G.   COMMITTEE REPORTS (discussion items)

1.   Planning and Development Committee, June 22, 2006 (any item pulled from the planning and development committee consent agenda for discussion [agenda item B.3.] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda) (Mr. Roseland)

a.   Conservation Overlay User Guide (PL06-048a)
Committee unanimously recommended that full council consider a Conservation Residential Overlay User Guide to supplement the LDO and asked that staff provide more detail prior to that discussion focusing on provisions for items with clear potential for disagreement between the ordinance and its interpretation.

This item was withdrawn by staff and removed from this agenda.

_________________________

b.   Rezoning Process Improvements (PL06-043)
Committee unanimously recommended implementation of numerous changes to improve various aspects of the rezoning process. (Council Member Marla Dorrel requested to discuss this item.)

STAFF REPORT

Planning and Development Committee, June 22, 2006

 

Rezoning Process Improvements (PL06-043)
Consideration of numerous changes to improve various aspects of the rezoning process
Speaker:  Jeff Ulma

 

From:  Jeffery G. Ulma, Planning Director
Prepared by:  Jeffery G. Ulma, Planning Director
Approved by:  William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by:  Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

At the March 2006 Council/Staff Retreat, one major topic included a review of the Town’s entire rezoning process.  This item was assessed in response to longstanding comments about the complexity of the process, difficulty of handling public input, misunderstandings about the roles of the various participants in the process, changes during the process, and similar issues.  Through a review of the steps and a “brainstorm” session, staff and Town Council identified some possible changes that could be made to improve the current system.

Council requested that staff generate a more detailed and comprehensive set of proposed changes for consideration.  For each change, we have briefly listed the item, provided a short discussion, identified what it will take to make the improvement, and concluded with any comments about the issue.

These system changes are listed in relation to the various steps in the process that formed the basis of the retreat discussion.  Additionally, overall system changes are noted.  Finally, staff believes that any changes and improvements should be geared towards ensuring that the following objectives, distilled from the Council’s retreat discussion, are met:

• Citizens are better-informed about the rezoning process and understand how and where they can participate and/or influence the process,
• Public input into rezoning cases is more manageable and timely,
• Applicants/petitioners are held accountable for submitting and presenting complete and thorough applications that include accurate, legal, and enforceable requirements, and
• Staff maintains an objective position throughout the process.

Summary/Conclusion:  We believe that Cary already goes “above and beyond” the norm in many ways to facilitate the rezoning process and inform residents about rezoning cases.  For example, we presently include copies of protest petition forms in the mailed notice that is transmitted to adjacent property owners who are eligible to file a protest petition.  This is not required by law.  We also notify property owners beyond the statutory 100-foot notice boundary so that more residents are aware of a rezoning in their vicinity. 

Nevertheless, we are always willing to explore and implement worthwhile improvements to this highly visible process, and staff is pleased to be able to bring these proposed changes and improvements back to Council for consideration.  We would, however, like to remind Council that some of them will continue to raise the high level of expectation that already exists in our community about rezonings.  Some will also add to the workload of staff and Town Council.

For instance, we will all receive early inquiries about a proposed case without the benefit of complete information if applicants are required to conduct a neighborhood meeting before they submit an official rezoning petition.  And customizing forms, developing and presenting additional explanatory information, using online software to manage public comment, or expanding applicants’ presentations will require extra staff work, may yield longer presentations, and could add complexity to the process.

Fiscal Impact:  Most of these proposed changes involve new procedures or changes to the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) that are part of normal Town operations.  As such, any costs would be absorbed by operating budgets.  There are also costs associated with production of videos and written materials.  These, too, are anticipated in annual operating budgets.  Use of online public comment software system/service to handle rezoning cases will entail an estimated annual service cost of approximately $25,000.

Staff Recommendation:  Staff recommends that all of the procedural and ordinance changes identified in this report be implemented to improve the Town’s rezoning process.  Staff also recommends that items that need further study, like the online public comment system, be more thoroughly evaluated.

Ms. Dorrel began about a year ago talking with residents about how the Town could fine-tune the development process. She’d like to put item J on hold until we’re further along in the process (timing of public comments). She stated people believe this may suppress public comment, which she understands wasn’t the intent. She thinks we should have experience with item K before pursuing item J.

ACTION: Ms. Dorrel moved to approve this item with the exception of item J, which will be held out and reviewed at a later date if necessary. Mr. Roseland provided the second.

