G.
COMMITTEE REPORTS (discussion
items)
1.
Operations Committee,
a.
Heritage Pines Speed Hump Request (EN06-007)
Committee recommended approval of the placement of five speed humps on Heritage
Pines Drive by a vote of 2 to 1. Committee
Member Dorrel dissented because of concerns that speed humps were not the most
appropriate traffic calming device for this location, that installation of
traffic humps is premature since traffic patterns will change with the
completion of Louis Stephens Drive, and that the average and 85th
percentile traffic speeds of 22 mph and 30 mph were not excessive.
Emmett Waller, a resident located on Heritage Pines Drive, was invited to
speak to the committee by Chairperson Robinson and made the points that many
walkers use this road, there is considerable traffic at greater than the average
and 85th percentile, that the residents don’t like other traffic
calming devices, that there are many driveways on this street, and that the
residents did not consider the delay in emergency services to be significant.
Chairperson Robinson noted that standards had changed and that new
collector streets would not have driveways. Council
may take action on this item.
Staff
received a request for traffic calming along Heritage Pines Drive in January
2005 from the Home Owners Association (HOA).
Subsequently, speed and volume studies were conducted in late January
2005. The studies revealed the 85th percentile speed is 30 mph and
average speed along the street is 22 mph. The ADT (Average Daily Traffic) within
a 24 hour period is 796 vehicles per day (vpd).
An
ad hoc committee of residents appointed by the HOA worked with the Town through
the traffic calming process. During the initial meeting on
The
group developed several versions of the traffic calming plan that initially
started with nine speed humps and through community input, they developed a
final plan showing six speed humps. The
ad hoc committee requested that staff conduct an evening meeting on
On
The
Fire Department prefers alternatives that do not include speed humps or raised
crosswalks due to the increased response time created by raised crosswalks and
speed humps.
Staff
and the steering committee have worked together to arrive at a plan that
addresses all of the neighborhood’s concerns.
Fiscal
Impact:
Operating
Impact
Not
Applicable
Funding
Staff
recommends funding the speed humps along Heritage Pines Drive with funds
appropriated to the FY 2006 Traffic Calming Project.
The FY 2006 Traffic Calming Project has a budget of $100,000.
Allocating $6,000 of this amount to the Heritage Pines speed humps leaves
a balance of $94,000 to be made available to other traffic calming initiatives.
Staff
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the construction of the five speed humps
along Heritage Pines Road. Staff
also recommends that the $6,000 needed to address the Town’s portion of this
project be funded from the FY 2006 Traffic Calming project.
Additionally, staff requests that Council recognize $2,000 in revenue
from the developer of Heritage Pines. This
payment represents the community’s portion of the installation cost related to
the speed humps. The funds were
received into the General Fund in FY 2005 and should be appropriated from
General Fund Fund Balance to the FY 2006 Traffic Calming Project where they will
be acknowledged as revenue to this capital project and budgeted within the
construction account.
Ms.
Dorrel stated she is not opposed to using traffic calming devices in Heritage
Pines; rather, she objects to the use of speed humps, which she believes is the
most intrusive of all the options offered. She stated she is not a great fan of
speed humps in any application, although she recognizes the need for some type
of traffic calming in this neighborhood.
Mr.
Joyce stated he appreciates Ms. Dorrel’s concerns, especially the concern
about emergency vehicles in this neighborhood where numerous elderly citizens
reside. He stated he will support the speed humps because the citizens are
specifically requesting them.
Mrs.
Robison asked if there was discussion about an alternative height for these
humps. Mrs. Robinson stated the committee did not discuss this, and she added
that it has been her experience that when humps are installed the Town attempts
to achieve a certain height in order to produce a traffic calming effect. Ms.
Dorrel stated the committee did not go into detail about other options, because
these alternate options were presented to the neighborhood, and the neighborhood
chose the speed hump option. She stated her hope is that over time the Town will
apply other traffic calming methods so the Town will have data to compare the
effectiveness of various traffic calming methods.
Mrs.
Robinson stated the design of the street limits traffic calming options. She
stated the driveways are so close together and staggered, and it would make it
difficult to use some of the other traffic calming devices. She stated this
neighborhood is designed with a main corridor with driveway cuts on the main
corridor. She hopes that staff and council will make an effort to avoid this
problem in the future. She stated in this particular situation, high school
students use this route as a cut-through, and she thinks that speed humps is an
appropriate action.
ACTION:
Mrs. Robinson moved to approve the six speed humps to be installed on Heritage
_________________________
2.
Planning and Development
Committee,
a.
