio homes could be developed in this manner. He stated the ordinance should decrease private open space but should increase common open space. He encouraged the council to apply these amendments to single family as well as multi-family or at least to redefine single family in the code. He stated Kelso Court was actually defined as detached townhouses in order to develop them.

_________________________

Conservatory place is a proposed 400 foot long private road located off Weston Parkway at the Arboretum Site. Although the road has not yet been constructed, site plans were approved and maps recorded showing the current name. The property ownership has changed since this road was named and the new owners have requested the name Arboretum Park Place. Since the road is not yet opened, our emergency services departments have no opposition to the name change. The property owner understands that real estate plats for this site must be recorded showing the correct name.

See Exhibit F attached to and incorporated in these minutes for the power point presentation.

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

_________________________

The Town of Cary is currently rerouting portions of Walnut Street and Holly Springs Road. Once this street expansion project is completed, the existing Walnut Street between 2617 Walnut Street and 2911 Walnut Street must be renamed as well as the 5800 block of Holly Springs Road to prevent any confusion with 911 response.

Staff held a community meeting for Walnut Street residents on January 28^th and the name Macedonia Road was suggested for the residential portion of the road.

Staff also held community meetings on April 17^th and 18^th and invited the business owners at 2900 Walnut Street, Macedonia Methodist Church, and The Eckerd Drugs and the residents and business owners effected on Holly Springs Road. Several naming options were discussed, but after careful consideration, staff felt naming this portion of road Jones Franklin Road would be most appropriate.

Joe Moore from Engineering and a Deputy Fire Marshall were present at each meeting. Our emergency services staff is supportive of the recommendation to change the road names.

See Exhibit G attached to and incorporated in these minutes for the power point presentation.

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

_________________________

Mr. Shah, a resident of Coventry Woods subdivision in Cary, spoke against the school board’s new policy that certain neighborhoods are not eligible for magnet or year-round schools.

Mayor Lang informed Mr. Shah that the Cary Town Council has no authority over the school board. He encouraged Mr. Shah to address the school board at their public speaking time.

Mr. Herman Jaffe, Wake Citizens for Nuclear Safety, read materials about nuclear safety. These materials are attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit H.

Mr. Lowell Garrison, 102 Warren Avenue in the Greenwood Forrest subdivision, expressed concern about a storm water runoff problem. He stated that since 1998, there has been an increase in water flow down through the creek that runs from Mr. Westbrook’s land down through Washington Street, over Warren Avenue down to Ralph Drive. He said there has been a lot of damage and erosion. He stated that one person has had a hot water heater that flooded twice, and another has had to replace her heat pump due to flooding. Mr. Garrison stated that there is a sewer line running under the creek, which is now exposed and on top of the creek. He stated there are drainage pipes that come out from the house where the runoff water goes down to the creek that have been exposed to at least three feet. He stated he has lost 10 feet of land in the back of his house due to flooding, and the creek has widened by three feet since 1998. He encouraged the Council to visit the site. He suggested bigger culverts, but he acknowledged that this might not be the answer.

Mr. Bill Spencer, 929 Ralph Drive, stated the runoff problem has continually worsened since 1966. He requested that staff undertake a study of the runoff problem in this area (including the east side of Kildaire Farm Road between Maynard and Cornwall, flowing down across Wilshire, Washington, Warren and Ralph, onto Greenwood and down to Maynard where the new bridge is located). He stated a study will determine the causes of the flooding. He encouraged the council and take the action needed to rectify the situation of the continued erosion.

Mr. Roseland asked Mr. Spencer if Mr. Westbrook (a nearby property owner) drained a lake on his property and redeveloped the property. Mr. Spencer stated that he believes that to be correct. He said he remembers that a holding pond was built approximately 25-30 years ago up behind Kildaire Farm Road, and he stated this holding pond was drained within the past three to five years, filled in, and now new homes are there. He said his understanding is that a smaller holding pond has been built, and the water that went into the original holding pond has been piped directly into that stream.

Mayor Lang stated he has directed the town manager to review a storm water utility to deal with the storm water problems and to provide a mechanism to fund the solutions of these problems.

_________________________

There were no Planning and Zoning Board report items on this agenda.

_________________________

For information only; no Council action was necessary.

_________________________

(Resolutions 02-019 through 02-025 are on file in the town clerk’s office and are incorporated in these minutes by reference.)

_________________________

(Resolution 02-029 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.)

_________________________

The Wake County Board of Commissioners, in regular session on May 6, 2002 approved and accepted the enclosed tax report for the Town of Cary.

It is hereby submitted for your approval.

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

In 2001 the Town of Cary, for the first time, developed a comprehensive legislative agenda and a strategy for working with the North Carolina General Assembly to acquire grants of authority that would enable the Town to take actions in areas that will benefit the long-term development of Cary and continually improve quality of life for Cary citizens. In this effort, the Town secured the services of Parker, Poe, Adams and Bernstein who served as professional lobbyists to assist the Town in identifying the legislative contacts and communicating reasons why these grants of authority were important to the Town of Cary. These efforts were successful with the grant of authority to regulate tree cutting and in additional methods to fund new road improvements.

The 2002 short session of the General Assembly is scheduled to begin work May 28, 2002 and end in July. The staff has identified those elements of the 2001 legislative agenda on which work still needs to be done and has identified several other initiatives that are recommended for Council's consideration for the upcoming legislative session.

The 2002 legislative session is supposed to be an abbreviated session. The General Assembly has a rule that requires local legislation to be certified non-controversial to be considered in the short session. Certification as non-controversial means that 100% of the local delegation supports of the proposed legislation. This rule is used to limit the number of local legislative items to be considered by the General Assembly. Given this rule, it is recommended that the Council and staff work with the lobbyist selected to identify the legislative items that have the greatest chance for consideration.

