|
NOTE: These minutes are DRAFT. Contact the town clerk at (919)460-4941 for official minutes of this meeting.
Cary
Town Council Minutes
NOTE: These minutes are divided into sections because of their length. Click on the links herein to view complete text minutes.
Present: Mayor Ernie McAlister, Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith, Council Members Marla Dorrel, 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 (Ms. Dorrel)
Ms. Dorrel provided the ceremonial opening.
_________________________
3. Adoption of agenda (Town Council)
ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith moved to adopt the agenda as prepared. Mrs. Robinson provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
B. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Regular Consent Agenda (any regular consent agenda item pulled for discussion will be discussed at the end of the old/new business portion of the agenda, which is item H on this agenda)
a. Consideration of approval of the minutes of the regular town council meeting held on September 28, 2006; the minutes of the work session held on September 26, 2006 regarding the council vacancy; and the minutes of the work session held on September 26, 2006 regarding aquatics. (Town Council)
ACTION: Mrs. Robinson moved to approve the consent agenda; Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
b. Consideration of approval of a request to change the date of the regular town council meeting in November from Thursday, November 9, 2006 to Tuesday, November 14, 2006 (6:30 p.m., council chambers, 316 N. Academy St., Cary). (Town Council)
ACTION: Mrs. Robinson moved to approve the consent agenda; Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
2. Land Development Consent Agenda (any land development consent agenda item pulled for discussion will be discussed at the end of the land development discussion portion of the agenda, which is item F on this agenda)
There were no land development consent items on this agenda.
_________________________
3. Planning and Development Committee, September 28, 2006 (any committee consent agenda item pulled for discussion will be discussed at the end of the committee discussion portion of the agenda, which is item G on this agenda)
a.
Town Recognized Events List (PL07-009)
b.
Review Officer Authorization (PL07-008)
c.
Dr. Privette Dental Office – Request for Waiver of Sidewalk
Installation (EN07-030)
d.
Triangle Forest
Products – Request for Traffic Signal Payment Reimbursement
(EN07-031)
e.
Town Center Area Plan (TCAP) 2006 Strategic Action Program (PL07-007)
f.
Public Art US 1/64 Pedestrian Greenway Bridge (PR07-09)
4. Operations Committee, October 4, 2006 (any committee consent agenda item pulled for discussion will be discussed at the end of the committee discussion portion of the agenda, which is item G on this agenda)
a.
Utilization of Dynamic Message Signs (AD07‑002)
b.
FY06 Developer Agreement
Update and Annual Reimbursements
(EN07-028)
c.
Sanitary Sewer Easement Acquisition Assistance for
Highcroft Village Sewer
Extension
(EN07‑029)
d.
Force Main Alternative Evaluation Results and Recommendation for the
Terrington Wastewater Pump Station Project (EN07-032)
e.
Green Hope School Road
Improvements – Condemnations
(EN07-033)
f.
Municipal Agreement – PSNC Median/Driveway Work along NC 54/Chapel
Hill Road (EN07‑034)
g.
Release of a Utility and Pipeline Easement (EN07-035)
h.
Recognition of Grant Award (FD07-01)
i.
Amendments to Stop Street Schedules (PD07-005)
j.
Modifications to School Speed Zones (PD07-006)
k.
Recognition of grant award
(PD07-007) (1) Recognizing $170,778 in federal grant fund revenue into the General Fund as awarded by the Governor’s Highway Safety Program to the General Fund Justice Assistance account (Approved) (2) Approving the appropriation of $24,750 to the police department’s capital equipment and operating accounts, which when combined with the federal grant funds will allow for the purchase of two police vehicles and uniforms and equipment for two positions (Approved) (3) Approving the appropriation of $170,778 to the police department’s operating and capital equipment accounts to fund the two police officer positions. (Approved)
l.