Waiver of Rezoning Waiting Period
(PL06-001)
Committee unanimously recommended waiving the Land Development Ordinance (LDO)
requirement that prevents submission of a revised rezoning application within 12
months for the Lowe’s Planned Development District (PDD) out-parcel. Council
may take action on this item.
The
applicant has requested a waiver from Section 3.4.1 (G) (1) of the Land
Development Ordinance (LDO) which states:
“When
a rezoning application has been approved or denied by the Town Council, or has
been withdrawn by the applicant after notice has been given of the public
hearing on the application, no rezoning application covering the same property
shall be accepted or considered within 12 months after the date of approval,
denial, or withdrawal.”
The
applicant plans to amend several conditions related to the type of uses allowed
on the parcel and to amend the condition regarding the location of parking,
service areas, and dumpsters. Please
see the applicant’s letter that is attached to this report for the
applicant’s justification. The
previous rezoning was withdrawn on
Staff
supports the request to waive the 12 month waiting period since the uses that
are being discussed are appropriate land uses for an activity center and are
more in line with expected uses at this location.
Approval
of this request requires a super majority vote of the Town Council.
Fiscal
Impact: None.
Staff
Recommendation:
Council approve the request.
Mr.
Travis Morehead
Principal
Planner
Department
of Planning, Town of
Dear
Travis:
With
this letter, we are requesting a waiver to the waiting period for the submission
of a PDD amendment for the Lowe’s Home Improvement site at the intersection of
The
developer of the remaining undeveloped portion of the site wants to amend two of
the current conditions to allow small food service uses such as a coffee shop or
ice cream shop. Condition # 4 would
allow for a coffee shop with a drive through.
The only other uses allowed would be a restaurant or food services
without drive through, excluding fast food restaurants with drive through, and
night club/bar. Architecture will be
similar/compatible with the Lowe’s building.
The second condition, condition # 16, is being amended to address the
location of parking, service areas and the dumpster.
It is our hope that the surrounding residents in the area will receive
these changes favorably.
Please
let me know if you need any additional information to process this request.
Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Glenda
S. Toppe, AICP
Jerry
Turner & Associates, Inc.
ACTION:
Mr. Roseland moved to waive the rezoning waiting period for the Lowe’s planned
development district so that we can entertain another rezoning proposal on that
parcel. Ms. Dorrel provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
b.
Waiver of Rezoning Waiting Period
(PL06-002)
Committee unanimously recommended waiving the Land Development Ordinance (LDO)
requirement that prevents submission of a revised rezoning application within 12
months for the Dellinger Planned Development District (PDD). Council
may take action on this item.
The
applicant has requested a waiver from Section 3.4.1 (G) (1) of the Land
Development Ordinance (LDO) which states:
“When
a rezoning application has been approved or denied by the Town Council, or has
been withdrawn by the applicant after notice has been given of the public
hearing on the application, no rezoning application covering the same property
shall be accepted or considered within 12 months after the date of approval,
denial, or withdrawal.”
The
request seeks to amend the maximum square footage of development allowed within
Tract 1of the Dellinger PDD. The
maximum square footage currently allowed is 35, 000 sq. ft.
A rezoning request (05-REZ-09) that is currently in review seeks to raise
the maximum square footage to 87,000 sq. ft.
The waiver being requested would seek to increase the area an additional
75,000 sq. ft. to a maximum of 162,000 sq. ft. for Tract 1.
Please see the letter that is attached to this report for the
applicant’s justification.
Staff
supports the request to waive the 12 month waiting period since the use (hotel)
that is being discussed is an appropriate land use for an activity center and is
allowed within the PDD.
Approval
of this request requires a super majority vote of Town Council.
Fiscal
Impact: None.
Staff
Recommendation:
Council approve the request.
Mr.
Travis Morehead
Principal
Planner
Department
of Planning, Town of
Dear
Travis:
With
this letter, we are requesting a waiver to the waiting period for the submission
of a PDD amendment for the Dellinger PDD. Sec.
3.4 (G) (1) in the LDO states “ no rezoning application covering the same
property shall be accepted or considered within 12 months after the date of
approval, denial or withdrawal. This
restriction shall apply regardless of whether the new application is for a
different zoning classification than the original application”.
Our
Client wants to build a medium size hotel on the remaining portion of Tract 1
within the Dellinger PDD. Currently
there is a request before the Town to amend the PDD to allow a self-storage
facility on Tract 1, thus the reason for the waiver.
Hotels are a permitted use within Tract 1, but there is a square footage
cap for Tract 1 of 35,000 square feet. The
planned hotel is approximately 75,000 square feet.
The approximate square footage for the planned storage facility is 80,000
square feet. The square footage that
is currently on Tract 1 is based on a list of commercial uses within the PDD and
the amount of traffic these uses could generate.
