|
DRAFT Contact the town clerk at (919) 469-4011 for official minutes
Cary Town Council Minutes Thursday, August 28, 2008 6:30 p.m.
Council Chambers
Click on links within this document to view full text minutes.
Present: Mayor Harold Weinbrecht, Mayor Pro Tem Julie Robison, Council Members Gale Adcock, Don Frantz, Ervin Portman, Jennifer Robinson and Jack Smith
A. COMMENCEMENT
1. Call to Order (Mayor Weinbrecht)
Mayor Weinbrecht called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
_________________________
2. Ceremonial Opening (Mr. Frantz)
Mr. Frantz provided the ceremonial opening.
_________________________
3. Adoption of agenda (Town Council)
ACTION: Mr. Smith moved to adopt the agenda; Mrs. Adcock provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
B. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Weinbrecht announced that consent agenda item B.3.b., Payment-in-Lieu of Road Improvements Request by SAS Institute, Inc., is a SAS item, and he and Mrs. Adcock are both employed by SAS Institute. He read the following statement:
“G.S. 160A-75 states that no member shall be excused from voting except upon matters involving the consideration of the member’s own financial interest of official conduct or on matters on which the member is prohibited from voting (under certain other statutes). In all other cases, a failure to vote by a member who is physically present in the council chamber, or who has withdrawn without being excused by a majority vote of the remaining members present, shall be recorded as an affirmative vote.”
The mayor stated in other words, a council member may not vote if the outcome of the matter is reasonably likely to have a direct, substantial and readily identifiable financial impact on the member. He stated the town attorney has advised council that merely being an employee of an applicant does not trigger the prohibition.
1. Regular Consent Agenda
a. Consideration of approval of the minutes of the regular town council meeting held on August 14, 2008 and the minutes of the work session held on August 12, 2008. (Approved)
ACTION: Mrs. Adcock moved to approve the consent agenda; Mrs. Robison provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
b. Consideration of approval of the August tax report. (Mr. Bill Coleman)
The Wake County Board of Commissioners, in regular session on August 6, 2008, approved and accepted the enclosed tax report for the Town of Cary.
It is hereby submitted for your approval.
ACTION: Mrs. Adcock moved to approve the consent agenda; Mrs. Robison provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
c. Consideration of adoption of certificates of sufficiency and resolutions calling for public hearings on the following citizen-initiated annexations:
Annexation 08-A-10 Annexation
Petition Number: 08-A-10
OWNER(S):
Road, and
northwest of the South Cary Water Reclamation Facility UTILITIES:
MEETINGS: The documents that Council will consider for adoption at this meeting following CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OF ANNEXATION PETITION I, the undersigned Town Clerk of the Town of Cary, do hereby certify that I have investigated the sufficiency of Annexation Petition of L & L of Raleigh, Inc; Wake County Parcel Identification #’s: 0669934912, 0669934907, 0669943082, 0669943077, 0669943152, 0669943137, 0669943213, 0669943219, 0669943335, 0669943463, 0669935856, 0669945042, 0669945170, 0669945137, 0669936815, 0669936864, 0669946012, 0669946072, 0669937813, 0669937872, 0669938822, 0669938872, 0669939832, 0669939893, 0679030844, 0679031806, 0679031876, 0679032824, 0679042023, 0679041064, 0679041003, 0679040052, 0669949091, 0669949040, 0669938999, 0669938948, 0669937988, 0669947020; 6.14 acres plus 1.84± acres of adjacent right-of-way; as directed by the Town Council by resolution, and that my investigation reveals the following: 1. The signers of the Petition are the owners of the real property within the area proposed for annexation. 2. The area is contiguous to the municipal boundaries of the Town of Cary as defined by G.S. 160A-31, or is appropriate for annexation as a noncontiguous area as defined by 160A-58. This 8/28/2008.