Bid Award for US 1/64 Pedestrian Crossing Project (PR07-10) (1) Awarding the base bid as well as the alternates, including alternate #1 (sidewalk), alternate #2 (stamped asphalt) and alternate #3 (landscaping north berm) of the US 1/64 Greenway (PR1073) to Asphalt Experts Inc. for $407,100. This award by council represents a preliminary determination as to the qualification of the bidder, and no legally binding acceptance of the bid or offer will occur until the town has executed a written agreement; (Approved) (2) Authorizing the transfer of $90,000 from the Greenway Crossings project (PR1082) to the US1/64 Crossing Project (PR1073); (Approved) (3) Authorizing the transfer of $327,500 from McDonald Woods Ph II project (PR1083) to US1/64 Crossing (PR1073). (Approved)
m.
Koka Booth Amphitheatre at
Regency Park – Management
Plan and Budget (PR07-11) (1) Approval of SMG's Management Plan and Budget for the 2007 season (Approved) (2) Reducing the Amphitheatre special revenue fund budget at October 31, 206 for the first four months of the Town’s fiscal year 2007 to equal expenses for the same time period and returning the remaining cash flow balance to the Amphitheatre Fund Fund Balance (Approved) (3) Appropriation of $533,872 from the Amphitheatre Fund Fund Balance and the remaining amount of $411,776 from General Fund Fund Balance to the respective Amphitheatre Fund accounts necessary to execute the 2007 season (Since these numbers reflect estimates to complete the year, it is understood that these respective amounts will be adjusted to correspond with actual amounts remaining at the end of October 2006.) (Approved) (4) Recognition of a $199,500 reimbursement from the Amphitheatre Fund to the General Fund’s facilities management division for the 2007 season support ($170,000 support and $29,500 special projects). (Approved)
n.
FY06 Sidewalk List:
Glasgow Road
(PL07-003)
C. RECOGNITIONS, REPORTS, AND PRESENTATIONS
C. RECOGNITIONS, REPORTS, AND PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of a proclamation designating October 16 through October 22, 2006 as Navy Week in the Town of Cary. (Mayor McAlister)
Mayor McAlister presented the following proclamation:
DESIGNATING OCTOBER 16 THROUGH OCTOBER 22, 2006 AS NAVY WEEK IN THE TOWN OF CARY
Whereas, Cary is the hometown of approximately 150 Active and Reserve Sailors and their families. Many of these sailors are faithfully serving their country and our community at home and abroad with distinguished service. Their “Honor, Courage and Commitment” make them both heroes and role models for everyone in Cary.
Whereas, Cary High School hosts a nationally prominent Naval Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps (NROTC). In addition, the Town of Cary is fortunate to have many distinguished United States Navy veterans who upon completion of their duties have added untold value throughout our community.
Whereas, Navy Week in Cary has been developed in order to celebrate the past, present and future between the United States Navy and our Town. To celebrate our long-standing collaborative efforts, sailors from the Triangle Region and from the future crew of the fast attack submarine USS North Carolina (SSN 777) will assist with community events at the Downtown Cary Public Library, a Habitat for Humanity project and at Green Hope High School.
Therefore, I, Ernest F. McAlister, Mayor of the Town of Cary, hereby proclaim Monday, October 16th through Sunday, October 22, 2006 as Navy Week in Cary. Furthermore, I encourage all citizens to join in a salute to the Naval Forces of the United States in recognition of their years of effective and dedicated service to our country.
(Proclamation 06-080 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)
_________________________
D. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.
Rezoning 06-REZ-21, Regency Planned Development District Amendment
Background Information
Existing Zoning: Planned Development District (PDD) Requested Zoning: Planned Development District Amendment
Existing Zoning Conditions: Tract 7: 180,000 square feet office
Requested Zoning Conditions:
Add 60,000 square feet of office to Tract 7 for a total of 240,000
square feet of office and to reduce the Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer
from 100’ to 50’. Conformity with Land Use Plan Designation: Yes. The adopted land use designation is Office and Institutional (OFC/INS).
