Agenda & Minutes

Present: Mayor Ernie McAlister, Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith, Council Members Marla Dorrel, Mike Joyce, Jennifer Robinson, Julie Robison and Nels Roseland

ACTION: Mayor McAlister moved to table the Trinity Ridge rezoning (04-REZ-31 – agenda item F.2.) per the applicant’s request until the July 28, 2005 council meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.

ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith moved to adopt the agenda as amended (the format of which is contained in these minutes). Ms. Dorrel provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.

1. Introduction of “Max,” Cary’s newest K-9, and his handler Jeremy Burgin; recognition of Mayfair Animal Hospital, Veterinary Specialty Hospital, and Cary Towne Center for their donations to the Town of Cary K-9 program. (Interim Police Chief Pat Bazemore)

Max will make his debut at the June 23, 2005 council meeting along with his handler, Jeremy Burgin.

In addition, the Town Council will recognize Mayfair Animal Hospital representatives for donating all of Max’s health care and food along with recognizing Veterinary Specialty Hospital representatives for their donation of specialty veterinary services. The Town Council will also accept a monetary donation to the Town’s K-9 program, which will be presented by Pat Anderson of the Cary Towne Center .

· The Town of Cary ’s first canine officer, Max, was born on October 29, 2003 in the Czech Republic . He is a German Shepherd dog.

· Cary ’s Dynamic Duo is part of a Regional Canine Program that includes Apex, Morrisville, and Holly Springs

· The Cary Town Council voted unanimously to establish the canine program as part of the Town’s nationally accredited police force

· Max is intelligent, and well trained, and citizens should feel safe around him

· All of Max’s food and health care is being donated by Mayfair Animal Hospital in Cary . Further specialty care is being donated by Veterinary Specialty Hospital

· With their keen senses of smell and vision as well as their speed, canine officers can perform some tasks faster, with increased accuracy, at lower costs, and with less risk to the public and public safety officers than can humans

· Max will assist in narcotics searches, apprehension, locating missing persons and suspects, and evidence recovery

· By getting the word out about Max, Cary officials hope to deter crime as well as solve crimes

· Learn more about Cary ’s new Dynamic Duo, including how you can support the program, at www.townofcary.org

Staff Recommendation: Welcome Max and handler Jeremy Burgin; acknowledge Mayfair Animal Hospital through for their donation of health care and food for Max; acknowledge Veterinary Specialty Hospital for their donation of specialty health care for Max; accept a monetary donation (amount to be announced at the council meeting) to the Town’s K-9 Program.

The police department introduced Max. Mayor McAlister accepted donations from Mayfair Animal Hospital , Veterinary Specialty Hospital , and Cary Towne Center .

ACTION: Mrs. Robinson moved to accept the donations into the police budget; Mr. Roseland provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.

1. Annexation 05-A-10
The property is located at 4501 West Lake Road and contains 3.7 acres. The property owner is Blades Group Properties, LLC. The associated development plan is 05-SP-035, Primrose School of Westlake . Council may take final action. (Mr. Travis Morehead)

Annexation Petition Number: 05-A-10
Property Address: 4501 West Lake Road
Wake County Parcel Number: 0679166095
Real ID Number: 0311421
Petition Date: 4/27/2005

Proposed Effective Date: 12/23/2005

MEETINGS:
Town Council – Certificate of Sufficiency: 5/26/2005
Staff Recommendation: Forward to public hearing on 6/23/2005
Town Council: Public Hearing: 6/23/2005
Staff Recommendation: Adoption with effective date of 12/23/2005

OWNERS:
Blades Group Properties, LLC
301 Hasbrouck Drive
Apex , NC 27523

LOCATION:
At the intersection of West Lake Road and Optimist Farm Road

ZONING & PROPOSED USE:
Current Zoning: Residential 30 Wake (R-30W)

Acreage: 3.7 plus 1.3 adjacent right of way = 5.0 total acres
% Contiguity: 22.5%
Corporate Limits: Contiguous
Proposed Use: School/Daycare
Associated Rezoning Case: None
Associated Development Plan: 05-SP-035 (Primrose School of Westlake)

DISTRICTS & TAX VALUE:
Fire District: Fairview
Voting District: C
Tax Value: Data under review

ACTION: Mrs. Robison moved to approve annexation 05-A-10 (effective December 23, 2005 ). Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.

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

F. LAND DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION ITEMS (any item pulled from the land development consent agenda for discussion [item B.2. on this agenda] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda)

1. Ordinance Amendment
Consideration of modifications to Chapter 3 of the Land Development Ordinance pertaining to Adequate Public Facilities (APF) for roads. Specifically, the ordinance proposes three primary changes: (1) cap road improvements; (2) low density exemption; and (3) buyout option. Council may take final action. (Mr. Tim Bailey)

Staff has developed a concept to modify the APF Roads Ordinance based on feedback at the retreat. Three primary changes are proposed.

· Cap Road Improvements

Road improvements would be capped when the number of lanes meets the thoroughfare plan. Subject to a Town Council approved waiver; when an existing roadway meets the adopted Thoroughfare Plan, no additional improvements would be required regardless of level of service (LOS). This would prevent right turn lanes and through lanes from being added to intersections to meet LOS requirements. Staff would suggest requiring dual left turn lanes to mitigate poor LOS since dual lefts are frequently needed at major intersections. This approach would require improvements to rural 2-lane roads to manage the higher traffic volumes of suburban development. It would not require widening in many of the developed areas where multi-lane roads already exist with curb and gutter, sidewalks, street lights and similar improvements which become costly to replace.

· Low Density Exemption

Developments at an intensity of R-20 or less would not be required to provide a traffic study. This would replace our current exemption of less than 100 peak hour or 1,000 average daily trips. Consultants advised when the ordinance was written that a minimal use of property was allowed as a property right and could not be regulated. Currently, since a small land area can generate trips below our threshold no study is required, but the traffic intensity could be fairly high. Several small sites combined could have significant traffic generation.

Another version of this concept could allow the trip generation produced by an R-20 development. Traffic would only be mitigated for the number of trips generated above an R-20 development.

These types of options will promote more large single family lot development. Cost of doing a traffic study and cost of mitigating offsite traffic will be avoided providing an incentive for this type of development.

Buyout Option

This option would allow a developer to be relieved of an intersection road improvement requirement by a payment for the improvements approved by Town Council. These would typically be offsite improvements. Staff proposes that a fee in lieu payment be made at twice the total estimated cost of the improvement. By having the amount set at twice the cost, this will provide an incentive to make the improvement. Funds collected could be used for any transportation project and would not be eligible for TDF credits or cash reimbursements.