RESOLUTION ORDERING PUBLICATION OF A
NOTICE OF WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Cary has received an annexation petition of L & L of Raleigh, Inc; Wake County Parcel Identification #’s: 0669934912, 0669934907, 0669943082, 0669943077, 0669943152, 0669943137, 0669943213, 0669943219, 0669943335, 0669943463, 0669935856, 0669945042, 0669945170, 0669945137, 0669936815, 0669936864, 0669946012, 0669946072, 0669937813, 0669937872, 0669938822, 0669938872, 0669939832, 0669939893, 0679030844, 0679031806, 0679031876, 0679032824, 0679042023, 0679041064, 0679041003, 0679040052, 0669949091, 0669949040, 0669938999, 0669938948, 0669937988, 0669947020; 6.14 acres plus 1.84± acres of adjacent right-of-way; requesting the annexation of certain lands contiguous to the municipal boundaries of the Town of Cary; and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has certified to the Town Council the sufficiency of said Petition as required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Cary, North Carolina that: Section I. A public hearing on the question of annexation of the area described herein will be held in the Council Chamber of the Town of Cary, 316 N. Academy Street, Cary, N.C. at 6:30 p.m. on 9/25/2008 at which time all residents and area owners in said territory and all residents of the Town of Cary will be given an opportunity to be heard. Section 2. The area proposed for annexation is described as follows: LEGAL
DESCRIPTION Section 3. Notice of public hearing shall be published in the Cary News, a newspaper having general circulation in the Town of Cary, at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the public hearing. ADOPTED 8/28/2008.
ACTION: Mrs. Adcock moved to approve the consent agenda; Mrs. Robison provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.
(Resolution is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)
_________________________
(2) Annexation 08-A-11
Annexation
Petition Number: 08-A-11
OWNER(S):
LOCATION:
Southwest corner of Carpenter
Fire Station Road and Green Level to Durham Road intersection UTILITIES:
MEETINGS: The documents that Council will consider for adoption at this meeting follows: CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OF ANNEXATION PETITION I, the undersigned Town Clerk of the Town of Cary, do hereby certify that I have investigated the sufficiency of Annexation Petition of Towerview
Properties LLC; as directed by the Town Council by resolution, and that my investigation reveals the following: 1. The signers of the Petition are the owners of the real property within the area proposed for annexation. 2. The area is contiguous to the municipal boundaries of the Town of Cary as defined by G.S. 160A-31, or is appropriate for annexation as a noncontiguous area as defined by 160A-58. This 8/28/2008. RESOLUTION ORDERING PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE QUESTION OF ANNEXATION PURSUANT TO G.S. 160A-31 WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Cary has received an annexation petition of Towerview Properties LLC; Wake County Parcel Identification #0725837997; 1.76 acres plus 0.46± acres of adjacent right-of-way; requesting the annexation of certain lands contiguous to the municipal boundaries of the Town of Cary; and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has certified to the Town Council the sufficiency of said Petition as required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Cary, North Carolina that Section I. A public hearing on the question of annexation of the area described herein will be held in the Council Chamber of the Town of Cary, 316 N. Academy Street, Cary, N.C. at 6:30 p.m. on 9/25/2008 at which time all residents and area owners in said territory and all residents of the Town of Cary will be given an opportunity to be heard. Section 2. The area proposed for annexation is described as follows: LEGAL
DESCRIPTION Section 3. Notice of public hearing shall be published in the Cary News, a newspaper having general circulation in the Town of Cary, at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the public hearing. ADOPTED 8/28/2008.
ACTION: Mrs. Adcock moved to approve the consent agenda; Mrs. Robison provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.
(Resolution is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)
_________________________
2. Land Development Consent Agenda (click on this link for the full text minutes of the land development consent agenda) a. Raftery Tract Park Development:
(1)
ANNEXATION PETITION 08-A-01
(2)
REZONING 08-REZ-02, Raftery Tract Park
b.
REZONING 08-REZ-08, Green Level Church Road Map Correction
3. Planning and Development Committee, August 21, 2008 (click on this link for full text minutes of the planning and development committee consent agenda)
a.
NCLM Green Challenge
(AD09-002)
b.
Payment-in-Lieu of Road
Improvements Request by SAS Institute, Inc.
(EN09-018)
c.
Request for Waiver from
Thoroughfare Improvement Requirements – Progress Energy Amberly
Substation (EN09-019)
d.
Reimbursement Contract:
Bradford Sanitary Sewer
(EN09-023)
e.
Administrative Procedures
Surrounding Development Services (FN09-002)
f.
Review Officer Authorization
(PL09-009)
g.
Donation of Artworks From Cary
Visual Art (PR09-003)
h.
Russell Hills Rezoning
Petition (PL09-008)
C. RECOGNITIONS, REPORTS, AND PRESENTATIONS
N/A
D. PUBLIC SPEAKS OUT
Mr. Craig McCrary stated as of today the daycare in his neighborhood appears to have vacated the premises. His remaining concern is that the daycare has moved to another location. He distributed photos of a sight distance problem on E. Dynasty, and the photos depict exiting from Empire Circle (refer to Exhibit, attached to and incorporated herein). He asked that the speed limit sign be moved and the trees be trimmed to allow a better line of sight. He stated the topographical problem can’t be as easily fixed.