Acreage: Approximately 21.32
Location: Regency Parkway (north of Glade Park Road)
Applicant: Glenda Toppe Jerry Turner & Associates, Inc. 905 Jones Franklin Road Raleigh, NC 27606 gtoppe@jerryturnerassoc.com (919) 851-7150
Town of Cary Case Manager: Jennifer Currin, Planner II 316 N Academy Street, Cary, NC 27513 (919) 469-4342
jennifer.currin@townofcary.org Summary of Requested Rezoning
The maximum square footage of office currently approved for Tract 6 would remain unchanged to allow 115,000 square feet of office. However, this request would increase the maximum amount of office space between Tracts 6 and 7 to 355,000 square feet. The applicant is also requesting that the Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer be reduced from 100’ to 50’.
A. Transportation Future Roadway Section: 2-3 lane collector road, 78’ ROW Schedule: Not scheduled Sidewalk Requirements: Sidewalk required on both sides Bicycle Requirements: Wide outside lane or striped bike lane required Transit Requirements: No requirements
B. Traffic Impact Analysis: The existing Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) will need to be amended to add the increase in the office space in Tract 7.
C. Parks & Greenways: According to the approved Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Facilities Master Plan there are no parks or greenways issues related to this site.
3. Reference Information Meeting Schedule: Town Council Public Hearing Date: October 12, 2006
Planning & Zoning Board: Date: November 20, 2006
Town Council Action: Date: December 14, 2006
Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted (July 31, 2006) (Please note that the following statement is that of the applicant and does not necessarily represent the views or opinions of the Town of Cary):
How is the proposed request reasonable? In explaining how it is reasonable, please address the following, if applicable:
Development Plan Issues: The purpose of a rezoning is to evaluate the appropriateness of this land use for these parcels of land. Specific development requirements related to the technical aspects of land development, such as access, stormwater management, road improvements, utility line placement, road connectivity and landscape plantings, are not considered during the rezoning process. However, all of these development issues must be addressed for compliance with existing requirements spelled out in the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) when the site or subdivision plan is submitted.
Staff’s power point presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit.
Mrs. Glenda Toppe of Jerry Turner and Associates, representing the applicant, stated the approved master plan calls for office on this site, and this request would increase office to 240,000 square feet. She stated council formerly stressed the importance of maintaining office designation, and this request will increase the office use. The stated the thoroughfare corridor buffer reduction from 100 to 50 feet will allow more flexibility with parking and building placement. She added that the grade change and additional planting will meet the intent of the buffer.
No one came forward to speak; Mayor McAlister closed the public hearing
ACTION: Referred to the November 20, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board meeting
_________________________
E. PUBLIC SPEAKS OUT (one hour time limit)
Mr. Rod Keller voiced his opposition to the Crossroads and Piney Plans cases on tonight’s agenda.
Mr. Steven Gebeaux spoke in favor of a 35 mph speed limit on Louis Stephens Road. Refer to Exhibit H for his comments and handouts.
Ms. Cynthia O’Neal spoke about the Tryon Road bid award on tonight’s agenda. Refer to Exhibit I for Ms. O’Neal’s comments and handouts.
Ms. Jill Bryant spoke against the Crossroads and Piney Plans cases on tonight’s agenda.
Ms. Ruth Merkle referenced the October 2006 Triangle Business Journal article that stated there’s a shortage of land for office development in the Cary area. She spoke against the Crossroads and Piney Plans cases on tonight’s agenda, and she believes the land should remain for office development.
Mr. John McConnell stated he and Glenn Futrell own the land involved in the Piney Plains and Crossroads request on tonight’s agenda. He urged council to support these requests.
Ms. Tracy Filomena spoke against the Crossroads and Piney Plans cases on tonight’s agenda.
Mr. Nick Lavale spoke against the Crossroads and Piney Plans cases on tonight’s agenda.
_________________________
F. LAND DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION ITEMS (click on link for full text minutes of these items)
1.