April 20, 2005	Planning and Development Committee
April 28, 2005	Town Council calls for Public Hearing
May 26, 2005	Public Hearing
June 20, 2005	Planning and Zoning Board
June 23, 2005	Town Council for Consideration/Action

Revisions to the ordinance are being pursued for several reasons. The current ordinance is solely focused on level of service for automobile drivers (for two hours of each day) without any other considerations. Ultimately, roads become wider and wider with no regard for other impacts. While peak traffic congestion is one factor considered in quality of life, excessive improvements to road systems have negative impacts on other quality of life factors. Some of these are listed below:

With all the offsetting issues, roads are still very important to quality of life as apparent from survey results. The goal of these changes is to balance quality of life as a whole and not just maximize one aspect while ignoring others. Growth in the area is a clear sign that overall quality of life must be well above average compared to the rest of the Country. These ordinance amendments are a step in the direction of improving overall quality of life, but are not an end result as Cary tries to achieve the proper balance. The revised ordinance provides Town Council the ability to balance some of these concerns. The ideal goal is to establish a road width on the Thoroughfare Plan that balances all competing interests, and then build the community according to the plan. A Thoroughfare Plan amendment is proposed as part of the process which will clarify goals that achieve a complete end result and links well with the APF Roads Ordinance.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the ordinance amendments and forwarding this item to Town Council on June 23, 2005 for Town Council action.

The purpose of this Section is to insure that, ~~to the maximum extent~~ as practical, new developments will be approved only when it can reasonably be expected that public facilities for roads will be available to accommodate such new developments. This Section should not be completely relied upon to address existing transportation system deficiencies. Other parts of this solution include a comprehensive multi-modal transportation plan, a strong and well-funded Capital Improvement Program, a supportive transit system, mixed use projects, well designed development that limits impacts or enhances the transportation system and support of car pooling, flexible work schedules and other similar concepts.

No portion of this Ordinance shall be interpreted or deemed to affect any rights that have vested prior to the enactment hereof.

No subdivision plan, site plan, master plan for a planned development, activity center concept plan, or rezoning that meets requirements for a traffic analysis may be approved unless on the date of such approval there exists a valid and current Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities for Roads (CAPFR) applicable to the project for which such approval is sought. A CAPFR issued in connection with a rezoning or planned development master plan approval shall constitute a CAPFR for any subdivision or site plan that is consistent with and encompassed within such rezoning or master plan approval so long as the CAPFR for the rezoning or master plan approval remains valid (see Section 3.23.6, Expiration of Certificates of Adequacy of Public Facilities for Roads).

A determination as to the adequacy of public facilities need not be made with respect to roads if the nature of the proposed development is such that the number of estimated trips generated does not exceed the trip generation established in Section 3.23.4, Evaluation of Adequacy of Transportation: Traffic Impact Analysis.

Previously approved projects and projects pending action by the Town shall follow the APFR requirements existing at the time they were approved or submitted. Applicants may choose to have their projects meet current APFR requirements. Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions of this Part shall apply to applications for approval of subdivision plans, site plans, rezonings, and planned developments that were submitted for approval by the Town after ~~June 14, 2001~~ July 1, 2005 .

Overview: The following is a general overview of components of this Section. The specific requirements are located within the various sections in this Part and Section 7.11, Transportation Development Fees:

• All applicants for rezonings and site and/or subdivision plans that meet the trip generation threshold are required to complete a traffic analysis and receive a Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities for Roads.

• All traffic impact analyses are completed by the Town either through consultants or staff.

• The Study Area for the traffic analysis is based on the size of and/or the location of the project. Higher auto trip uses generate a larger study area. All controlled access roadways are not included in the analysis; however, the intersections of the ramps with roadways are included.

• Primarily, the level of service of intersections is used to evaluate transportation impacts within the study area.

• The Town has been divided into five (5) transportation development zones. The required level of service and standards for its measurement are established within each zone. Within each zone, the transportation development fees are established based on future transportation system improvements established by the Town's Transportation Plan and Transportation Capital Improvement Programs. A town wide transportation development fee has also been established.

• As the result of the analysis, the applicant is required to make site related improvements that can be contributed to the proposed development (for example, turn lanes in and out of the site and other related improvements). Council must grant exceptions to this. Off-site improvements needed because the roadway/intersection is currently failing and/or the development does not contribute greater than seven percent of the traffic due to the failure are to be completed by the Town or jointly with the applicant.

• A Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities for Roads may be issued provided that guarantees are made on who will be responsible for the improvements required by the traffic analysis and when these improvements will be completed.

• Applicants may receive credits/reimbursements for their qualifying transportation system improvements.

• Certificates of Adequate Public Facilities for Roads are valid for two years with site and/or subdivision plans, three years for rezonings and five years or longer for planned unit developments.

(4) ~~The provisions of this Section shall not apply to a~~ Amendments to subdivision plans, site plans, or rezonings that were originally approved prior to ~~June 14, 2001~~ July 1, 2005 shall follow the APF requirements existing at the time of original approval so long as the approvals have not expired and the proposed amendment does not increase the demand generated by that development on any of the public facilities covered under this Section by more than five percent.

~~(5) Special exemptions for Planned Developments that were granted under the interim ordinance by the Town Council prior to~~ ~~May 25, 2000~~ ~~shall become invalid with the adoption of the permanent ordinance.~~ The waiver provisions of 3.23.5 (D) shall be available to any new or amended project.

Generally, a certificate is obtained ~~prior to~~ concurrent with approval of site and/or subdivision plans, planned development master plan, or rezoning. However, an applicant may obtain a CAPFR for a proposed development before an application for approval of a subdivision plan, site plan, rezoning, or planned development master plan is submitted. The CAPFR, if issued, shall expire based on type of project it is based upon as provided in Section 3.23.6.

CAPFR's attach to the land in the same way that development permission attaches to the land. CAPFR's may be transferred along with other interests in the property with respect to which they are issued, but may not be severed or transferred separately.

It is the Town's intent to ensure that larger developments are not phased or subdivided in piecemeal fashion in order to qualify for automatic certification under this Section. Two or more developments, represented by their owners or developers to be separate developments, shall be aggregated and treated as a single development under this Part when they are determined to be part of a unified plan of development and are physically proximate to one another. The following factors will be considered to determine whether there is a unified plan of development:

(b) The same person has ownership or a significant legal or equitable interest in the developments; or

(c) There is common management of the developments controlling the form of physical development or disposition of parcels of the development.