_________________________
E. PUBLIC HEARINGS (click on this link for the full text minutes of the public hearing items)
1.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
08-SU-002, Heartwood Montessori School 2. Fumagalli Subdivision Development
a.
ANNEXATION PETITION 08-A-08
b.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 08-CPA-05, Fumagalli Subdivision
c.
REZONING 08-REZ-09, Fumagalli Subdivision
3. Villas at Cary Park Development
a.
ANNEXATION PETITION 08-A-07
b.
MIXED USE SKETCH PLAN 08-MU-003, Villas at Cary Park
4.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PARTF GRANT CONVERSION
PROJECT
F. LAND DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION ITEMS (click on this link for full text minutes of the land development discussion items)
1.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 07-CPA-11, Swift Creek Shopping Center
2.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 08-CPA-01
3.
SITE PLAN 03-SP-240-A,
Heartwood Montessori School G. COMMITTEE REPORTS (discussion items)
Planning and Development Committee, August 21, 2008 (any item pulled from the committee consent agenda for discussion [agenda item B.3.] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda) (Mr. Portman)
1. Design for Public
Art Gateway Feature to Replace Water Tower
(PR09-007)
STAFF REPORT Planning &
Development Committee, August 21, 2008 From:
Mary G. Henderson, Director, PRCR
Background As has been outlined for Council at its June 28, 2007 meeting, the water tower that has stood at Kildaire Farm Road and Pleasants Avenue is being replaced. Over the years several cellular service providers have attached their antenna to this tower.
At least one of the existing cellular service providers is interested in keeping antenna on this site. To do so, they must apply for a special use permit to construct a new tower structure. The Town’s Public Art Master Plan provides “... that public artworks with Town of Cary formally respond to, and sometimes become, the community’s unique or functional infrastructure.” The Plan cites cells towers as an example in which public art can interface with urban function and provide low-cost aesthetic enhancement to the environment.
There is a possibility of using this site to construct a new gateway feature for downtown that would be a structure capable hosting cellular antennas in the manner that the water tower was used. The process for that permit would commence following agreement on a design concept for the structure.
Current Design After working with Staff, discussions about a tower that might serve as a gateway feature for the TCAP have been developed into a plan by Nextel and Sprint. Sprint/Nextel hired architect Ed Meserve and PS Engineering to collaborate with Elizabeth Conner, the Streetscape project artist, whose scope of work was extended to provide continuity for this project with the overall Streetscape design. This concept was developed using color, materials and vertical design elements similar to the planned roundabout at Kildaire Farm Road and Walnut Street.
Design Concept sources o A modern day beacon/sender of light and information o Historic technology, related to concept for Walnut Street roundabout, rendered in contemporary form and materials o Organic nature of structure and applied color has a relationship to surrounding trees and other natural elements of the landscape o Helical twist (current technology and historic architecture – lighthouse stair) o Three sides – stable and with a different aspect as you see it from different angles, entering and leaving Downtown Cary (like roundabout gateways) o Adhere to TOC Telecommunication Ordinance that requires towers to be stealth. Cables and transmitters would be incorporated into structural details creating a Cathedral “spires” appearance.
(All above images are attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit.)
Lighting – ambient, internal, subtle overall glow (not intrusive, not flashing), potentially using solar
Light Visual Impact (new tower) versus heavy (water tower) o Relationship to Downtown Streetscape Project – lighting of fountain, new performing arts center, roundabout gateway elements (reference performing arts as well as historic technology). Copper and bronze coatings of structure relate to Walnut Street roundabout colors (the renderings look rather orange, but the intent is that the structure would be a copper/bronze color).
Screening – simple, elegant security fence materials, with incorporated vegetation to make a pleasant pedestrian “walk-by” (or drive-by) experience
This gateway feature is similar height as the existing water tower though its footprint is considerably smaller.
As part of the design development process The Public Art Advisory Board reviewed design concepts at several of its meetings providing feedback and direction to the architect and artist. On July 15, 2008 an Open House public meeting was held at the Page-Walker Arts & History Center where 47 citizens gathered to see renderings of the proposed design concept and allowed staff, architect and artist to receive their comments about the design concept. Citizens’ comments were diverse as would be expected and follow:
Feedback/Comments
Open House: The Water Tower on Kildaire Farm Road replacement with a Gateway Feature Cell Phone Tower Tuesday, July 15, 2008 6:00-8:00pm, Page-Walker Arts & History Center
- I like the look of the cell phone tower, but I’m worried about the safety of children at Cary Elementary School and the elders that live near the tower.
