DRAFT

(Contact the town clerk's office at 919-469-4011 for official minutes)

Work Session Minutes of the Town of Cary , NC

Activity Center Concept Plan and Mixed Use Overlay District

Conference Room 10035 , 316 N. Academy St. , Cary

October 2, 2007

Present:  Mayor Ernie McAlister, Council Members Marla Dorrel, Erv Portman, Jennifer Robinson, and Nels Roseland

Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith and Council Member Julie Robison arrived late and their arrival is noted in the minutes. 

Mayor McAlister called the meeting to order at 4:34 p.m.

Planning Director Jeff Ulma reviewed the policy, implementation, mechanics, and results of the Activity Center Concept Plan and Mixed Use Overlay District.  He also addressed some known issues and concerns.  (Staff’s PowerPoint presentation is attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.)

Mayor Pro Tem Smith and Council Member Julie Robison arrived at this point in the meeting at 4:38 p.m.

Mr. Ulma said that the transitions and gradients of uses were already being planned and laid out before the land use plan was developed.  He used Preston Corners, the Cornerstone Shopping Center , and Crescent/Waverly as examples.

Mr. Ulma said the hierarchy doesn’t leave any room for in betweens.  He said when doing the assessment they may want to look at whether it should be a continuous range or a different way of measuring the amount. 

Mr. Portman said when you have a commercial office, you have target numbers that are very clearly plus or minus.  When going to multifamily you link that one multifamily unit per 1000 square feet of commercial, office, retail.  He said Cary recently experienced the minimum of one dwelling unit per 1000 square feet of commercial which precluded the applicant for the Davis/High House corner from including single family.  He asked what public policy good is achieved by triggering an absolute minimum in requiring density above that.  Mr. Ulma said that it was a planning policy direction established at that time.  He said that it was to achieve the overall objective of creating single family low density residential, which is a suburban standard.  Putting single family at lower densities inside inhibits the ability to provide medium and higher density residential that they were trying to accomplish in the plan. 

Mr. Ulma said that the plan laid out the policy direction but there was a period of time that Cary did not have a mixed use zoning district.  Planned Unit Developments (PUD’s) were an overlay district until they were changed in 2003 with the Land Development Ordinance (LDO).  He said that some examples of those are the Arboretum Planned Development District (PDD), Riggsbee Farm now Stonecreek Village , and Stonecreek.  He said they were trying to define at a PUD level without the benefit of a site plan.   

Mr. Roseland said there are five issues:  (1) true vertical mixed uses seem to be the rare exception; (2) there’s no density limitations, no upper cap or range of what’s allowed with the mixed use proposals in terms of the total number of units, especially for apartments; (3) quality standards haven’t been defined; (4) time of public squares and public places; and (5) the mandatory nature of the process.  He said it is really defining council’s vision—what they want to see and how to get there.  He asked if they should have density limitations for their visions of urban versus suburban. 

Mr. Portman said that the mandatory nature of the overlay has become a problem.  The applicant is precluded from requesting a rezoning to anything else, so the overlay becomes a rezoning.  He said that the PDD’s were mixed use planning tools and have served as good foundation for creating mixed use areas (although not at urban densities).  He said council needs to think through the urban scope in the mixed use overlay separate from the mixed use concept itself.  He said they need to provide more flexibility.

Mr. Portman asked if Cary would be better served to replace the mixed use overlay concepts with modifications to the PUD so that both segments are not in the LDO.  The planned unit development would in effect be a rezoning, which would be a cleaner approach.  He said we currently have the ability for public input.  We modified the LDO to mirror the state as it relates to protest petitions in all areas except mixed use sketch plans.  He said another issue is that traditional zoning normally defines maximums, and here they are defining minimums but have reduced some of the other corresponding controls they relate to concerns of absorbance on roads and schools.  He said that they need to think about what public policy objective they are trying to achieve.  It would be simpler if they went back and tooled the planned development districts to allow the mixed use, require it be a straight vanilla rezoning, and bring it forth consistent with state law for protest petitions. 

Ms. Dorrel said there is conflict between good land use planning and what the people want.  She said if it’s not what the people want it’s not good land use planning for them.  She said the places they are looking at for development all have a unique set of circumstances.  They need to find ways to customize to suit the situation.  She said one concerns is that if they switch to PDD they will lose the level of detail that they get in mixed use sketch plans.

Mr. Portman said it comes down to legal question about what is the PDD ordinance, the rights it confers and expectations from the community for the community to give those rights.  He said if they give additional flexibility on land use, they have a right to request more specificity.

Ms. Dorrel said they need to also look at the links to traffic.  In looking at flexibility they need to have a discussion about who it will benefit, how it will be exercised, and whether the benefit of flexibility always goes to the developer. 

Ms. Dorrel left the meeting at this point at 5:32 p.m.

Mrs. Robinson said the end result will only be know when it’s built.  She would like the whole process cleaned up so that there is clearer understanding of what to expect at the intersections.  If mixed use is kept, it need to be set as a range. 