Rezoning Petition 06-REZ-09, Crossroads Activity Center Overlay
District Amendment
2.
Activity Center Concept Plan 06-AC-01, Piney Plains
3.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment 06-CPA-03, Bashyam Property G. COMMITTEE REPORTS (discussion items)
1. Planning and Development Committee, September 28, 2006 (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)
a.
Highland Village Amendment of Loan Terms (PL07-005)
Updated 10/6/2006 STAFF REPORT
Planning and Development Committee, September 28, 2006
From: Jeffery G. Ulma, Planning Director Background:
On July 10, 2003, Town Council authorized financial
assistance to DHIC, Inc. for the development of Highland Village, a
258-unit residential development. This assistance consisted of a
$250,000 grant and a $600,000 loan. The grant and loan were to be
utilized as construction funds for the Commons at
Highland
Village and Highland Manor, which are the two senior
housing components within the larger Highland Village project. After
being utilized for construction, the $600,000 loan was to be repaid to
the Town by December 31, 2005 and then re-lent for forty (40) second
mortgages for lower income families purchasing townhomes and
condominiums within the project. The second mortgages would be repaid
to the Town over a 30- year period at 3% interest.
Last fall, DHIC informed the Town that the project was
facing a $1,041,000 shortfall to complete the homeowner portion of the
project and requested assistance from the Town to close this funding
gap. On November 10, 2005 the Town Council approved a modification of
the repayment terms of the $600,000 loan to amend the due date and
extend it for a period of 36-48 months depending upon the loan terms of
the primary lender, SunTrust Bank. Council’s action also allowed DHIC
to repay the loan through a mechanism of deed transfer fees whereby the
Town would be repaid a portion of the loan every time one of the
townhome units sold over the next 30 years. Although this action met a
portion of DHIC’s needs, an additional funding gap of approximately
$441,000 remained. DHIC agreed to look at cost saving measures and to
seek additional funding from Wake County under their affordable housing
programs. Although the Mayor wrote a letter indicating Town support of
DHIC’s funding request, Wake County did not fund the Highland Village
Townhome project. Additionally, other cost-saving measures have not
materialized for a variety of reasons. In particular a plan to
eliminate recreation payment-in-lieu fees of $147,000 by converting the
townhome project to a condominium project was not possible due to
builder concerns.
DHIC has re-examined the project in light of these latest
events. By redesigning the project to provide for slightly larger and
taller units with an accompanying price increase, the funding gap may be
reduced to $182,000. The gap consists of $147,000 for Town
payment-in-lieu fees and $35,000 for the construction of steps leading
from the Village Green to High House Road. DHIC has re-approached the
Town to request assistance in meeting this funding gap. Specifically
DHIC is requesting the Town to:
1.
Approve the new design
2. Approve
a $147,000 capital grant
3. Approve
a $35,000 capital grant
4. Further
amend the loan terms to redefine an “affordable” sale
Staff Analysis:
Regarding the redefinition of an affordable sale, the
Town has set a precedent for basing “affordability” on price rather than
income with the affordable housing requirement in
Cary Park. The
difference is that the Town provided no financial assistance to Cary
Park whereas $850,000 has already been provided to
Highland
Village with a request for $182,000 more. Primary goals
of the Town’s affordable housing program are to increase the
supply of affordable housing in Cary and the ability of low and
moderate income families to access that housing. Granting
DHIC’s request accomplishes the goal of increasing the supply but would
not ensure that the Town’s investment in the project is achieving its
original intent of getting moderate income families access to the
housing nor that the townhome prices would remain affordable in the long
term. DHIC has suggested they include a “right of first refusal” in the
sales documents that would give DHIC the ability to repurchase the units
and make them available to other lower income families.
Fiscal Impact:
It should also be noted that if the homeownership phase
of Highland Village is not completed due to this funding gap, it would
place the repayment of the $600,000 loan into jeopardy as there would be
no repayment mechanism.