- I like it. Finally, something in Cary that is not stainless steel or painted on top or a bronze child. Keep up the good work.
- It is a smart and conservative design. Solar powered is a great way to experiment and produce better panes in the future. Plus, reception from cell phones will be better for families and corporations. I am 100% towards this happening.
- The artists design and concept is a wonderful idea- however, having a cell phone tower so close to an elementary school and neighborhoods is a concern. Our neighborhood has a high incidence of cancer already. Adding a high risk factor to an existing problem is troubling. Cell phone towers shouldn’t be so close to young children especially.
- It looks like an oil derrick sitting in the middle of town! Not a good idea. Does not fit with the rest of the neighborhood’s personality. It is residential not commercial.
- No roundabouts or cell phone towers, not in my backyard.
- The new design is much too tall and looming over the neighborhood. The fact that it is to be integrated with the cell tower concerns me very much. I would rather have no artwork.
- It’s ugly. It could not add anything of beauty to the local neighborhood as well as the town. How could anyone consider this an integrated art form?
- We live a stones throw from Cary Elementary and the cell tower is a bad idea. There’s not enough data. I should have worn my cancer survivor shirt.
- Looks Great!
- The design looks fine, at least on paper. The concept is more pleasing to the eye than the water tower, though it has served us well over the years. More data is needed regarding antennas and emissions. Concern for the children at Cary Elementary and the homes that are almost under the tower, like mine.
- Why not use it as a small park with a Welcome Plaque to “Old Town” Cary. The theme should change, don’t replace one eye sore with a “modern” eye sore.
- The design looks nice, but I do not wish to have the tower so close to my house and the elementary school. I hope to have another meeting concerning radiation, health effects and depreciation of our homes which we work so hard for.
- My first concern is the illumination at night that will shine in my windows. I would like to see the lot in front of 517 Kildaire (with the “Welcome to the Heart of Downtown Cary” sign) nicely landscaped and maintained, maybe with an American, State, and Town flag. Also, groundcover so that the image entering downtown is pleasant. I would rather have a more historic downtown feel structure, like a clock tower, rather than the high-tech helix design. I hope the town will contact me about my concerns.
- The structure and design is an appeal twist (pun intended) on a cell tower.
- No, No, No. The design doesn’t fit in the area. I don’t want this structure in the area. I’ve been in Meadowmount for 42 years. I also don’t like roundabouts. I’ve used them before and they’re a pain in the butt. I feel they cause more problems. Kildaire has a huge number of cars on it everyday.
- I don’t think this is the proper place for these cell phone towers due to the radiation factor. I have grandkids and great grandkids at my house a lot, and I don’t feel they need to be exposed to the radiation.
- I’m okay with the location and some tower. I don’t like the present illustration for the tower. What am I looking at? Add more twist, more tradition.
- I am looking forward to an artpiece but I am dead against any incorporation of a cell tower next to the elementary school and an older neighborhood with a high number of residents over the age of 65. Cancer is all around us, and this invites more opportunity. To summarize my personal concern, this is a prime visual spot as streetscapes moves forward, please make good constructive use of it while showing consideration for those of us who live in the neighborhood.
- I love this idea. The modern look and feel blends well with the school. I am happy to learn that the color will not be orange.
- It looks out of place and does not fit with personality of the neighborhood.
- It seems rather industrial looking and I’m not sure about the orange color. It’s too industries for my taste and it is not in favor of the art planned for roundabouts at Walnut St. It doesn’t fit the context.
- I don’t like the location, wouldn’t it be better across the street, back in the woods if needed. History would build the tower and every cell phone company would add their antennas. What value does the tower up or down our property?
- I like the design but no the orange color. I also really like the lights for the roundabouts.
- Safety is the main concern. Who will be liable in 10-20 years for health problems, Town of Cary or Cell Phone Company? As far as the design, I like it. However, most people dislike the “modern” look. Does this tie in to Cary’s quant look downtown?
- This is better than a water tower. It is not a good fit as a gateway to “Historic” Downtown. As it is essentially in my side-yard, I’d like to add something. Why not build a clock tower? The one on Cary Parkway looks very nice.