Mayor Pro Tem Smith said they need to look at the intent.  If you go with suburban you get more traffic.  He is concerned about the loss of mix, and doesn’t think they want to see high rises.  Cary needs to remain unique and maybe have caps for height restrictions.   

Mayor Pro Tem Smith said he has observed two trends:  (1) the formal conditions adopted as a Town; and (2) the neighborhood managing those conditions rather than Town inspectors.  They need to firm up the process and have a way to enforce conditions.

Mrs. Robinson said that council needs to determine if they want to pursue high density nodes at the intersections or provide a mix at the nodes

Mrs. Robison said that some of the problems with mixed use sketch plans and the overlay districts is that one size does not fits all; it needs to be unique to the area.  She expressed an interest in form based zoning which works especially well for infill development.  She said the standards are set on a unique basis rather than one size fits all.

Mayor McAlister left the meeting at this point at 5:42 p.m.

Mr. Ulma said in performance based zoning someone presents a proposal that asks if they are performing to the desired level that the community wants and whether it fits in the location.  He said you may have to provide more parameters. 

Mrs. Robison said they can be more proscriptive as a community and do more site-based small area plans or overlay district planning and work with the surrounding residents.  She said the more focused and unique approach to the remaining overlay districts would serve well and respond well to the community concerns.  She’s been disappointed with the level of detail with the mixed use sketch plans because it’s not achieving the goals originally sought by council when the concept was adopted.  Mr. Ulma said a lot of the conflict is with master planning to a level of detail and how it responds to the market or other changes. 

Mr. Roseland said infill parcels are all that’s left in Cary .  He said the question is how to tweak the process to add value to the neighborhoods and how to add value in terms of what’s in it for the neighborhood. 

Mayor Pro Tem Smith said he likes the overall arching concepts of the unique DNA which looks at the local flavor.  He likes the fact that infill ought to have a higher standard.  He said they need to strike a balance between flexibility and providing the community with detail. 

Mrs. Robison asked if they could prioritize the overlay intersection districts where there is still significant development to occur, such as Cary Parkway and Evans Road , and work from a planning perspective to get the unique character and DNA compatibility.  She said the residents in that area care about how those two corners are developed. 

Mr. Portman said they can use that corner as a pilot to see if it will work.  He said council should agree on policy they want to happen as they do infill and drive those hard.  The current code is too specific.  He said that the preamble of the LDO talks about development which is compatible and consistent with adjoining land uses, developments of scale and intensity consistent with the area, and development consistent with the infrastructure that the area is able to provide.  He said the current guidelines have unintended consequences because it is tending to clear cut and mass grade to achieve the density objectives.  Some of the mixed use is incompatible with the preamble in the LDO. 

Mrs. Robison said she has problem with going with the PDD or PUD because it implies a district which is an assemblage of massive land.  She said they are looking for something different and that’s what they were trying with the mixed use sketch plan.

Mr. Ulma said they do have a minor PDD option.  He said historically PDDs were large 1000 acre, 700 acre, or 500 acre projects, but there is currently an option in the code for a smaller geographic area—25 acres. 

Mrs. Robinson summarized council’s agreement:  (1) that infill projects require higher standards and that certain attributes are universally appreciated by citizens which include good materials, walkability, green open space, common space, height of buildings and compatibility; (2) they want greater clarity for citizens in their role and involvement; and (3) flexibility that ensures quality but doesn’t drive high density--there’s no mandate.  She said the question remains whether council wants all of the corners to have a vertical mix or if a horizontal mix acceptable.  That information is needed in order to provide direction to staff.  

Mr. Ulma said that the Town already has most of the things mentioned.  He said they are just not getting the projects that meet those requirements or development proposals are being submitted that don’t match what the community wants. 

Mrs. Robison said what’s missing from the summary is the unique approach required at the remaining sites.  She said it requires more preplanning with the involved stakeholders before anything is proposed.  She council wants Cary to build out in such a way that the remaining development compliments what already exist and fits in with the DNA of the area. 

Mayor Pro Tem Smith said they need to toughen up on the standards. 

Mr. Ulma said staff can categorize the topical areas and key pieces and may be able to start working on a potential procedure that blends what’s been discussed. 

Mr. Portman said they should have one way throughout the LDO of dealing with protest petitions and ensure they are in compliance with state law on rezonings. 

Mr. Roseland asked if the mixed use sketch plans are administrative protest petitions of they are legislative protests.  Town Attorney Chris Simpson said that council is making legislative decisions but they are not rezoning, so they don’t fall under the same protest requirement.

Mrs. Robison asked when the rezoning action took place.  Mr. Ulma responded that it was May 26, 2003 and ratified effective July 1 2003 . 

Mr. Portman said he would like to see one method for dealing with protest petitions that apply across the board.  He thinks council should be setting policy for infill.  It is a mistake to do detailed planning.  Mrs. Robison said they haven’t defines the level of detail. 

Mr. Coleman said staff will schedule another work session as soon as possible at the wishes of council. 

Mayor Pro Tem Smith adjourned the meeting at 6:18 p.m.