Cary Town Council Minutes

Thursday, January 27, 2005

6:30 PM

Temporary Council Chambers

Herb Young Community Center

101 Wilkinson Avenue , Cary , N.C.

Web Site:  www.townofcary.org

Present: Mayor Ernie McAlister and Council Members Marla Dorrel, Mike Joyce, Jennifer Robinson, and Julie Robison; Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith arrived late, and his arrival time is noted in the minutes

Absent: Council Member Nels Roseland

A.   COMMENCEMENT

1.    Call to Order

Mayor McAlister called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

_________________________

2.    Ceremonial Opening

Mr. Joyce provided the ceremonial opening.

_________________________

B.   CONSENT AGENDA

1.   Regular Consent Agenda (any regular consent agenda item pulled for discussion will be discussed at the beginning of the old/new business portion of the agenda)

a.   Consideration of approval of the minutes of the regular town council meeting held on January 13, 2005 .

ACTION: Ms. Dorrel made a motion to approve the consent agenda, and Mrs. Robinson provided the second. Mr. Joyce noted for the record that he opposes consent agenda item B.2.e. (C-Tran). Council unanimously voted to approve the consent agenda. (Mayor Pro Tem Smith was absent for this vote.)

_________________________

b.   Consideration of adoption of the tax report that was approved by the County Commissioners on January 3, 2005 .

The Wake County Board of Commissioners, in regular session on January 3, 2005 , approved and accepted the enclosed tax report for the Town of Cary .

Refunds of taxes, interest and penalties: $1511.24

Relief of late list penalty: 0

Relief of late filed application: 2

Non-cash rebates: 336

ACTION: Ms. Dorrel made a motion to approve the consent agenda, and Mrs. Robinson provided the second. Mr. Joyce noted for the record that he opposes consent agenda item B.2.e. (C-Tran). Council unanimously voted to approve the consent agenda. (Mayor Pro Tem Smith was absent for this vote.)

_________________________

2.   Planning and Development Committee, January 20, 2005 (any committee consent agenda item pulled for discussion will be discussed at the beginning of the committee discussion portion of the agenda)

a.   American Soil and Mulch – Request for Road Improvement Waiver (EN05-080)
Committee unanimously recommended approval of a waiver from constructing Morrisville Parkway in conjunction with development plan 04-SP-153.

Staff has received a request from Chas H. Sells, Inc., representatives of Mr. Russell Tarlton, for a waiver from constructing Morrisville Parkway through parcel 0735.04-61-9230.  Mr. Tarlton is proposing development of this parcel in order to relocate his soil and mulch operation business. 

Parcel 0735.04-61-9230 will be significantly impacted by the construction of Morrisville Parkway (refer to attached map).  The Town’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan designates Morrisville Parkway to have an ultimate back-to-back cross section of 78’ within a 100’ right-of-way.  Per Town Ordinance, when any development plan is submitted for review and approval, the developer/owner must dedicate right-of-way and construct road improvements necessary to meet the Town’s Transportation Plan.  The extension of Morrisville Parkway from Davis Drive to Green Level to Durham Road is included in the Town’s CIP list for year 2008.

Mr. Tarlton’s development plan proposes a right-of-way dedication for the land needed for the future Morrisville Parkway extension.  Mr. Tarlton is requesting that the standard requirement to construct Morrisville Parkway be waived as part of his site development requirements.

Staff feels that the construction of Morrisville Parkway would best be handled as a larger segment, since grades and alignment of the roadway will need to tie back to NC 55.  The portion of Morrisville Parkway that Mr. Tarlton would be required to construct, should he not be granted a waiver, would be approximately 500’ in length and not have connection to any other roadway until surrounding properties develop or until the Town proceeds with the scheduled CIP project.

Staff Recommendation:  Staff recommends that a waiver be granted for the construction of Morrisville Parkway through parcel 0735.04-61-9230, but that right-of-way dedication be required, in conjunction with Mr. Tarlton’s development plan.

ACTION: Ms. Dorrel made a motion to approve the consent agenda, and Mrs. Robinson provided the second. Mr. Joyce noted for the record that he opposes consent agenda item B.2.e. (C-Tran). Council unanimously voted to approve the consent agenda. (Mayor Pro Tem Smith was absent for this vote.)

_________________________

b.   419 and 421 Kildaire Farm Road - Request for Road Improvement Waiver (EN05‑081)
Committee unanimously recommended approval of a waiver from widening Kildaire Farm Road in conjunction with a proposed development plan.

Staff has received a request from Catherine Shearin requesting a waiver from widening the road in front of properties 419 and 421 Kildaire Farm Road .  Ms. Shearin is considering purchasing these two properties in order to start a preschool and early learning center.  She proposes to recombine the two parcels and use the two existing structures. 

The Town’s Comprehensive Transportation Plan designates Kildaire Farm Road to have an ultimate back-to-back cross section of 57’ (4 lane undivided, 14’ wide outside lanes) within a 79’ right-of-way.  Per Town Ordinance, when any development plan is submitted for review and approval, the developer/owner must dedicate right-of-way and construct road improvements necessary to meet the Town’s Transportation Plan.  Based on MapInfo, Kildaire Farm Road currently has a back-to-back cross section of 45’ (4 lane undivided, four 10’ wide lanes) within a 65’ non-symmetrical right-of-way. 

In order for Ms. Shearin to comply with Transportation Plan requirements, existing curb and gutter and sidewalk would need to be removed, approximately 6’ of additional pavement added and sidewalk reinstalled.  It appears that approximately 9.5’ of land would need to be dedicated to meet Transportation Plan requirements.  This would be confirmed with a survey.