- I think the art feature should be a lot shorter. I do not like the design as it is. Perhaps an open space or a naturalized space would be nicer with flowers, trees, benches and small statues. I am all for artwork, but more conspicuous art.
- I didn’t expect to like it, but it fits well and is attractive. I’m sold. Thanks.
- I think the tower is attractive in form and shape considering it hides a tower. But, aesthetically I feel that it should be painted or finished to minimize and blend into the sky (like the water tower). The color shown is too much of a statement and is more disruptive to the eye. In a pale blue you could study it and appreciate it more. Subtle would be better.
- I have a mixed reaction. I guess I was hoping for something more traditional (brick for example). It is a bit too abstract for me given the architecture in the surrounding area.
Verbal comments received and recorded at meeting:
- “I came in prepared to be critical, but this is great!”
- One participant was very positive, on all aspects; participant said his father was associated with OCE, and he added that he thought the interior structural elements could be red, akin to Japanese Red Maple (might be an interesting color option to explore)
- One participant was okay with cell tower, but not really focused on that – very concerned that, if and when Harrison is re-aligned to re-join Kildaire Farm Road, she won’t be able to get out of her street (right across from Shirley) “without a helicopter”
- A couple commented that they walk their dogs – excited about new projects (Streetscape and cell tower) – can’t wait for the new walking environment
- A couple had diverse comments: she loved the tower; he was skeptical, but said he would like it if it had more twist (like the source image of the DNA double helix)
The focus of this meeting was the design concept; nonetheless, numerous citizens questioned the health impact of cell tower equipment. These comments would be appropriate for consideration during the Special Use Hearing that will take place at a time following Council’s acceptance of a design for a proposed gateway tower.
Following the Open House and at the Board’s July 23, 2008 meeting the Public Art Advisory Board reviewed citizen’s comments and then voted to recommend that Council accept the design concept presented. The Public Art Policy provided the following criteria in reviewing the design concept:
1. Quality, aesthetic and design standards. 2. Long-term durability and maintenance. 3. Installation costs, site preparation costs, and insurance considerations. 4. Local community standards, social factors and public response. 5. Diversity in artwork types, styles and distribution.
A separate process will address the Special Use Permit process and site plan approval processes to meet the Town’s ordinance and will be necessary should Council approve the design concept.
Fiscal Impact: Sprint and Nextel would provide funding to design and construct the gateway feature. Additional landscaping, benches, art or other improvement around the base of the tower could incur costs to the Town. Maintenance of the tower will be the Town’s responsibility. Initial maintenance cost would be low and future maintenance would be covered by the lease fees.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council accept the Public Art Advisory Board’s recommendation to accept the design concept presented by architect and artist which will be used in the event a special use permit is issued.
Ms. Denise Dickens outlined the staff report herein.
Mrs. Robinson stated the original concept she saw was a brick bell tower similar to the one at Preston Corners. She thought that type of art would be compatible with Cary Elementary and the residential community. She stated the metallic, modern structure is not at all what she expected. She stated an artpiece must be harmonious with the community.
The council was unhappy that a depiction of the artwork was not available in a PowerPoint slide for the public to view during this discussion.
Mr. Portman stated if the council wanted a brick tower, he thinks they should have asked for it. He stated instead the council asked for the public art advisory board’s input, and they gave it a lot of thought and tried to tie it to technology and the streetscape plan. He stated they held open houses and obtained public feedback. He stated art is in the eye of the beholder. He personally thinks the art is very attractive. He will support the public art advisory board’s recommendation. Mrs. Robison concurred and stated she really likes the night rendering of the artwork. She would like to accept the recommendation, and the council could then voice any preference to changing the design concept and work further with the architect and artist.
Mr. Frantz thinks the art is not compatible with downtown Cary. He stated he lives in close proximity to the site, and he has heard from numerous neighbors and downtown residents, most of whom do not like this artwork. He concurred with Mrs. Robinson’s vision of the art or suggested another option would be no art and convert the area to a pocket park with a fountain, benches and flowers. He would have preferred to consider the art and cell tower issues simultaneously or the cell tower issue first. He stated if the council isn’t going to allow the cell tower use, then the art discussion is irrelevent.
Mr. Frantz thinks the current art design would work in other areas of Town, such as the SAS or Alston area, but he thinks traditional art is a better fit in the downtown area.