Mrs. Robison commented that she supports the motion. She thanked Ms. Dorrel for her work to bring forth these changes.

ACTION: Vote was called for, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

c.   Olde Carpenter Townhomes – Request for Payment-in-lieu of Road Improvements and Variance of Street Design (EN06-143)
Committee unanimously recommended allowing an alternative to the standard 90’ street end design, provided the design plans reflect the change to a 40’ radius and include the requirement for no on-street parking throughout the development.

Updated 7/25/2006

STAFF REPORT

Town Council, July 27, 2006

Planning and Development Committee, May 25 and June 22, 2006

Olde Carpenter Townhomes – Request for Reduction in Minimum Street Design Standards (EN06-143B)
Consideration of allowing a reduced horizontal curve design within a townhome development
Speaker:  Tim Bailey

 

From:  Tim Bailey, P.E., Engineering Director
Prepared by:  Tammy Spivey, Engineer
Approved by:  William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by:  Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

History:  The applicant originally requested a waiver from installing a cul-de-sac at the end of a dead-end street (Analee Drive) and instead requested to install a “Y” type design.  This design did not receive staff support because it did not meet minimum design criteria.  One day prior to the May 25, 2006 Planning and Development Committee meeting, the applicant submitted a second design which proposed Analee Drive and Grace Hodge Way intersecting at a 90 degree angle (neither street was proposed as a through movement).  Because it was submitted one day prior to the meeting, staff did not have time to fully evaluate the proposal; therefore, the Planning and Development Committee recommended that the request come back before them at their June 22, 2006 meeting.  A second staff report was written based on this design; this second design did not receive staff support either because it did not meet minimum design criteria.  One day prior to the June 22 Planning and Development Meeting, the applicant submitted a third design which proposed connecting the two streets in question, Analee Drive and Grace Hodge Way, creating one through street.  Because it was submitted one day prior to the meeting, staff did not have time to fully evaluate the proposal; however, the Planning and Development Committee “unanimously recommended allowing an alternative to the standard 90’ street end design, provided the design plans reflect the change to a 40’ radius and include the requirement for no on-street parking throughout the development.”

Staff evaluation of the third design:  The applicant has proposed a 40’ centerline horizontal radius.  After further review of the development plan, the Town’s minimum center line horizontal radius for this type of street is 140’ verses the 90’ center line radius mentioned in an earlier report.  This is based on Analee Drive/Grace Hodge Way, when complete, connecting Morrisville Parkway and Carpenter Upchurch Road and functioning as a through street.  This puts it in the “major local” street classification requiring the minimum 140’ center line radius.  The major local classification applies to all residential through streets.  Very minor streets, classified “minor local” streets, such as loop streets (streets that terminate on the same street on which they originate), cul-de-sac streets (must be less than 900’ in length) or alleys may use a minimum 90’ center line horizontal radius.  This is based on nationally adopted street design standards.  The 40’ center line radius as proposed does not meet minimum design standards.  It does not allow for adequate sight distance around the curve (a major safety concern), nor would a driver be able to stay in his/her lane when rounding this curve unless they are driving approximately 5 mph (very unlikely to occur).  Fire apparatus, the larger PWUT vehicles which will serve the development, and other larger vehicles such as moving trucks will take up both lanes when rounding this curve (another safety concern).  Based on discussion with our Police, Fire and Public Works Departments since the June 22 Planning and Development Committee meeting, the 40’ center line radius is inadequate and unsafe and should not be allowed. 

Fire Chief Comments:

The Fire Department’s concern centers on the ability to travel unencumbered through the development.  If the streets are built according to the variance specification (40’ center line radius), fire fighting vehicles could only negotiate this turn by traveling 80-120 feet in an oncoming lane with line-of-site for about half of that distance.  If there are any vehicles parked on the street within 50-75 feet of the turn, we will not be able to negotiate the turn without avoiding a collision and if an approaching vehicle is unaware of our path, we will likely cause a collision.

Current Town Standards for street widths and turn radii exist to ensure the unencumbered travel and reduce response time barriers for every type of fire department vehicle including ladder trucks that are 48 feet long with a 52 feet turning radius for the aerial bucket.  Because we cannot predict or control how the motoring public complies with the standards tacit restrictions, granting variances to these standards increases the likelihood of some encumbrance or collision for fire fighting vehicles.