(2) There is a reasonable closeness in time between the completion of 80 percent or less of one development and the submission to the Town of a master plan or series of plans or drawings for the other development that is indicative of a common development effort.

(3) The voluntary sharing of infrastructure that is indicative of a common development effort or is designated specifically to accommodate the developments.

(4) There is a common advertising scheme or promotional plan in effect for the developments.

(5) Any information provided by the applicant that the project is not being phased or subdivided to avoid the need for a certificate.

Although other measurements may be considered, the primary measurement of adequate public facilities for roads is the level of service (LOS) as defined by the most current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. The required level of service and how it is measured is set forth for ~~each~~ different zones under Section 3.23.3(C) below. Level of service is measured at peak hours within the study area or as modified~~. Modifications to how level of service is measured is provided for in certain zones (see below).~~ Should the existing level of service fail to meet the requirements of the peak hour level of service as defined within each zone, there cannot be an increase in average delay for the affected intersection (measured in its entirety). No increase in delay time will be allowed for signalized intersections with a level of service below the requirement within each zone.

Additional traffic generated from a proposed project may result in a non-signalized public road intersection within the study area to fall below the desired level of service. The primary solution for improving these intersections is to install a signal; however, it is not the intent of this Part to require signals to be automatically installed at all non-signalized intersections that fail (e.g., some intersections may have low volumes or may be located too close to existing signals). Staff may use additional analysis to determine if a signal is required (e.g., gap analysis). Installation of new signals shall only be required when the following conditions exist:

(2) The signal does not cause an undesirable delay in the surrounding road system.

~~Five~~ Two Transportation Zones have been established for the purpose of evaluating transportation impacts and assessment of transportation development fees. The official map of Transportation Zones is on display and is available in the Engineering Department.

This zone encompasses all land 400 feet or more away from the innermost right-of-way boundary of Maynard Loop. This includes all of the downtown area. This zone's primary focus is to encourage redevelopment and infill. The Level of Service standard is "F" with a traffic analysis based upon a 90-minute average peak and a roadway volume-to- capacity ratio not to exceed 1.25.

This zone contains the northern employment centers (SAS and Weston). This zone's primary focus is new employment. The Level of Service standard is "D" with a traffic analysis based upon a 90-minute average peak; however, the Level of Service standard for the following intersections with North Harrison Avenue will be "F" with a volume to capacity ratio of 1.5: Weston Parkway, Harrison Oaks Boulevard, SAS Campus Drive, I-40 interchange ramps, the signalized ~~intersection of Harrison Park Shopping Center, and Richard Drive.~~

This zone contains a targeted multi-use growth area. This zone's primary focus is the creation of new jobs and housing that reduces the travel distance from work to home. The Level of Service standard is "D" with a traffic analysis based upon a 90-minute average peak.

This zone contains regional retail activity centers. This zone's primary focus is on minimizing the amount of development until major transportation improvements have been made. The Level of Service standard is "D" with a traffic analysis based upon the standard ~~Institute~~ of ~~Transportation Engineer~~ ~~'s (ITE) average peak hour.~~

This zone contains the remainder of the area not within the other ~~four~~ zones ~~and provides transportation system benefits to them.~~ The Level of Service standard is "D" with a traffic analysis based upon the standard ITE average peak hour.

The adequacy of service levels for roads and intersections that serve or are affected by a proposed project shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this section as well as the remaining provisions of this section.

A determination as to the adequacy of public facilities (traffic impact analysis) is required if the nature of the proposed development is such that the number of trips it can be expected to generate equals or exceeds: traffic generated by an R-20 development. The maximum density of an R-20 development is 2.2 residential dwelling units per acre. A traffic impact analysis will not be required for a development generating 20 trips or less.

Daily trips are those occurring on peak days on the adjacent roadway (e.g., daily trips on a Sunday may not be applicable). Trip generation shall be measured based on the current edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. The following shall also be used in determining if and/or when a study is required:

For the purpose of redevelopment, trip generation will be defined as the number of net new trips generated by the proposed use over the number of trips generated by ~~any~~ previous use of the site.

Whenever a property is being rezoned to a less intensive trip generation zoning district, a traffic study is not required at the time of the rezoning application. A traffic study may be required with the site and/or subdivision plan application if it meets the thresholds above.

It is not the intent of this Section to require a traffic analysis for a use that generates trips that meet or exceed the threshold but do not occur during the adjacent roadway system's peak hour. For example, facilities designed for sporting events, concerts or other similar uses may not require a traffic analysis because the events occurs during a non-peak hour or non-peak day. If a traffic study is required for a use, then the analysis shall be based upon the normal trip generation for the proposed use and not that associated with special event(s).

The Town shall prepare or have prepared (using Town staff or a retained consultant) a written Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for every development for which an application for a CAPFR is submitted. The purpose of the TIA is to analyze and document for the benefit of the relevant Town boards and staff, as well as the property owner and developer, whether and under what circumstances a CAPFR can be issued, insofar as the public road system is concerned, for the proposed development.

The extent of the study area for the TIA depends upon the location and size of the proposed project and the prevailing conditions of the surrounding area. The study area is defined in the following table. Controlled access roadways are not included in the study area or analysis; the controlled access ramp intersections with non-controlled access roadways are subject to analysis.

TABLE 3.23-1: STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES
	Trip Generation	Study Area
Base Zone	100 - 150 peak hour trips or 1,000 -1,500 daily trips	1/2 mile plus any intersection on which at least 7 percent of any traffic movement approach volume is generated by the proposed project.
Base Zone	More than 150 peak hour trips or 1,500 daily trips	1 mile plus any intersection on which at least 7 percent of any traffic movement approach volume is generated by the proposed project.
Central Zone	More than 100 peak hour trips or 1,000 daily trips within the Central Transportation Zone	1/4 mile plus any intersections on which at least 7 percent of any traffic movement approach volume are generated by or as a result of the proposed project.

These intersections/roadways as defined by the Land Use Plan shall be studied if they fall within the defined study area boundary. Any improvements to these intersections/roadways recommended by the study shall not be required to obtain a Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities for Roads. However, Council may consider this information in determining whether the associated site and/or subdivision plan or rezoning meets the criteria and standards for approval.