Staff Recommendation:
Town Council approve the redesign of the Highland Village townhome units
as requested by DHIC and provide guidance to staff regarding each of
DHIC’s other requests for 1) an additional capital grant of $147,000 for
recreation payment-in-lieu fees; 2) a capital grant of $35,000 to
complete the pedestrian steps; and 3) to modify the loan terms to
redefine an “affordable” sale from one based upon income to one based
upon sales price with a base sales price of $184,500. Additional Information Since the Planning and Development Committee Meeting:
At the request of the Planning and Development Committee, DHIC has provided further information regarding their right of first refusal policies. These policies are:
Other factors may impact any given transaction and DHIC will not guarantee that it would purchase a home that meets the above conditions.
DHIC has also informed staff that on September 28, 2006, the DHIC Board of Directors committed $200,000 from its operating budget as a match to their request for additional funding from the Town. This funding will help ensure that the project is completed with the planned amenities package.
Fiscal Impact: DHIC has requested an additional $182,000 ($147,000 recreation payment-in-lieu + $35,000 steps) in grants to support Highland Village which would bring the Town’s total investment in the development to $1,032,000. At the request of Planning and Development Committee, staff has identified possible sources of funding to meet the $182,000 request. Should the Council wish to grant this request, the following approach is recommended:
Staff Recommendations: 1) Staff recommends that the Town Council approve the redesign of the Highland Village townhome units as requested by DHIC. 2) Staff recommends that the Town Council approve the request for an additional capital grant of $147,000 for recreation payment-in-lieu fees to be funded by $52,339 in unallocated Affordable Housing funding and $94,661 ($147,000 minus $52,339) from the $600,000 designated for TCAP projects. Staff also recommends that if Council wishes to keep $600,000 available for future TCAP projects, that $94,661 be transferred from general fund fund balance into the Affordable Housing fund as outlined above under the fiscal impact section to ensure $600,000 is available for future TCAP projects. 3) Staff recommends that the Town Council deny the DHIC request for $35,000 for the pedestrian steps. 4) Staff recommends that the loan terms be modified to redefine an “affordable” sale from one based upon income to one based upon sales price with a base sales price not to exceed $184,500. This modification should be accompanied by a requirement that DHIC retain a “right of first refusal” per their existing policies to help ensure that the townhomes remain affordable in the long term.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith returned to the meeting room.
Mr. Roseland suggested to dispense first with the two policy recommendations (the redesign of the Highland Village townhome units as requested by DHIC and to modify the loan terms to redefine an “affordable” sale from one based upon income to one based upon sales price with a base sales price of $184,500).
ACTION: Mr. Roseland moved to approve the two policy issues as stated in the above paragraph. Mrs. Robinson provided the second.
Ms. Dorrel is saddened to sacrifice a part of one of the Town’s goals in order to meet the financial requirements of the project. She learned in a recent discussion with DHIC that the municipality typically provides a much larger investment. She stated the council should remember this with future affordable housing decisions, because the Town’s lofty goals didn’t match the Town’s investment in the project. She thinks the committee recommendation is the most practical approach to ensure the project is completed.
Mayor McAlister suggested that Mr. Roseland amend his motion to include the funding issues so council can vote on it as one piece. (Committee also unanimously recommended approval of $35,000 to complete the pedestrian steps and $147,000 for recreation payment-in-lieu fees with the general fund fund balance as the funding source.)
ACTION: Mr. Roseland amended his motion to include the funding issues (as noted above). Mrs. Robinson did not amend her second. Mrs. Robison provided a second to the amended motion.
Mayor McAlister explained that this motion now reflects the committee recommendation with the funding source from the general fund.
Mrs. Robinson is in favor of funding the request but not from the general fund.
ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion to approve the committee’s recommendation with funding from the general fund fund balance. Mrs. Robinson voted “no;” all others voted “aye.” The motion carried by majority vote.
_________________________
2. Operations Committee, October 4, 2006 (any item pulled from the committee consent agenda for discussion [agenda item B.4.] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda) (Mrs. Robinson)
a.