Police Chief Comment:

Design standards are created for specific, well thought-out reasons  Allowing waivers or adjustments to these standards, especially on a case by case basis, promotes a sense of inconsistency and arbitrariness and causes problems that the standards were meant to avoid.  Waivers also create a demand for more waivers as standards become seen merely as suggestions or guidelines.

In addition, the Town often receives complaints in the future about conditions that the waiver has created.  Since the infrastructure is already in place, options for correction at this time are very limited.  A recent example is Cary Glen and the road width and parking issues.  A variance was granted to the developer for a narrower road than standards would have required, but no parking would be allowed.  The current residents are upset with the Town because we cannot fully resolve the traffic and parking situation as it stands.  We have reduced the speed limit in certain areas as well as prohibited parking on one side of the street.  While these actions have helped, it has not fully resolved the neighborhood complaints.

There are three main components that impact traffic safety:  engineering, education, and enforcement.  Road design standards comprise the engineering component.  If we follow our standards, which are derived from national standards, then we have engineered our roads to be as safe as possible.  When we deviate from standards, we sacrifice some effectiveness of engineering as a component of traffic safety and flow.  Additional education and enforcement will be required to enhance the safety that was sacrificed through waiving the engineering standards.  Since it is impossible to provide 24/7 enforcement in any geographic area, it is likely that the Town will have to address more complaints continuously in the future.  We do not want to create an environment where there are complaints requiring enforcement needs which we are unable to completely satisfy.  Engineering is the most economical solution over the long run.

I advocate maintaining the standards and not granting waivers or adjustments in general and specifically not in this case.  If the road width and radius requirements are not met, I believe we will see drivers cross the center line to make the turn, run stop signs, deal with blind spots inherent in the proposed design, and that the risk of crashes will be higher. 

There are developments within the Town that have substandard horizontal centerline radii, Carpenter Village PDD being a notable example.  This was the Town’s first neo-traditional development, and as such, was allowed to install streets with less than standard horizontal curves as part of the Planned Unit Development approval.  Since then, Town Staff has received numerous calls from residents of this development concerning sight distance problems, on street parking concerns, as well as having concerns from our own Public Works, Fire and Police Departments regarding the ability to serve this development.  The Townes of Madison in the Town Center area has a less than standard horizontal radius.  However, this particular street is considered a loop street (it originates and terminates on Madison Avenue), is less than 900’ in length and is within the Town Center Area where higher densities are promoted and typical ordinance and design requirements are somewhat relaxed in order to encourage development and/or redevelopment.

Fiscal Impact:  No immediate fiscal impact is associated with a waiver of design standards.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that our minimum centerline horizontal radius of 140’ be required for Analee Drive/Grace Hodge Way.

Updated revision of proposed layout submitted to Planning and Development Committee June 22, 2006

The previous staff report follows:

STAFF REPORT

Planning and Development Committee, May 25, 2006

Planning and Development Committee, June 22, 2006

Olde Carpenter Townhomes – Request for Payment-in-lieu of Road Improvements and Variance of Street Design (EN06-143A)
Consideration of accepting a payment-in-lieu of sidewalk and street light installation and consideration of allowing an alternative street end design

Speaker:  Tim Bailey

 

From:  Tim Bailey, P.E., Engineering Director
Prepared by:  Tammy Spivey, Engineer
Approved by:  William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by:  Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

UPDATE FOR JUNE 22 COMMITTEE MEETING

The applicant submitted a revised plan for staff to evaluate which proposes Analee Drive and Grace Hodge Way intersecting at a 90 degree angle as shown in the second subdivision plan attached to this report.  Engineering staff consulted with the Fire Department and Public Works and Utilities Department regarding this design.  The Fire Department can maneuver sufficiently through the site as designed; the Public Works Department would need a 40’ street centerline radius in order to prevent the PWUT vehicles from backing up while performing routine trash and recyclable pickup.  Backing these vehicles with a one-man crew is a safety hazard and should be avoided if at all possible.  The design as proposed does not meet the Town’s, NCDOT’s or the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets design criteria.  As stated in the AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, an intersection involves through- or cross-traffic movements on one or more of the streets creating the intersection.  The design as proposed has no through- or cross traffic movement.  Engineering staff feels that either Analee Drive or Grace Hodge Way should be designed as a through street, meeting our minor local street design criteria at a minimum (90’ centerline radius).  The applicants stated that they would install a stop at each approach; however, staff feels that driving habits, driver expectancy, conformance to natural paths and movements (all basic elements of “human factor” design) would override stop signs inappropriately placed.  There’s no opposing traffic to cause drivers to stop with this proposed design.  To add to the concern, the pedestrian movement is shown to angle through this “intersection” to connect to the greenway trail to the east.  Engineering staff feels that the design as proposed is unsafe.