Trip generation data for each project shall be based upon the Institute of Traffic Engineers ' Trip Generation Manual, supplemented by any other data deemed reliable by the Town. The following other standards also apply to projects:

The determination of the number of trips generated shall also take into account pass-by trips, internal trip capture for integrated mixed use projects (e.g., roadway and/or pedestrian connectivity) and any proposed transportation demand management system, provided that adequate guarantees can be provided to the Town to ensure that such demand management system will function as claimed for the life of the project. In addition, if the proposed development is designed and integrated with an adjacent mixed use project (e.g., roadways), then a credit for trips may be permitted.

In evaluating the impact of a proposed rezoning or planned development where the specific uses or exact number of dwelling units have not been specified, estimates shall be based upon the highest level of density or intensity of use that would be authorized by the requested approvals.

At the time of the initial submission, the applicant is required to submit the following information:

(1) Traffic analysis base information, site location map, site layout, if applicable;

(5) Additional Information

Since most applications for a CAPFR will be submitted in conjunction with a request for approval of a subdivision plan, site plan, rezoning, ACCP or planned development master plan, the staff will generally have all the information necessary from the applicant to make a determination as to whether the CAPFR can be issued. However, if an application for a CAPFR is submitted prior to an application for a site and/or subdivision plan, rezoning and/or planned development master plan, or if the staff otherwise has a reasonable need for additional information, such information shall be furnished by the applicant upon request.

After preliminary review of the data submitted under item (1G) above, the Town shall prepare an estimate of consulting fees for the analysis of traffic impact for the project. Upon receipt of payment of fees from the applicant in the amount of the projected cost estimate, the Town shall release the work to a consultant for analysis. After completion of the analysis, the Town shall evaluate the actual costs incurred for the study and will reimburse to the applicant any remaining balance of the fee paid less an administrative fee of ten percent of the total actual costs incurred.

In each case, the issue as to whether adequate service levels will be maintained will be resolved by evaluating the projected impact of the proposed development on the public facilities in question at the time occupancy is expected to occur. This analysis will take into account, not only the status of existing facilities and the impact of the proposed development, but also the projected impact of the following on the capacity of those facilities.:

(1) Projected capital improvements that will increase the capacity of the facilities in question. If the completion of such improvements is necessary for a CAPFR to be issued for a particular project, then there must be a reasonable expectation that such improvements will be completed in time to be of benefit to such project. A "reasonable expectation" of a proposed completion date requires, at the very least, that construction of the improvements has received all necessary governmental approvals and that funding is in place, or that such approvals and funding appear reasonably certain.

(2) All single-family residential building lots that have received final plat approval but that do not contain a completed dwelling.

(3) All single-family residential building lots for which subdivision plan approval has been granted and all non-residential and multi-family residential developments for which a site plan has been approved, so long as such approvals have not expired.

(4) All rezonings and approvals of master plans for planned developments which have a valid CAPFR, if and to the extent that subdivision or site plan approvals for portions of such developments have been granted.

(5) All developments for which subdivision or site plan approval applications have been submitted but not yet granted, so long as CAPFR's for such projects have been issued and remain unexpired.

(6) ~~Growth outside the Town's planning jurisdiction that will likely impact the public facilities in question as reflected by appropriate increases in background traffic.~~ Typical background traffic increases that are not directly related to known previously approved development.

The staff shall develop a system of keeping track of the factors described in subsection (H) above in order to facilitate the determination in each case of whether a CAPFR can be issued.

The analysis must set forth the required transportation system improvements needed to meet the requirements of this Part. The analysis shall also, to the extent practicable, identify the improvements to the road system within the study area that would allow the CAPFR to be issued. The required improvements based upon the issuance of the CAPFR are limited to those within the study area. No recommendation on improvements are required on those "7 percent intersections" studied if the approach volume traffic from the proposed development is less than 1.0 percent of the total peak hour volume.

The Engineering Director shall issue a CAPFR if he concludes that adequate service levels for roads as described in Section 3.23.3, Level of Service and Establishment of Transportation Zones, will be maintained. For purposes of this section, service levels will be "maintained" by the proposed development if, at the time the CAPFR is sought, it reasonably appears that, considering the results of traffic analysis, service levels will not drop below the standards set forth in Section 3.23.3.

In concluding whether a CAPFR may be issued, the Engineering Director shall ensure that the following is met:

(1) If the required improvements are to be made by the Town or the North Carolina Department of Transportation, no certificate of occupancy will be issued for the project until final plans or 90 percent plans as defined by NCDOT for the projects have been approved unless otherwise approved by the Town Council.

(2) If the improvements are to be constructed by the developer, no certificate of occupancy will be issued for the project until the improvements have been completed. If there is a reasonable expectation for completion, required improvements may occur after certificate of occupancy if plans have received approval by the Town and the improvements have been secured by a ~~bond or other~~ financial security method meeting the Town requirements.

(3) Notwithstanding the above, if a portion of a development project can be accommodated at the specified level of service for the zone prior to the need for the improvement based upon the traffic analysis, certificates of occupancy may be issued for that portion of the development project prior to the requirements set forth in (A) and (B) above.

If the TIA concludes that a CAPFR cannot be issued in accordance with the provisions of this Section because of inadequate road facilities within the study area, then the developer may then choose to:

(1) Delay the development until the necessary improvements are constructed by the Town or the State;

(3) Enter into an agreement with the Town to participate financially in the cost of the improvements in order to accelerate their construction, or

(4) Scale the project down so that it meets the standards of this Section 3.23 or is entitled to an automatic certification under the provisions of Section 3.23.2, Requirements for Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities for Roads. If the agreement alternative is chosen, the applicant must secure the participation of the Town in the required improvements prior to site and/or subdivision plan approval.

Town Council may grant waivers to eliminating the requirement to make specific intersection improvements only as provided by the two following methods.

(1) If the existing intersection configuration already meets the intent of the Thoroughfare Plan, a waiver may be granted because continued road widening will have a negative impact on the community. Intent of the Thoroughfare Plan is defined as having an equal or greater number of lanes on all intersection approaches;

(2) A waiver may be granted if a payment in lieu is made in an amount equal to or greater than or equal to twice the total estimated cost of the improvement. Typically, payments in lieu will be considered only for off-site improvements where obtaining right of way or some other complication makes the improvement impractical. Transportation Development Fee credits will not be issued when a payment in lieu is made for issuance of a CAPFR. Funds will be used for any transportation improvement and shall not have any other restrictions.

3.23.6 Expiration of Certificates of Adequacy of Public Facilities for Roads

A CAPFR that has been obtained shall expire according to the following based on the related type of project:

(A) Planned Development Master Plan: five years or longer provided that the certificate is based upon the build-out plan submitted with the planned development and used with the traffic analysis. Council must approve certificates longer than five years.

