Cary Town Council Meeting Minutes

Thursday, June 23, 2005

6:30 PM

Temporary Council Chambers

Herb Young Community Center

101 Wilkinson Avenue , Cary , N.C.

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

A.   COMMENCEMENT

1.    Call to Order (Mayor McAlister)

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

_________________________

2.    Ceremonial Opening (Mrs. Robinson)

Mrs. Robinson provided the ceremonial opening.

_________________________

3.   Adoption of agenda (Town Council)

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.

_________________________

B.   CONSENT AGENDA

_________________________

C.   RECOGNITIONS, REPORTS, AND PRESENTATIONS

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 . 

Information about the Town of Cary ’s K-9 program follows:

·         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.

·         Max and his human partner, Officer Jeremy Burgin, live and work together

·         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

·         A human/canine officer team is a tried and true dynamic law enforcement tool

·         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

·         Cary is America ’s ninth safest city

·         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.

_________________________

D.   PUBLIC HEARINGS

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)

UTILITIES:

Water:  On Site
Sewer: 8" DIP 740' southwest

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

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

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.)

_________________________

E.   PUBLIC SPEAKS OUT (one hour time limit)

No one spoke during this portion of the meeting.

_________________________

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.

A proposed schedule to make this change by July 1 is outlined below:

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:

• Affect the character of the community
• Widening roads removes vegetation contained in natural areas and streetscape buffers provided by previous development
• Wider roads make pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation more difficult
• Wider roads are a disincentive to using transit
• Wider roads have environmental impacts such as water quality, water quantity, air quality, light, noise, and thermal effects
• Wider roads have considerable cost for construction and maintenance.  Because of these costs, designs should not just consider peak hour traffic.  Many communities have realized that it is impossible to “build your way out of congestion”, as is evidenced by Southern California .  Cary is another example where considerable construction has occurred with low traffic volume increases, slow growth rate, higher impact fees, higher debt funding, but congestion improvement has been marginal while ability to cover debt costs has become difficult to manage.
• Loss of parking spaces due to road widening and loss of tax base for property taken

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.

Ordinance Amendment

Town of Cary , NC

This ordinance amends Chapter 3 of the LDO

3.23 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR ROADS

            3.23.1   General

                        (A)        General Purpose

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.

                        (B)        Relationship to Vested Rights

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

            3.23.2   Requirements for Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities for Roads

                        (A)        Applicability

                                    (1)        New or Amended Projects

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).

                                    (2)        Automatic Certification for Small and Low Density Developments

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.

                                    (3)        Previously Approved Projects and Projects Pending Approval

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 .

PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION

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.

                        (B)        Timing for Certificate

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.

                        (C)        Transferring of Certificate

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.

                        (D)        Prohibiting Phasing to Avoid Requirements

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:

                                    (1)        There is unified ownership, indicated by the fact that:

                                                (a)        The same person has retained or shared control of the developments;

                                                (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.

            3.23.3   Level of Service and Establishment of Transportation Zones

                        (A)        Level of Service as a Measurement of Adequacy

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.

                        (B)        Measuring Non-Signalized Intersections

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:

                                    (1)        The intersection meets required warrants for a signal; and

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

                        (C)        Establishments of Transportation Zones and Level of Service

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.

                                    (1)        Central

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.

GRAPHIC REMAINS THE SAME

                                    (2)        North

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.

DELETE GRAPHIC

                                    (3)        Northwest

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.

DELETE GRAPHIC

                                    (4)        Southeast

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.

DELETE GRAPHIC

                                    (52