There was also discussion at the last committee meeting regarding recently approved townhome plans that were allowed to have 3 to 4 units off of a “private/shared driveway”.  Engineering consulted with Planning regarding this issue.  Planning stated that there has been no ordinance change regarding this issue, but added that a former staff member made a wrong interpretation on some plans on what shall be considered a “street."  The correct interpretation is that a private/shared driveway shall not be considered a street.  The applicable ordinance states, “The width of the lot at the street right-of-way line shall be a minimum of 20 feet to accommodate all driveways, drainage facilities, and utilities in accordance with the Town’s Standard Specifications and Details Manual”[LDO Section 8.1.5(C)(1)(f)].  Allowing more than one unit on a private/shared driveway causes concern for addressing (i.e. the ability for emergency services to quickly locate a unit), and as stated below, for the Town’s PWUT Department to adequately serve the units with their new one-man crew trash and recyclable pick-up.  Because of this, staff feels that the ordinance which states that the “lot width at the street right-of-way shall be a minimum of 20 feet” should be enforced as written.

The developer of Olde Carpenter Townhomes, a development proposed to be located in the northeast quadrant of Morrisville Parkway and Carpenter Upchurch Road is requesting to make a payment-in-lieu of Carpenter Upchurch Road improvements.  In this case, the payment would only include costs associated with sidewalk and street lighting since sufficient pavement exists and curb and gutter is not required.  Please refer to the attached May 2, 2006 letter from Chas H. Sells.

In addition, the developer is requesting a variance from installing a cul-de-sac at one street end within the development.  Streets within the development are proposed to be private.  Town Standards require that private streets meet public design standards; therefore, a cul-de-sac is required at the end of the street. The developer is proposing a “Y” design as shown on the attached drawing. 

Based on the justification provided in the attached letter, staff supports the payment-in-lieu request.  Based on a meeting with Public Works, the “Y” design is not suitable for the type of vehicles our Public Works Department uses for trash, recycling and leaf pick-up; therefore, staff can only support the request for a “Y” design if the following three conditions are met and included in a deed restriction:

·         The developer must provide a dumpster(s) for the development; there will be no trash or recycling pick-up by the Town;

·         There will be no leaf pick-up by the Town;

·         There will be no snow plowing by the Town.

Please note that staff constantly receives requests from developers to install something other than a cul-de-sac to end a street, especially in townhome developments, in order to maximize units.  If current standards are upheld, requiring the installation of a cul-de-sac, most developments would “lose” 1 to 2 units per cul-de-sac.  If developers choose to provide an alternate design as proposed above and agree that the development would not receive Public Works and Utilities services, staff feels strongly that the Town will receive complaints from the tax paying homeowners of that development who do not receive the same level of public services as the rest of their Cary neighbors.

Fiscal Impact:  The requested road configuration for Olde Carpenter Townhomes would require the use of a 3-person solid waste crew instead of a one-person crew.  A 3-person crew costs $70,000 more per year than a one-person crew.  On a pro-rated per household basis, it costs about $25 per year more to use the three-person crews.  The current 3-person crews are very close to maximum capacity.  When an additional crew is required, additional capital costs will also be incurred.  These figures do not include additional workman’s compensation claims that arise due to the more dangerous work environment inherent in the three-person crew process.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Town Council allow a payment-in-lieu for Carpenter Upchurch Road improvements (this portion of the request was approved by Town Council on June 8, 2006).  Staff further recommends that Town Council require a standard cul-de-sac be installed at the street end, denying the request for an alternative street end design.

Updated Staff Recommendation:  Staff recommends that Town Council require Town of Cary street design standards be met either by installing a cul-de-sac on the first submitted design or creating a through movement on the second submitted design.  

Mr. Bailey, Engineering Director, stated the current proposal is for a 40 foot radius as is outlined in the updated report (included herein). Staff has concerns with cars turning the corner and crossing the center line, including fire vehicles and solid waste vehicles. He stated there’s a safety issue with sight distance, considering the building is so close to the road. Staff recommends denial based on the 40 foot radius.

Mrs. Robinson asked about a 90 foot radius. Mr. Bailey stated in his personal opinion, he believes the staff could support this; however, he noted that all Town departments have not provided comments on this scenario.