The Town Council may extend the certificate beyond the timeframes above if it is determined that a new study will not identify any substantial changes in the required transportation improvements.

Mr. Bailey of the engineering department stated this final version of the ordinance includes two recent changes: (1) a minimum threshold of 20 trips (this would prevent a single home on a small lot exceeding the threshold); and (2) clarify effective dates and how this date applies to minor modifications. He stated staff recommends approval, and the Planning and Zoning Board recommended by a vote of 6-3 to approve the ordinance amendment. He stated the dissenting voters were concerned about the payment-in-lieu waiver option allowed in the ordinance, and these concerns revolved around where the money would be allocated into the budget with concerns that it may not come back to a roadway project. Mr. Bailey stated the ordinance indicates that the money must be used for a transportation project, and some board members were concerned that it could be used for another area of town or even a sidewalk project. He stated one board member did not like 2X the estimated value of the improvement and felt it should be lower. He added that one member felt there should be a mandate to fix the intersection and the money should be reserved for that particular intersection. Mr. Bailey stated he explained to the board members that council decides how to allocate these funds during each budget process, and staff prefers flexibility with the funds.

Mr. Joyce asked if the 2X amount is arbitrary. Mr. Bailey responded affirmatively to some extent. He added that developers could pay a lower amount and not make intersection improvements or they could pay fee-in-lieu. He stated the intent was to create a disincentive, but the 2X amount is arbitrary.

Mr. Roseland stated the intent of this ordinance is not to weaken the roads adequate public facilities ordinanc (apf), but instead it should bring common sense to the ordinance. He stated it is not feasible to 6-lane everything to meet an apf standard.

Mrs. Robison understands that funds go into the capital improvement transportation budget. Mr. Bailey stated funds will be earmarked for transportation funding, and it is a restricted general fund source.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the ordinance amendment; Mr. Joyce provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.

2. 04-REZ-31 (Trinity Ridge)
Property is located south of Old Trinity Road, west of and adjacent to the Thomas Bradshaw Freeway (I-440) and contains 48.87 acres. Current zoning is Residential-40; proposed zoning is Transitional Residential Conditional Use. Council may table this item until the July 28, 2005 council meeting. (Mr. Bob Benfield)

This item was tabled at the beginning of the meeting until the July 28, 2005 council meeting. For historical purposes, the data sheet below currently pertains to this request:

Staff recommends approval of the request. The request was reviewed for compliance with the criteria established in Sec. 3.4.1(E) of the Land Development Ordinance and was found to meet the criteria outlined, as follows:

The Planning and Zoning Board voted 5 to 4 to recommend denial of the request. (Matthew Danielson was excused from involvement in this case citing a possible conflict of interest).

3. Uses would be limited to single-family detached dwellings, including accessories uses and neighborhood recreation uses.

The developer is not interested in using the cluster option and it is not required. Transitional Residential zoning is proposed in order to allow some lots in the range of 8,000 to 9,000 square feet. Along the western property line, proposed lots and attendant common buffers and/or landscape easements would total a minimum of 12,000 square feet. This would provide physical separation similar to Residential-12 zoning requirements between proposed dwellings and from existing dwellings.

Accessory uses would be typical accessory uses associated with single-family development, such as detached garages, storage sheds, decks, patios, fencing, swimming pools, etc. Neighborhood recreation uses could consist of clubhouse, pools, multi-use courts, tennis courts, play equipment, picnic areas and pedestrian trails.

3. Provide a 2-3 acre Town of Cary pocket park rather than a payment-in-lieu for dedication of public recreation land.

As a zoning condition, the developer has agreed to provide an open space amenity that would contain at least 7,500 square feet of useable area (not in required buffers). This area may contain benches, structures, or play equipment. The specific elements would be determined at subdivision submittal.

There are no parks or greenways proposed for this site based on the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resource Facilities Master Plan. A payment-in-lieu for the value of approximately 3.83 acres would be required. (As requested by the neighborhood, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department has re-evaluated the possibility of obtaining public park land within the subject area and advises that a payment-in-lieu is preferred so that collected recreation funds could possibly be utilized to obtain a larger, more useful recreation site in the northeastern area of Cary .)

4. Provide a hard surfaced noise barrier along the I-40 side of the property.

The applicant hired Kimley-Horn and Associates to prepare a Sound Impact Assessment for this site. The Sound Impact Assessment indicates:

· The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) establishes a maximum noise level threshold for this area at a Category B (67dB), which would include uses such as residences, motels, hotels, churches, schools, libraries, and hospitals.

· Noise levels were taken on April 14, 2005 ,during PM peak at eight locations along I-40 right-of-way and the western property line of Trinity Ridge:

· The decibel (dB) level along I-40 right-of-way: varies from 63 dB to 67.2 dB

· The dB level along the Trinity Ridge western property line (near Trinity Woods): varies from 53.5 dB to 64.7 dB (55.9 dB at Trinity Woods)

· The FHWA advises that one could expect a 3 to 4 dB reduction for the first row of dwellings near I-40, and a 1.5 dB reduction for each additional row of dwellings. Assuming at least three rows of dwellings, the total noise reduction compensation would be 6 dB resulting in 47.5 dB to 58.7 dB along the western property line and 49.9 dB at Trinity Woods.

· For comparison, according to Cary ’s Code of Ordinance, Section 22-106, Sounds Impacting Residential Life, the maximum noise level should not exceed 65 dB.

“The measurement locations along the west boundary of the Trinity Ridge are all within the NAC threshold.” (Referencing Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) threshold identified by the Federal Highway Administration.)

“The clearing of land (tall pine trees and vegetation) coupled with the construction of residential dwelling units associated with the new development as described by the site plan are expected to result in a negligible change (+/- 4dBA) in noise levels. Although existing trees and vegetation will need to be cleared during construction, trees and vegetation only offer minimal abatement.”

“It appears that there is a widely held belief that vegetation is an effective controller of sound. However, research by Fricke (1984) and others show that vegetation is only effective at higher frequencies (125-500Hz) with vegetation having little effect on sound propagation at mid-frequencies (500-2000Hz).”

There have been discussions regarding the building of a hardscape noise barrier wall along Interstate 40. Staff members and Trinity Woods residents have both commented that a barrier of any type will not help reduce traffic noise. The applicant provided staff documentation from the

Department of Transportation that supports this information.

The applicant has received confirmation from the NCDOT that two access locations would be provided to the area associated with this rezoning request. One access source would be north from Trinity Road near Interstate 40. Progress Energy has also verified that no overhead electrical transmission support tower will be located in the area associated with this rezoning request that would prevent access.