Traffic was a concern at the time the PDD was approved because the
improvements to
Please
let me know if you need any additional information to process this request.
Thank
you.
Sincerely,
Glenda
S. Toppe, AICP
Jerry
Turner & Associates, Inc.
ACTION:
Mr. Roseland moved to approve the waiver of the rezoning waiting period. Ms.
Dorrel provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
c.
Town Center Civic and Cultural Arts Study (PR06-001)
Committee recommended by a vote of 2 to 1 (Michael Joyce dissenting):
1) contracting with Pfeiffer Partners, Inc. for the Town Center Civic and
Cultural Arts Study,
2) rolling over $75,000 from the
Planning Department FY05 Operating Budget to the FY 06 Operating Budget and then
transferring this $75,000 to the Cary Elementary Phase I Project (PR1092) which
already contains $75,000,
3) renaming the Cary Elementary Phase I project the Town Center
Facility/Property Study with a new funding total of $150,000,
4) deleting “evaluate the potential for locating an aquatic facility” from
the scope of services, and
5) providing for two council member liaisons to the project.
Council may take action on this item.
Following
direction from Council, staff from the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources
Planning Departments jointly requested and received eleven proposals from
consulting firms to develop a feasibility study for the evaluation, planning,
and implementation of a new civic and cultural arts district to be located in
downtown
The
outcome of this project will be a more comprehensive analysis that will tie
together the various plans that have been completed since 2001 (TCAP, Town
Center Park Concept Plan, PRCR Master Plan, Town Center Recommendations,
etc.). The Town Center Civic and
Cultural Arts Study will further evaluate, define, and prioritize the
implementation of these various plans and pull them together into a cohesive
plan for the
Public
input will be an important part of the plan development process.
It is intended that the project will be completed in approximately six
months. A copy of the Request for
Proposals is attached.
Below
is a listing of the firms that submitted requests
for proposals and their fees.
|
Consultants |
Location |
Fee
(Not to Exceed ) |
|
PBC
& L Architecture |
|
$217,482 |
|
Lord
Aeck Sargent |
|
$199,000 |
|
Heery
International, PC |
|
$191,890 |
|
Perkins
Eastman |
|
$151,200 |
|
Wolf
Keens & Co. |
|
$150,000+ |
|
Pfeiffer
Partners, Inc. |
|
$149,825 |
|
Wallace
Roberts Todd |
|
$130,000 |
|
Hunter
Incorporated |
|
$125,000 |
|
Design
Collective |
|
$
90,500 |
|
Heritage
Directions |
|
$
79,500 |
|
HSMM |
|
$
55,000 |
An
eight-member selection committee composed of the Assistant Town Manager and PRCR,
Planning and Engineering staff was assembled to review the eleven proposals.
The committee evaluated the proposals on the following criteria:
·
Relevant Project Experience: Urban
Planning, Master Planning
·
Relevant Project Experience: Park
Planning
·
Relevant Project Experience: Cultural
Facility Planning
·
Composition and quality of design team
·
Experience of Project Manager
·
Proposed Methodology/Approach
·
Proposed Project Schedule (# of months)
·
Proposed Fee (amount)
The
Committee short-listed four firms for interviews. These included Design
Collective, Hunter Incorporated, Pfeiffer Partners, and Wolf Keens & Co.
Each of these firms made presentations to the selection committee and responded
to questions.
From
this group, the selection committee further narrowed the recommendation to the
following two proposals:
1.
Design
Collective teamed with Randall Gross/Development Economics of Washington, DC.
And Gilbane of Durham (cost estimating). (Project Lead: Scott Vieth, Architect)
2.
Pfeiffer Partners teamed with Webb Management Services of New York, NY,
Clark Nexsen Architecture and Engineering of Raleigh, Hanscomb Faithful &
Gould of Baltimore (cost estimating), and Theatre Consultants Collaborative of
Chapel Hill. (Project Lead: Jean
Gath, Principal Planner)
After
further review of the strengths and qualifications of the top two firms related
to the established criteria, staff recommends hiring the team submitted by
Pfeiffer Partners, Inc.,
While
Design Collective has a strong team of consultants and a lower fee, Pfeiffer
Partners has significantly more depth related specifically to the arts,
including program development and fiscal analysis. The arts program development
and analysis aspect of the study will be essential in bringing the various
citizens and community groups together with a common goal and vision.
With the Principal Planner serving as the project lead, the urban
planning aspects of the project team are also very strong.
Staff believes that this combination of expertise within the project team
will actually propel the Town further along in developing a realistic plan which
provides added value for the costs associated with hiring Pfeiffer Partners.
Fiscal
Impact:
Operating
Impact: Not Applicable
Funding:
The not to exceed fee for the study is $149,825.