Mrs. Robinson stated there are three issues: waiver, radius, and restricting parking in the entire development. She wants to allow parking where there are no driveway cuts. Mr. Bailey replied that street widths are narrow and continuous parking would be a concern. He stated staff would support some on-street parking with conditions. Staff could review a parking plan with some level of restrictions to address the concerns.

Mr. Roseland questioned the difference in this request and the existing Village of Troon. Mr. Bailey responded that the Village of Troon is a condominium complex, which is different than the current request. He added that Town standards require that all private streets must meet the Town’s street standards because the Town gets lots of requests for private streets to become Town streets.

ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to adopt the standard as recommended by the planning and development committee with a 40 foot turning radius. Ms. Dorrel provided the second.

Mrs. Robinson stated she cannot support the motion. She stated safety prevails over charm.

Ms. Dorrel stated there is a difference of opinion regarding safety. She believes a sharp curve will result in motorists slowing down more.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith thought the Town had a practice of not accepting more private roads. He wants to consider a middle ground.

Mayor McAlister stated staff has made a compelling public safety argument against the 40 foot radius.

Mrs. Robison clarified that the committee had a lengthy discussion about this item. She recalls two points: (1) recommendation that the current proposal was conditioned by no parking restrictions because of safety concerns; (2) the entire staff didn’t have an opportunity to review the proposal because a new design was submitted just before the committee meeting. She stated the previous unanimous decision didn’t consider the police and fire comments.

ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion. Mayor McAlister, Mayor Pro Tem Smith and Mrs. Robinson voted “no.” Mr. Roseland and Ms. Dorrel voted “aye.” The motion failed for lack of majority vote.

ACTION: Mrs. Robinson moved to approve a 90 foot horizontal radius turn at that corner. Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second.

Mrs. Robinson stated she’d prefer to address parking separately.

Mr. Roseland stated he’s not seen examples of public safety problems. He wants to use good design and common sense.

Mrs. Robinson stated it doesn’t make the street wider; it just softens the curve. Mr. Roseland stated people will go faster around a bigger curve.

Ms. Dorrel is offended with how this item has progressed. She stated it was hard to read and understand the staff report. She asked if we need to look at how standards are affected with neo traditional development and grid-like streets. She concurred with Mayor Pro Tem Smith regarding private streets.

Mrs. Robison recalls that the 90 foot option was discussed at the committee meeting but was determined not to be workable. She questioned the viability of the motion.

Mrs. Robinson stated she met with Mr. Turner before the council meeting and he stated a 90 foot turn radius would be acceptable. There have been numerous changes in the process and it has been very hard to track. She stated it’s due to the application changing and then staff response occurring multiple times.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith reiterated his concern about private streets. He doesn’t want Alston to be saturated with private streets. He stated if this does occur, then we need to inform buyers.

ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion, and council granted unanimous approval.

ACTION: Mrs. Robinson moved to accept payment-in-lieu of sidewalk and street light installation. Mr. Roseland provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.

Mrs. Robinson suggested to pass the parking issue to staff to allow them to work it out with the applicant to determine if there are opportunities for designated parking. Ms. Dorrel disagreed.

ACTION: Mrs. Robinson moved to allow staff the opportunity to look at safe locations for on-street parking in this subdivision. Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second.

Ms. Dorrel will vote against the motion for two reasons: (1) parking is already built into the plan; (2) it’s hard to tell people they can park some places but not others and it leads to confusion.

Mr. Bailey stated the current proposal would note on the site plan the no parking areas. He stated council could also consider a deed restriction. He stated it’s a site plan issue on private streets, and police can’t enforce it. Instead, it would be up to zoning code officers to enforce it.

Mrs. Robinson stated if the motion passes, then the site plan would designate where the no parking and the parking areas would be located. Mr. Bailey concurred and stated staff would ask for something to designate this (i.e., signs). He added that the applicant had previously agreed to make no parking everywhere in this development, and the parking was being managed at the staff level.

ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion. Mayor McAlister, Ms. Dorrel and Mr. Roseland voted “no.” Mayor Pro Tem Smith and Mrs. Robinson voted “aye.” The motion failed for lack of majority vote.

_________________________

2.   Operations Committee, July 5, 2006 (any item pulled from the planning and development committee consent agenda for discussion [agenda item B.4.] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda) (Mrs. Robinson)

There were no operations committee items for discussion.

_________________________