A zoning condition was added stating that a minimum of two access points would be provided.

6. Construction traffic to use the identified/confirmed point of ingress/egress which is least invasive to interior neighborhood streets.

Excluding existing roadway stubs to the property, ingress and egress considerations are determinations to be made at the time of construction plan submittal. Therefore, this concern would not be included as a condition associated with a request for a change in land use.

7. Satisfactory resolution of any sewer tie-in questions with adjacent property owners.

This is a construction-related concern and would be evaluated during the subsequent review of development plans.

8. Resolution of safety concerns for the existing section of Brandywine Drive.

Brandywine Drive was designed and constructed according to Cary ’s collector street standards to provide future access to the subject property. Speed humps would be provided along the proposed extension of Brandywine Drive within the new subdivision. No speed humps are proposed along the existing section of Brandywine Drive , because existing Town Policy would allow property owners along this stretch of roadway to petition the town for the installation of speed humps.

The request is to amend the zoning on 48.87 acres from Residential 40 to Transitional Residential Conditional Use (TR CU). The project would be limited to no more than 98 dwelling units. The range of uses would be limited to single-family dwellings. A 100’ Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer is required and proposed along the eastern side of the property adjacent to I-40. It is also required that existing forest area within the 100’ buffer be supplemented to form an opaque landscape screen.

The proposed use of the property is low density residential. Low density residential complies with the Town’s adopted Land Use Plan and is consistent with other existing development in the area of this proposed request. Development would be limited to no more than 98 single-family detached lots.

CURRENT & PROPOSED TOWN OF CARY LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION

EXISTING & PROPOSED ZONING

PLANNING

The proposal for Low Density Residential development complies with the Land Use Plan; therefore, no amendment is required.

At the time of subdivision plan submittal, the following will be reviewed for compliance with Town Ordinance, the Comprehensive Transportation Plan and/or the Town Engineering Standard Specifications and Details Manual:

The project will be required to meet the nitrogen requirements of the Town of Cary . There are riparian buffers associated with this project.

This proposed development has direct access to the Town’s existing water and sewer systems. The developer will be required to comply with Town utility policies and standards.

A traffic impact study is not required. (A traffic study would be required if the development proposed 98 single family dwelling units or more.) The average daily traffic volume ( 2/9/2005 ) for Trinity Road is 9,260. This development will add an additional 563 trips per day to Trinity Road for a total volume of 9,823. This traffic volume is below the capacity of a two lane road (15,000 vehicles per day).

At the beginning of the meeting, the council tabled this item to the July 28, 2005 council meeting.

1. Planning and Development Committee, June 16, 2005 (any item pulled from the committee consent agenda for discussion [agenda item B.3.] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda) (Mr. Roseland)

The following item was pulled from the Planning and Development Consent agenda for discussion:

a. Cary Parkway Plaza - Waiver (EN05-141)
Committee unanimously recommended approval of a waiver to the APF Roads Ordinance for Cary Parkway Plaza .

Cary Parkway Plaza is a retail development at the intersection of Waldo Rood Boulevard and Cary Parkway . One of the proposed tenants is Fresh Market. A traffic impact analysis was required in accordance with the Adequate Public Facilities Roads Ordinance.

Mr. Montell Irvin, P.E., of Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc. has requested a waiver of road improvements at the Cary Parkway/High House Road intersection. A copy of the letter is attached. A proposed ordinance revision is in process that will establish a waiver procedure under limited circumstances. The ordinance revision could be approved as soon as the June 23, 2005 Town Council meeting.

A traffic study was completed in December 2004. Six intersections were studied within the required one mile radius. For this intersection, the results are as follows:

	2004 Existing	2006 No-Build	2006 Build	2006 Mitigated
	Delay LOS	Delay LOS	Delay LOS	Delay LOS
AM	62.1 E	68.0 E	73.0 E	53.1 D
PM	50.3 D	80.7 F	86.5 F	61.3 E

Since the LOS is less than D, mitigation is required as the “build” scenario has five seconds of additional delay. Right turn lanes are recommended for both northbound and southbound Cary Parkway to mitigate impacts. Right turn lanes are the least cost solution to add capacity to offset impacts of site traffic.

Right turn lanes are disruptive to this intersection and estimated to cost $500,000. This intersection is enhanced with landscaping, walls, and decorative metal signal poles. A project to add right turn lanes would be difficult, have a negative aesthetic impact, and have construction impacts on traffic.

A waiver of improvement can only be approved if the existing roadway network meets the Thoroughfare Plan. Both Cary Parkway and High House Road are four-lane median divided at this intersection meeting the Thoroughfare Plan.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends granting a waiver. The intersection would need multiple improvements to operate at LOS C for the typical 20 year design life and should be part of a larger project if improvements are desired.

Mayor McAlister clarified that this item was pulled from the consent agenda because the previous ordinance amendment needed to be adopted prior to council taking action on this item.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the waiver request; Ms. Dorrel provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.

a. Request to Initiate Condemnation Proceedings for the Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility (EN05-137)
The committee considered a request to initiate condemnation proceedings to secure property for the Western Wake Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Mr. Tommy Esqueda, of CH2MHill, consultant to the regional partners, detailed the 36-month site selection process. Mr. Gerald Ramoin of 2700 Weaver Hill Drive and Mr. Bill Lutz of Weaver Crossing were invited to speak before the committee. Mr. Ramoin stated that he didn’t think the staff and consultants took all factors into consideration when making their recommendation. Mr. Lutz stated that 1) input from the surrounding public was needed prior to making a site selection and 2) the site should be located at the Shearon Harris plant. Staff stated that a public meeting will be held on June 14, 2005 . Committee voted 2-1 (Michael Joyce dissenting) to approve the Resolution Authorizing Condemnation. Committee voted 2-1 (Jennifer Robinson dissenting) to delay this item until the June 23, 2005 council meeting. Council may take final action.

Staff has been working with the owner of the property selected for the proposed Western Wake Water Reclamation Facility in order to purchase the property. The owners have requested a lot of information about the selection of the property and are being kept apprised of developing reports on the site as they become available. Because of their reluctance to sell the property, Staff is requesting that the Town Council approve a Resolution Authorizing condemnation in order to secure title to the tract.

Staff will continue to work with the property owners in hopes of reaching an amicable settlement to this purchase.

The principal owners of the property are Mr. A. T. Seymour, III and his sister, Mrs. Susan S. Mills and the property is located in the 3700 block of Old US Hwy. 1 in New Hill, NC. There are other family members who also own small interests in the overall property.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval and requests that the committee forward this item to the Town Council for its approval and execution of the required Resolution Authorizing Condemnation.

