|
Quality of Life Work Session May 22, 2006 316 N. Academy St., Cary, NC Conference Room 11130
Present: Mayor Ernie McAlister, Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith, Council Members Marla Dorrel, and Nels Roseland; Jennifer Robinson and Julie Robison arrived late, and their arrival times are noted in the minutes
Absent: Council Member Mike Joyce
Mayor McAlister started the meeting at 8:38 a.m.
Mrs. Robinson arrived at 8:40 a.m., and Mrs. Robison arrived at 8:42 a.m.
The facilitator, Steve Straus, asked for council feedback on the May 15 session.
Mayor McAlister: He thinks it’s a good use of time; he’s still uncertain of the outcome.
Ms. Dorrel: She’s disappointed. Even though it’s good work, it’s the same work that’s been done in the past. It doesn’t feel new and exciting. She thought the council would use a different lens (family, neighborhood) and she doesn’t think it’s being done. She does like the outcome based approach.
Mrs. Robinson: She concurred with Ms. Dorrel in that she doesn’t think the work has been focused on creating a community.
Mr. Roseland: He had hoped the group could define what makes Cary unique. He doesn’t think the work to-date crystallizes the vision of what makes Cary unique from other towns in N.C.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith: He’s interesting in maintaining the small town charm.
Mr. Coleman: He stated the creation of community was the main theme of the subcommittee meetings. Historically staff has tried to make all efforts feed into this overall concept of creating and maintaining the community. He stated the council sets the vision. He stated the group may want to spend time defining the focus area.
Mr. Straus: He asked the council goals for a unique community and asked how they would know this is achieved.
Mr. Roseland: He stated the council shouldn’t be satisfied with just “maintaining.” He wants to have the best.
Ms. Dorrel: She wants a unique community identity. She stated Cary is known as a beige town, but it’s not representative of who we are.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith: He stated we’ve had a difficult couple of years. There’s a lot going on in the community, and the question for council is whether we lead, encourage, etc.
Ms. Dorrel: She stated citizens rally around community initiatives.
Mrs. Robinson: She concurred with the idea of engaging people to rally around something new.
Ms. Dorrel: She stated there are many people in Cary with energy and a focus on family and social consciousness. She asked the Town’s leadership role in bringing people around these initiatives. She believes the issue of who’s paying is a problem. She doesn’t think the Town has adapted well to its population. She thinks the Town should be more open to new ideas and new people becoming part of the core.
Mr. Roseland: He stated the council members all have a superlative vision, but it comes with a superlative price tag.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith: He stated we can’t pay for it all so we look at things in an isolated manner. He stated all things must wait their turn or council will need to come up with creative ways to deal with them (private funding, etc.).
Mayor McAlister: He stated he’s hearing we’re defined by physical facilities, of which we have several. In addition, how the council makes decisions and sets goals should elevate us above what other towns do. He suggested that council reevaluate goals to ensure we’re at a higher level than everyone else.
Mrs. Robinson: She stated the objective of the community foundation is to include people who aren’t normally involved. She invited council to attend a meeting to get a sense of what they’re trying to do. She stated everything about the Town revolves around the concept of planning, and services and amenities are what the Town provides as well as opportunities for people to engage. She worries that what’s developing now won’t be the same quality as what’s been built in the past. She wants to look at planning strategies.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith: He stated development always comes in at the high end of the density range.
Mrs. Robinson: She asked how to provide incentives for the pursuit of something superior. She stated that clustering sounded great when the council discussed the southwest plan; however, the actual clustering that’s occurring isn’t special or unique.
Mr. Roseland: He added that there’s no public space in the middle.
Ms. Dorrel: She stated council should have an agreement on the goals for neighborhoods and should focus on the gaps.
Mr. Straus: He stated he’s hearing a three-part vision and a three-part role for Town. The three-part vision includes: (1) inter-relationships between neighborhoods (2) pride in superior physical facilities and services (3) desire for the Town to be viewed as a community. The three-part Town role includes: (1) facilitate energy of others (2) lead – provide direction to help galvanize energy (3) fill in gaps where the natural energy of the community won’t accomplish the vision.
Ms. Dorrel: She stated in the past the private sector initiated and developed concepts and plans, sometimes in conjunction with the Town and sometimes independently. They raised funds and the Town would sometimes join in and take over (i.e. Page Walker, CVA, Hemlock Bluffs, skate park, senior center, etc.). She stated over time this has shifted and the Town has taken on more of the responsibility.
Mayor McAlister: He stated the concern about local vs. non-local developers probably isn’t a new concern.
Ms. Dorrel: She stated it was very clear to her when she moved to Cary that a high standard was expected. Following this there was an “arm-twisting” period, where this tactic was used to achieve a certain standard. She stated the council should determine how to maintain this message that a high quality is expected.
Ms. Dorrel: She stated it’s important to consider the older, more established neighborhoods in the discussions about building a sense of community.
The council participated in an exercise to better define the council’s vision and the Town’s role. The results follow.
Vision:
Town’s role:
Additional discussion follows.