Ms. Shearin is requesting a waiver from widening Kildaire Farm Road should she be successful in the purchase of the properties and development of the site.  She feels that if the waiver is not granted, the project is not feasible and she would not be able to pursue purchase of the property.  She has agreed to dedicate the additional right-of-way needed to meet the Town’s Transportation Plan requirements should she become the owner.

Staff supports Ms. Shearin’s waiver request due to the following

• Sufficient pavement exists for a 4 lane undivided cross-section along the frontage;
• The Town has no plans to widen this section of Kildaire Farm Road in the near future;
• Ms. Shearin has agreed to dedicate additional right-of-way along the frontage;
• The frontage is approximately 115’, with no widening done to the north or south.

Staff Recommendation:  Staff recommends approval of the road widening waiver request which would be associated with the development of 419 and 421 Kildaire Farm Road should Ms. Shearin submit a development plan for the properties.  Staff further recommends that the right-of-way required to meet Transportation Plan requirements be dedicated now as part of site development and, in the future, any necessary construction easements be dedicated at no cost to the Town when the Town moves forward with widening Kildaire Farm Road .

ACTION: Ms. Dorrel made a motion to approve the consent agenda, and Mrs. Robinson provided the second. Mr. Joyce noted for the record that he opposes consent agenda item B.2.e. (C-Tran). Council unanimously voted to approve the consent agenda. (Mayor Pro Tem Smith was absent for this vote.)

_________________________

c.   Land Development Ordinance (LDO) Text Amendments (Round 4) (PL05-021)
Committee unanimously recommended conducting a public hearing on February 24, 2005 for a series of modifications and revisions to the Land Development Ordinance related to procedures, allowable uses, and dimensional aspects.

Staff has identified several necessary amendments to various portions of the Land Development Ordinance text to be included in Round 4 of LDO amendments.  These amendments include changes to the sign ordinance in relation to flags and signage on vehicles.

A summary table of the proposed text amendments is presented on the following pages.  The table includes the relevant LDO section being modified as well as the purpose for the proposed amendment.

After evaluating the proposed amendments, staff supports all of the amendments.

Staff Recommendation:  Set a public hearing for Round 4 am endments on February 24, 2005 .

Proposed Round 3 Summary

SECTION 9.3(H)-  Amendments Proposed by Staff

Analysis

Flags of non-commercial message have been allowed on all sites under the current regulations.  Flags with commercial messages are not permitted on residential lots.  The current regulations allow three flagpoles with one flag per pole.  Recognizing that some flags are flown together in prescribed relations and location, staff has prepared an amendment allowing 2 flags per pole.  For example, this amendment would allow the POW/MIA flag to be flown in combination, directly below, the American Flag.  Staff’s proposal would allow a total of six flags for a single site or lot. 

(H) Flag and Flagpole

Flags and flagpoles shall be allowed, provided that:

(1) Sites Not Showing Flags and Flagpoles on Site Plans

In a non-residential or multi-family residential site not showing flags on an approved site plan, there shall be no more than three flagpoles and one two flags per pole.  Poles for such flags shall be located on the principal building wall on the site or within 20 feet of the main building entrance.

(2) Sites Showing Flags and Flagpoles on Site Plans and Uniform Sign Plans

Flags may be included on a site plan and located as shown on that site plan, provided that:

(a) Flagpoles shall be limited to three per principal building or multifamily residential complex;

(b) Flags are limited to one two flags per pole; and

(c) Flagpoles shall be not less than a minimum of 50 feet from a public or private street of right-of-way.

(3)  Flags on Single Family Residential Lots

There shall not be more than three flagpoles and onetwo flags per pole on any single-family residential lot.  No signflag on such a lot may bear a commercial message.

SECTION 9.4- Amendments Proposed by Staff

Analysis

Signs on vehicles are classified as portable signs and have been included in the prohibited signs and devices list since the adoption of the Land Development Ordinance in May 2003.  Staff has seen two typical forms of this type of signage.  This first is a vehicle owned by the business that is used in daily business operations.  An example of this type of vehicle would be a delivery truck, catering truck, childcare bus/van etc.  With developing technology staff has seen a trend of commercial messages being placed on personal vehicles.  The second type is typically located on vehicles owned by the business owner and used for personal and business purposes.  The vehicles, from automobiles to large trucks, are often completely covered in images.  Staff typically receives complaints related to these vehicles being parked on residential properties.  Often they are parked in association with Home Occupations (Accessory Uses) and we have mechanisms in place to regulate these.  The type of vehicle and its intended use are where the biggest compliance efforts are focused.  In an effort to address compliance issues that are most relevant and enforceable, staff has prepared three options for discussion.  Staff supports Option 3 which allows vehicle signage on sites with enforceable controls. 

9.4 PROHIBITED SIGNS AND DEVICES

9.4.1  All signs not expressly permitted under this chapter or exempt from regulation hereunder in accordance with the previous section are prohibited.  Such signs include but are not limited to:

(A)  Any sign that copies or imitates official sign or purports to have official status;

(B)  Any illuminated tubing or strings of lights, including but not limited to those outlining property lines, open sales areas, rooflines, doors, windows, landscaping, or the edges of wall, except for perimeter down-lighting that is shielded to illuminate open sales areas but no land outside those areas, except those strings of lights exempt under sections 9.2.(F) and 9.6.4(E);

(C)  Beacons;

(D)  Windblown devices;

See official minutes for depiction.