The lobbyist used for the 2001 legislative agenda was the law firm Parker, Poe and Bernstein. Our lobbyists were Al Adams, Jack Cozort, and Bruce Thompson. As a result of Charles Meeker, an attorney in this firm, being elected mayor, Parker, Poe, Adams and Bernstein has informed the Town that they cannot serve as our lobbyists for the 2002 legislative session. I have investigated a replacement for Parker, Poe, Adams and Bernstein with the Town Attorney and the North Carolina League of Municipalities' legislative staff. Based on this effort, it is my recommendation that the Town use Michael Crowell as the Town's lobbyist for 2002. Michael Crowell has worked for the Town on the issue of campaign finance reform, has the required experience working in the General Assembly, and is a well-respected attorney and expert on municipal issues. Mr. Crowell also previously worked for the Institute of Government and brings a great deal of knowledge about legislative and municipal affairs to this effort. Mr. Crowell has stated that he would undertake this effort for a contractual amount of $25,000.

2002 LEGISLATIVE AGENDA ITEMS

May 16, 2002

The basis for the exemption is:

1) The Town's goal of redevelopment and revitalization of Cary's downtown cannot be fully achieved by compliance with existing standards.

2) The Town has applied significant stream buffer standards to all development including downtown development which, in some cases, exceed state requirements. The impact is that Cary has high water quality standards that can offset increases in impervious coverages in the downtown.

3) The Town's setback requirements and requirements for preserving and supplementing vegetation are among the most stringent in the state. Their effect is to reduce the amount of impervious coverage, reduce nitrogen loading, and improve water quality.

Ability to condemn property for utilities

When widening roads, CP&L often has to relocate facilities. These facilities are typically outside of the right of way in private easements which requires Cary to pay the full cost of relocation. CP&L does not pay for easements and refuses to condemn (although they have the authority to do so). When the property owner refuses to give an easement, CP&L tries to move the line to the other side of the street; if this fails, the project cannot move forward. (Raleigh has similar authority.)

Increase development density limitations around Jordan Lake critical area to protect the watershed and meet council goals of minimizing development in certain areas of Cary's ETJ, Wake County, and Chatham County. This could help control the land area outside our jurisdiction. [Or, may wish to pursue as a drinking water reservoir watershed rule change through the county's current stormwater quality committee.]

Equity Formula Changes

The equity formula to determine how state transportation project money is allocated does not have a direct correlation to population or payment of taxes by citizens which causes rural areas to get a disproportionate amount of funding compared to their population.

Move priorities from urban loops to lower classification thoroughfares.

Change the authority for Parks impact fees to a per capita fee instead of payment in lieu and land contributions. The current methodology which is tied to land value is cumbersome and caps the maximum fees at a value equal to 1/35th of an acre.

One of the critical issues in growing urban areas is the existence of undisturbed open space to reduce congestion, limit sprawl, provide for passive recreational opportunities and protect water quality.

Legislation that would allow local governments revenue source options that could be adopted on an individual basis

Legislation to secure municipal revenue sources and ensure that these revenues are distributed to local governments on a timely basis as set forth by the state’s General Statutes

Special local legislation in 1993 (Chapter 325, House Bill 898, Section 1. G.S. 20-97(a) authorized the Town of Cary to levy a $10 per vehicle license fee. Under the General Statutes of North Carolina, municipalities may seek authority to levy a vehicle license fee of up to $30 with special local legislation. This $30 maximum includes a $5 fee that must be utilized for public transportation. Due to the extent of transportation improvements required by the extensive growth in the Triangle over the past several years, the Town of Cary has had to dramatically increase its commitment to the transportation infrastructure of the Town for its residents and others near Cary that travel through Cary on a regular basis. The additional funding that would be raised by a vehicle license fee rate increase would be utilized to support the Town’s transportation capital improvement program. If the maximum fee of $30 were to be enacted, $5 would be put toward the Town’s Mainstream Transit program, which is currently under consideration by the Town Council. Charlotte currently levies a vehicle license fee of $30.

The creation of additional municipalities in areas that have no definable urban center and for which services can be provided by existing municipalities increases the costs of government services to all citizens and results in poor urban planning.

This impact fee will allow the Town to assess new residents in an equitable manner for new facilities required to provide essential services.

The Town of Cary adopted an affordable housing plan in May 2000 as an additional element of the comprehensive plan. The plan defines housing affordability and the extent of the lack of this type of housing in the Cary area. The plan also identifies a variety of regulatory and financial tools that could help the Town address this issue. One of the regulatory tools that will assist the Town of Cary in implementing the affordable housing plan is the authority to use inclusionary zoning to require that residential development have a certain percentage of affordable housing.

 

Mayor Lang stated he has talked with House and Senate members, and he understands that it is possible that the 100% support rule will be waived. Mrs. Robison stated Cary’s list of legislative agenda items is the big list, and the next step is to identify the priority list for the short session.

Mr. Weinbrecht asked for additional clarification on the stream buffers in the downtown area. Mr. Bailey stated most of the downtown area is under the Swift Creek Land Management Plan, and this was made a law at the request of some of the people in the Swift Creek area. He stated instead of each individual property in the downtown area being required to meet a regulation, the Town wants the ability to do regional impoundments for stormwater to address quantity and quality issues. He stated that lots in the downtown area are small; therefore, often it is not practical for each property owner to individually do their own impoundments. He stated the proposed legislation would meet the standards, but a regional approach changes the rules and requires legislative approval. Mr. Weinbrecht asked about the cost. Mr. Bailey stated staff will explore mechanisms to address cost, but prior to getting into those cost details, staff wants to first address the regulatory issues to allow regional management.

_________________________

Closed session was not called.

_________________________

Mayor Lang adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.