Mr. Coleman: He’s seen a strategy over time (i.e. used by developers, etc.) to isolate the council members and have one-on-one meetings with each of them. He stated this often plays the council against the staff. He stated if council sets a clear standard, then staff can present the same message. He stated we need to work as a team to communicate this.
Mayor McAlister: He stated this is fostered by the “count to four mentality” (all they need is a majority vote).
Mayor Pro Tem Smith: He stated it’s his policy to always include another council member in these meetings.
Ms. Dorrel: She stated council should communicate with one another about these individual meetings.
Mayor McAlister: He stated one solution may to do group meetings instead of individual meetings and possibly include staff in these meetings.
Mr. Coleman: He stated developers, property owners, and citizens attempt to get council involved too early in the process -- even before it’s gone through the public hearing process and the issues have been identified. He stated this often results in confusion about the real issues.
Mrs. Robinson: She thinks there’s value in meeting early to clarify and/or set expectations.
Mr. Coleman: He suggested that standards should be in ordinances; they shouldn’t be negotiated on each case. He stated inefficiency results when staff and council address these issues for months for each case. He suggested that staff work with the developer and bring the issues to council as a package instead of council members participating in all the individual meetings.
Mrs. Robinson: She suggested raising the standard. She believes the council should set expectations. She stated every neighborhood should have meeting space, and the size should vary based on the size of the neighborhood. She stated council should host meetings at these locations with neighbors who are adjacent to proposed developments.
Mayor McAlister: He stated council should adhere to standards. He stated it’s acceptable for someone to offer more than the standards, but council shouldn’t give in to the public.
Mrs. Robison: She stated predictability is essential, and we don’t currently have it.
Mrs. Robinson: She stated one size doesn’t always fit all.
Mrs. Robinson: She suggested delving deeper into this issue and discussing how to codify the standards that we want.
Mr. Straus: He stated he hears ground rules: (1) talk to developers only with another board member and staff present; (2) discuss projects with developers only after the first public hearing has occurred; (3) don’t negotiate standards; (4) communicate with other board members when someone attributes comments to individual council members.
Mayor McAlister: He stated developers shouldn’t solicit council support too early. He stated it’s fine for council to discuss their vision and standards with developers early in the process. He stated council is representative of the people, so not meeting really isn’t an option. He suggested, however, that individual council members should be guarded so they don’t give an up-front commitment before the project has gone through the process.
Mrs. Robinson: She stated the council doesn’t have a lot of informal opportunities to talk. She sees value in getting together once a month with no agenda for people to air concerns and thoughts. Mrs. Robison and Mayor McAlister concurred.
Mr. Ulma: He stated staff is working on a staff report that will include a supplement to the ordinance – section by section – to help describe the intent and the expectations. He stated staff filters a lot of which council isn’t even aware.
Mrs. Robison: She stated communication among council and staff and council and council is important. She suggested clarifying the process so that council and staff as a team can uphold the process. She referenced the council’s rules of procedures, which established a framework for council operations, and she suggested that this might could be expanded to apply it more to the development decision-making process.
Mayor McAlister: He wants to consider occasional meetings with council and key staff just to talk informally. Mrs. Robison suggested quarterly meetings.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith: He stated he doesn’t want the quarterly meetings to become a staff burden. He hopes that the concept of quarterly meetings enhances council communications.
Mrs. Robinson: She would like to tour other areas of Town (similar to the western Cary tour). She suggested that district representatives could host individual council members.
Mrs. Robison: She suggested a walking tour of the downtown area.
Mrs. Robinson: She wants council to come up with a core question for staff to ask before each decision to help ensure that each decision strengthens the community.
Mr. Straus: He asked if council is ready to turn the vision/town role and key areas over to staff for their work, after which is would come back to council.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith: He stated staff has seven individual council members to please, and often there’s no consensus among the council. He stated when this happens, staff spends a lot of time creating a solution to try to accommodate all the wishes of the council. He thinks if there’s not council consensus, then the staff should come back to council as a group.
Mr. Coleman: He stated council has provided enough direction for staff to come up with suggestions.
Ms. Dorrel: She’s concerned it’s not developed enough, and thinks it might be helpful for staff to find the gaps.
Mr. Straus: He stated staff can focus on the vision part of the document (herein); he stated there’s still a lot of work on the role of town portion of the document.
The council undertook the planning focus area, and the results follow.
Town of Cary Quality of Life Initiative Outcome-Based Performance Plan Focus Area #4: Planning and DevelopmentIntermediate Goals:1. consistent application of high quality standards
GOAL 1: STRATEGIES AND MEASURESGoal #1: consistent application of high quality standards
Strategies Designed to Improve Goal Results:
1. None listed at this time
GOAL 2: STRATEGIES AND MEASURESGoal #2: maintain small town feel
Strategies Designed to Improve Goal Results:
GOAL 3: STRATEGIES AND MEASURESGoal #3: connected neighborhoods
Strategies Designed to Improve Goal Results:
1. None listed at this time
GOAL 4: STRATEGIES AND MEASURESGoal #4: preserve natural terrain
Strategies Designed to Improve Goal Results:
1. None listed at this time
Council agreed on the following next steps:
Mayor McAlister adjourned the meeting at 12:36 p.m.
|