(NOTE: The aerial photo and resolution are included in the town clerk's office with the official minutes.)

ACTION: Mrs. Robinson moved to remove this item from the table; Ms. Dorrel provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.

Mrs. Robinson stated the council needs to make a decision to either approve the resolution or table the action for another 30 days.

Ms. Dorrel stated she originally proposed to delay this item at the committee level in order to allow the June 14 public information session to be held. She stated this goal has been fulfilled. She stated this is a difficult issue, but she added the State provides the opportunity for the review of all information and two public hearings. She stated at this time people are getting information in a piecemeal fashion. She stated during the environmental impact study, all of the information will be provided, and anyone can see all the information at one time. She stated some New Hill residents feel they are behind in the process, but instead she feels everyone is ahead of the process, since there is a time and place set out for everyone to get all the information and have questions answered.

(1) To provide time to get more information about the Town’s analysis: Ms. Dorrel stated this will be done in the environmental impact analysis stage.

(2) To allow more review about the potential utilization of the Progress Energy site: Ms. Dorrel stated a $27 or $28 million gap must be closed in order to address this. She stated this would be hard to accomplish in 30 days.

(3) To allow review to see if the interbasin transfer requirement could be removed: Ms. Dorrel stated this is more than a 30 day consideration.

Ms. Dorrel stated the Town’s moving forward with the condemnation does not in any way prejudice any kind of case that is made before the State. She will support moving forward with the resolution.

ACTION: Ms. Dorrel made a motion to move forward and approve the request for condemnation. Mrs. Robinson provided the second.

Mr. Roseland questioned the acreage. Mr. Joyce responded that it is 211 acres but the Town only needs 40 acres. Mr. Roseland is in favor of waiting an additional 30 days prior to taking action. He understands that Progress Energy has more than 15,000 acres that they control, and he also understands that the Progress Energy site would result in increased costs. He thinks the cost could be decreased with less acreage on the Progress Energy site. He stated it makes sense to him to site a sewer plant next to a nuclear plant. He believes that State officials would be open to working with the Town on this 30-day delay.

Mr. Joyce concurred with Mr. Roseland’s comments. He stated he does not have as much faith in the process as Ms. Dorrel, and he stated once the condemnation process begins, he does not think there is any turning back. He stated Progress Energy took private property to build a large nuclear facility, which was never built. He stated Technical Bulletin 8.0 includes weighing factors, and the New Hill parcel is listed as #5. He stated over a year later Technical Bulletin 8.1 was published with New Hill being #1. He does not think enough time has been spent on the human aspect of this issue. He is in favor of the 30-day delay. He personally apologized to the New Hill residents for what is going on.

Mrs. Robinson stated this is not an easy decision to make. She stated for future projects like this one, she would like the mayor of each municipality and the chair of the county commission to join together and make the decisions rather than putting the decision-making process on one single municipality to carry the entire weight. Mrs. Robinson stated the Town must comply with interbasin transfer requirements by a specified date, and the schedule is very aggressive and does not allow for an extra 30-day delay. She stated it is not feasible to expect to find $27 million in 30 days to pump the wastewater across to the Progress Energy site.

Mrs. Robinson believes the large amount of land to serve as open space around the site is a benefit to the community. She stated if a person moving into the area has a choice of having the open space around the facility or having development, she believes that person would want the open space to avoid having future development. She will support the condemnation request.

Mrs. Robison stated she has faith in the highly regulated, structured environmental impact statement process (EIS). She is concerned with making a decision on land acquisition prior to the EIS process. She stated ideally the EIS would occur before land acquisition. She understands that the EIS is underway and a report will be forthcoming in the next few weeks.

Mayor McAlister asked staff to reply to Mrs. Robison’s question and to advise of the need for the two processes to occur simultaneously.

Mr. Kim Fisher, director of public works and utilities, stated the EIS will be completed during the month of July and submitted to the State. He stated the State is currently considering the secondary and cumulative impacts master mitigation plan (covers all of capital projects in the 10-year plan), and this must get to a certain point in the process before the Town can submit the EIS, and he thinks this will occur in late July. Mrs. Robison asked if the master mitigation plan is on the Partner’s Web site. Mr. Fisher responded negatively. He stated the master mitigation plan is for indirect impacts, and direct impacts will be a part of the EIS.

Mrs. Robison asked for information on the public hearing process. Mr. Fisher stated there is no timeframe given on when they will occur. He stated the State first reviews the EIS and makes their comments; the Town responds to the comments; the State then sends the EIS to other agencies and interested parties for comments and the State receives their comments. After this time the State sets the date for the public hearing, and it is usually 6-9 months after the submission date. He stated the State will publish a notice to open the public comment period for 30-days prior to the public hearing and 30-days after the public hearing.

Mrs. Robison questioned the need to move forward with condemnation now when the public hearings will not occur for some time. Mr. Tommy Esqueda, consultant for the project, clarified that the first public hearing will occur in October/November 2005, and a second public hearing will be in the timeframe indicated by Mr. Fisher above. He stated the State is aware of the course of action by the Town and that the two parallel items need to be handled concurrently. He stated the initial project construction in order to meet the 2011 deadline needs to begin 24 months from today’s date. He stated this will be for a program that spans from U.S. Highway 64 to the Cape Fear River , including three counties. He stated to accomplish this in 42 months is very aggressive. He stated in order to meet this schedule, it is necessary to prepare the currently proposed site for the EIS so that a contractor can be available to prepare the site (access road, water line, grading, sedimentation and erosion control plans, etc.). He stated this preparation work will occur through about December of next year and provides a six month window to bid and award the contract with the contractor mobilizing on site 24 months from today.

Mrs. Robison asked if the EIS reviews site alternatives. Mr. Esqueda stated multiple options will be reviewed (i.e., discharge to Jordan Lake , discharge to Harris Lake , discharge to the Cape Fear River ). He stated alternative sites will also have to be presented along with the evaluation of each. He stated the Town must quantify, identify and present mitigation measures for the alternatives sites that are presented in the EIS.

Mrs. Robison asked if the alternative sites are in any way limited to those outlined in Technical Memoranda 8.1. Mr. Esqueda stated the EIS will begin with the 29 sites (Technical Memoranda 8.0), go through the alternatives process, and provide an analysis on the last three sites presented in Technical Memoranda 8.1.