Bid Award
for the Tryon Road Phase 2 Widening
Project
(EN07-023)
Updated 10/6/2006 STAFF REPORT Operations Committee, September 6, 2006
Bid Award for the
Tryon Road
Phase 2 Widening Project
(EN07-023) From: Tim Bailey, PE, Director of Engineering
Prepared by: Joe Moore, PE, Engineering Services Manager
On August 24, 2006, staff received bids for the Tryon Road Widening (Section A) project. This project involves widening approximately 1.5 miles of Tryon Road between Kildaire Farm Road and Piney Plains Road to a four-lane, median-divided roadway with wide outside lanes and sidewalks. When finished, this project will complete Cary’s portion of the Tryon Road corridor.
The town received four bids for the project.
While Mountain Creek Contractors submitted the lowest responsive bid, there is some concern from staff on whether it is the lowest responsible bid. Staff’s concerns center around the contractor’s experience, capacity, location, and workload. These concerns are described in greater detail.
Experience While Mountain Creek Contractors has experience building culverts and bridges, they have no experience building 1.5 miles of a 4 lane, median-divided roadway in an urban setting. Their list of equipment and past projects reinforces this background of specialization in culverts and limited experience in road construction. Staff is concerned that they will not have the necessary background to coordinate the different elements of this work, or the necessary equipment to complete the work.
Capacity to do work in-house As a minimum, the Town requires all road contractors to self perform 50% of the total work. This requirement prevents the sub-contractors from dictating the schedule of a project, and is also a good indicator of the contractor’s ability to step in and perform work for an underperforming or negligent sub contractor. Staff is still reviewing the scope of Mountain Creek’s work, but it does not appear as though this threshold is met.
Capacity to do this magnitude of work Mountain Creek Contractors has never pursued a job this big as the prime contractor. By their admission, this project would replace four other projects and would be the focus of their work effort for the tenure of the project. Staff is concerned that the pooling and maximizing of these resources may leave little room to handle peak or emergency demands.
The majority of Mountain Creek’s fleet is centered on their specialization in culvert construction. Contractors hired on the Town’s other major road projects have had a broader array and a deeper pool of equipment. Staff does not consider the amount of equipment for other activities, such as grading, to be sufficient for backup or peak demands.
Workload While conducting reference checks, staff discovered Mountain Creek Contractors were absent from two job sites for extended periods of time. In one case, the absence was for three weeks and in the other case the absence was for three and a half months. In the opinion of the references, Mountain Creek Contractors may have overextended their resources by taking on too much work. It is uncertain if this peak has passed, but the past evidence of this experience is a cause of concern.
Citizen Involvement By its nature as an “open site,” road construction involves a significant amount of interaction and scrutiny by the public and the media. Cary’s record of responsiveness to citizen’s concerns and media’s requests only magnifies this interaction. On this section of Tryon Road, the contractor will manage approximately 20,000 cars a day and interact with approximately 60 different families and businesses along the project. Mountain Creek Contractors have typically been employed in rural locations or as a sub-contractor to a larger company. These experiences would typically insulate the contractor from citizen interaction and media contact, and they do not represent the experience on other road projects staff has managed throughout the Town.
Location Mountain Creek Contractors are headquartered 2 ½ hours away in Catawba, North Carolina. They plan to rent a yard to store their equipment for the job and plan to have the project manager visit the site twice a week. Should the need arise during emergency or high demand situations, the ability to get additional equipment or an acting officer will be hampered by this distance. Staff requires 24-hour access to, and immediate response by, a contractor’s officers.
In summary, while Mountain Creek Contractors has a good reputation for their craftsmanship on culverts, staff feels this bid is overstepping their capabilities on a large, high-profile project and warrants the consideration of the next lowest bidder. Staff would consider Mountain Creek Contractors for a smaller road widening project on future bid awards. Rea Contracting has the experience of performing this | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||