This study actually combines two previously funded studies for the
Staff
Recommendation:
Request for
Proposals
Town
of
Parks
Recreation and Cultural Resources Department
Planning
Department
Project
Purpose
The
Town of
In
2001, the Town completed the Town Center Area Plan (TCAP). This plan provided a
blueprint for the greater downtown area of
In
late 2003, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resource Department completed its
system wide master plan which analyzed cultural arts needs within the community.
The plan presented two options for establishing a major cultural arts
center, one which called for the renovation of the existing Cary Elementary in
conjunction with a new facility or the option of building one larger facility to
accommodate all potential needs as outlined in the master plan.
Since that time other potential uses for Cary Elementary have also
surfaced. The Town also completed an
Aquatic Feasibility Study (December 2000; update April 2004) and there is some
discussion about the potential for anchoring one end of the
A
more comprehensive analysis that will tie these planning efforts together and
further evaluate, define, and prioritize the implementation of these efforts is
now needed. In addition to the
specific facility details, an important aspect of this study will also be the
analysis of all existing publicly owned lands within the downtown core to
determine the best use of these lands to meet the goals for the
The
chosen firm will need to demonstrate the ability to develop themes and concepts
that reflect the cultural and historical uniqueness of
More
can be learned about our Town at www.townofcary.org.
With nearly 110,000 people and located in the heart of the growing
“Triangle” region, Cary is home to an affluent, professional population,
many of whom work in the adjacent Research Triangle Park or at one of the nearby
major universities in Raleigh, Durham or Chapel Hill.
The
planning process is expected to begin August of 2005 and be completed within six
months. All submittals are
asked to address each of the items outlined under Scope of Services.
Scope
of Services
a.
Two to three public meetings, of which
one advertised public or external stakeholder “Charrette” meeting will be
held to gather input, suggestions, and involvement of the public,
b.
At least one internal stakeholder
meeting for Town Government and select identified stakeholders of the community
(established arts and cultural groups and organizations).
c.
Minimum 3 internal meetings with staff
committee assigned to this project
d.
Minimum 2 meetings with elected
officials to gather input and present findings.
The
Town will provide space and advertisement and notices for meetings.
15.
Provide a time schedule for the proposed study that does not exceed six
months.
Deliverables
A
final approved document/report that includes the following:
.
Format and Quantity for Deliverables
1. 50 printed copies of approved plan documents in bound 8 ˝ x 11 format with appropriate maps, fold-outs, etc.
2. Electronic versions of all final plan documents. The format of the final document/report will be required in both Microsoft Word, pdf and html formats.
3.
One
set of 36 x 48 full hardboard presentation boards.
4. Additional deliverables as mutually agreed upon during the project.
Submission
Requirements
The
selection of the consultant(s) for the Town
Center Civic & Cultural Arts Study Project will be based on the
following criteria:
·
A statement of the consultants’
proposed methodology in accomplishing the Scope of Services.
·
A list and description of projects
which the consultant has provided similar professional services; names of the
personnel of the consultant or consultant’s proposed sub consultants who
performed the work; discussion of whether or not the project was completed on
time and within budget.
·
A description of the proposed approach
to and level of public involvement.
·
A list of the personnel and sub
consultants the consultant intends to use for the project including their
primary office location relative to
·
Proposed project schedule
·
“Not to exceed” study fee
·
Client references
All
proposal submissions must be postmarked or hand delivered no later than
Following
direction from Council, staff from the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources
Planning Departments jointly requested and received eleven proposals from
consulting firms to develop a feasibility study for the evaluation, planning,
and implementation of a new civic and cultural arts district to be located in
downtown
The
outcome of this project will be a more comprehensive analysis that will tie
together the various plans that have been completed since 2001 (TCAP, Town
Center Park Concept Plan, PRCR Master Plan, Town Center Recommendations,
etc.). The Town Center Civic and
Cultural Arts Study will further evaluate, define, and prioritize the
implementation of these various plans and pull them together into a cohesive
plan for the
Public
input will be an important part of the plan development process.
It is intended that the project will be completed in approximately six
months. A copy of the Request for
Proposals is attached.
Below
is a listing of the firms that submitted requests
for proposals and their fees.
|
Consultants |
Location |
Fee
(Not to Exceed ) |
|
PBC
& L Architecture |
|
$217,482 |
|
Lord
Aeck Sargent |
|
$199,000 |
|
Heery
International, PC |
|
$191,890 |
|
Perkins
Eastman |
|
$151,200 |
|
Wolf
Keens & Co. |
|
$150,000+ |
|
Pfeiffer
Partners, Inc. |
|
$149,825 |
|
Wallace
Roberts Todd |
|