Mr. Esqueda clarified that the three sites in Technical Memoranda 8.1 (A, B and C) will be the sites identified, quantified and mitigation measures presented for the EIS. He stated other sites will not be subject to the EIS.

Mrs. Robison asked when to expect a more detailed cost analysis. Town Manager Coleman stated the EIS process will identify particular characteristics of the site to be remediated, and cost would be determined at that time. He stated one of the reasons that we need to acquire the property at this time is because we need to select the design engineer to begin designing the project. He stated capital costs will be identified through the design process. Mr. Fisher stated the EIS requires a preliminary engineering report that will detail the first construction cost estimates for selected alternatives, and this cost is evaluated in the EIS.

Mrs. Robison stated this could be a $500,000,000 project at build-out. She stated she appreciates the need to make progress and she supported the bond referendum. She is willing to delay the condemntation decision for 30 days and she feels if there are other sites (other than the A, B, and C), then the Town needs to consider them at this time. She wants to see alternatives. She thinks if the Town moves ahead with condemnation, then it sends the message that the Town is not looking at other sites.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith believes the Town has adequately explored alternative sites and has come up with the most optimal site.

Mayor McAlister stated the Town of Cary serves as the lead agent for the Western Wake Partners, and as the lead agent the Town Council is making a critical infrastructure decision for Cary , Apex, Morrisville, Holly Springs , and portions of the Research Triangle Park . He would prefer to be able to purchase the site without the condemnation process, but this is not an option at this time. He stated a vote to delay the condemnation action is ultimately a vote to delay the project. He stressed that the council cannot take this risk with this critical infrastructure decision.

Mayor McAlister stated the Operations Committee considered the condemnation resolution on June 1 and deferred it a meeting to allow the public information session to occur on June 14. He stated the council has continued discussions with New Hill residents, and he and Ms. Dorrel met with representatives from New Hill on June 22. He stated council members will continue to do this as information becomes available. He stated the appropriate forum to air many of the concerns is at the time of the State’s process (i.e., EIS, permitting process). He stressed that the Town’s action tonight with the condemnation is not the final approval.

ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion to approve the condemnation. Mr. Roseland, Mr. Joyce, and Mrs. Robison voted “no.” All others voted “aye.” The motion carried by majority vote.

H. OLD/NEW BUSINESS (any item pulled from the regular consent agenda for discussion [agenda item B.1.] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda)

1. Consideration of adoption of the Fiscal Year 2006 Budget and the proposed changes to the budget. Council may take final action. (Mr. Bill Coleman)

Town Manager Coleman stated the budget was presented to the council on May 26, and since that time there have been several work sessions and numerous budget committee meetings. He stated changes as a result of these meetings have been incorporated into the budget (see changes labeled Exhibit A, which is attached to and incorporated in these minutes.) He stated with these changes, the proposed FY 2006 budget totals 176,131,280. The general fund operating budget is $90,569,594; the utility fund operating budget is $35,261,935 for a total operating budget of $125,831,529; the capital improvements budget totals 50,299,751, of which the utility capital improvement budget is $26,822,211 and the general capital improvement budget is $23,477,540. In addition, he stated council has directed staff to review all existing outstanding capital projects to look for opportunities to reprogram funding in those projects to eliminate the new debt that is currently programmed into the budget. He stated staff will make every effort to conclude this review and get it back to council sometime during July.

Mr. Joyce thanked the citizens for their help with the citizens’ budget review committee. He commended the budget staff for their hard work. He will not support the budget, because it does not have a guarantee, but he thinks the process worked well this year.

Mrs. Robison thanked the staff and the council budget committee for their time and effort. She will support the budget. She thanked the council for supporting the non-profit requests that the council addressed at today’s work session.

Mrs. Robinson thanked the staff for a great job. She stated the budget includes many sacrifices: citizens are asked to sacrifice by paying higher fees and having some projects delayed; staff is asked to sacrifice with impacts to their salaries; businesses are asked to sacrifice with increased fees. She feels the budget contains many compromises and represents the best faith effort.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith echoed Mrs. Robinson’s comments. He is pleased that the council as a group worked through this difficult budget year for the final product. He stated utility fees have increased, but based on the fee reduction several years ago, this fee increase takes us back to where we were in 1995. He does not think the council has made a de-commitment to roads and transportation. He stated any cuts made in this area were in areas where the Town would be holding the money but not actually using it this year. He stated even in the past year the mid-year appropriations were dramatically decreased from five or six years ago, and he thinks this shows that council is changing its outlook on fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Roseland thanked the council for their hard work to craft the budget, and he thanked the staff for providing support to the council in this endeavor. He does not think this budget lives up to its full potential, and he will vote against the budget. He thinks the council has made significant progress in stormwater management, but it is not enough progress. He stated the budget also does not meet the full potential with regard to growth management, environmental protection and open space protection.

Ms. Dorrel thinks the council was successful with examining the budget this year. She thanked the staff for their hard work in bringing forth a clean, well balanced budget to begin with. She stated instead of carving, the council was able to only whittle to make some changes. She stated the budget committee did an in depth review of the operations budget for the first time. She learned that for the council the budget is an exercise they undertake for about two months out of the year, but the staff examines the budget 12 months out of the year, and staff is always looking for efficiencies and new ways to do things to help us continue to have a high quality of service while using the money wisely. She is disappointed there are dissenting votes, and she will work to try to get unanimous approval next year. She stated this year’s budget reflects the views and opinions of every council member. She stated the lessons learned during this year’s budget will be repeated in future years, and she thinks that citizens and the staff will see that the council’s decision-making will be different.

ACTION: Ms. Dorrel moved to approve the budget as presented tonight. Mrs. Robinson provided the second.

Mayor McAlister thanked the staff for their hard work. He stated the council is changing how they look at budget issues.

ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion to approve the budget. Mr. Joyce and Mr. Roseland voted “no.” All others voted “aye.” The motion carried by majority vote.

The final adopted budget including all the changes referenced herein is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit B.

2. Report of the settlement agreement for CRA Management, Inc. v. Town of Cary . Council takes no action. (Mrs. Chris Simpson)

Town Attorney Simpson reported the above settlement. Refer to Exhibit C for the settlement agreement, which is attached to and incorporated in these minutes. No council action was required.

ACTION: At 7:45 p.m. , Mayor Pro Tem Smith moved to adjourn, which was seconded by Mrs. Robison and unanimously approved by council.

CURRENT & PROPOSED TOWN OF CARY LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION

EXISTING & PROPOSED ZONING

PLANNING

PARCEL & OWNER INFORMATION