Mrs. Adcock stated she is the liaison to the public art advisory board, and she supports their recommendation. She stated the board has worked hard on this issue. She stated she was unaware that council had given direction for the artwork to be traditional vs. modern.
Mrs. Robinson stated the council wants a walkable downtown, and her biggest problem with the artpiece is the security fence that surrounds it. She stated it is not an interactive artpiece that draws people to it. She stated the fence is necessary to keep people from climbing it. She would prefer an artpiece that is accessible to people. She voiced her opposition that council was presented one concept, council supported that concept, and then that concept was completely changed. She stated the advisory board does not make the final decision. She stated she is elected by and accountable to the citizens, and the advisory board is not. She stated the council probably did not give adequate guidance to the board.
Mr. Portman reiterated his prior comments. He stated council should ask themselves whether they want to design the artwork or delegate that responsibility to others. He stated if council chooses to delegate this responsibility to others, then they must communicate any strong preferences they have regarding the design to the group tasked with the design. He is concerned with the design being in the final stages and council just now expressing these strong concerns.
Mr. Frantz stated this art will be in his neighborhood, and the majority of the citizens that he represents in this neighborhood do not like the art.
Mr. Smith stated the advisory board has done it job with the recommendation, and it’s council’s job to look at the bigger picture and make the final decision. He thinks the council can respectfully give additional direction to the advisory board. He does not think this in any way is a reflection on the board or the process. He thinks that the advisory board may have one view of art, and it’s the council’s responsibility to overlay that view while considering the entire community. He appreciates the board’s work, but he does not think the art is compatible with the area.
Mayor Weinbrecht stated the advisory board has done a great job, and their role is to provide advice. He stated at times the council does not accept a board or staff recommendation, and it’s council’s responsibility to use their best judgment. He personally thinks the art is good, but he does not think it fits in the area where it is proposed.
Mrs. Adcock disagreed with Mr. Smith’s comment that the advisory board members see art in one way. She stated the members have lots of healthy disagreement and discussion at these board meetings, and they do not all see art the same way.
Mrs. Robison stated she is aware of one other tower in Cary that uses art as a component of the tower, and that one is located near SAS on Harrison and it has an artificial pine tree on top of it. She stated everyone accepted that art.
Mrs. Robison asked the latitude at this point in the process to change the design to come up with something that all parties will think is more compatible with the proposed location for the art. She also asked staff to address the comment about a fence around the tower, because she read in the staff report that there would be benches and other improvements around the base of the structure. Mrs. Robinson read from the report that states that “screening will be simple, elegant security fence materials with incorporated vegetation to make a pleasant pedestrian walk-by or drive-by experience.” She stated it will not be an interactive artpiece.
Mrs. Mary Henderson, director of the parks, recreation and cultural resources department, stated a cell tower must have security (i.e. fence) either with our without the art. Mr. Benfield stated a typical monopole cell tower requires that all components located at ground level (equipment cabinets, etc.) be screened from off-site view. He stated this can be done with various types of fencing, shrubbery, etc. He stated the stealth would be part of the tower and would need to be screened from view or in such a manner so that it doesn’t resemble what it actually is. He stated this could be done with decorative bricking. He stated the adjacent area could serve as a mini pocket park. He added that the option does not exist to install a monopole tower in this subdistrict of the town center district.
Mrs. Adcock asked how far the security fencing would be from the base of the tower. Mr. Benfield stated it would depend on the number of co-locators. Mrs. Henderson stated these issues would be part of the site plan process.
ACTION: Mr. Frantz moved to not accept the public art advisory board’s recommendation and send this project back to them to come up with something with more traditional materials and traditional appearance. Mrs. Robinson provided the second.
Mayor Weinbrecht referred back to Mrs. Robison’s unaswered question about the latitude at this time to change the design. Mrs. Robison asked how much money has been spent on the art design so far and what are the next steps to make the artwork more compatible with the neighborhood. Mrs. Henderson does not think at this point it is possible to work with the current design to make it more traditional (based on council’s comments). She stated this is a private project and the Town is involved only through the public art process and trying to make it work with the streetscape project by using the same artist. She would expect that staff would notify the private companies interest in the project, and they would determine if they wanted to develop another design to council or wait and bring a design with the site plan and special use permit. She stated it would be up to them to make that decision.
Mrs. Robison asked staff’s rationale in accepting the public art board’s recommendation. Mrs. Henderson stated staff’s work is to work with the advisory board. She stated in this particular situation, an effort was also made to link with some of the downtown improvements by using the same artist with art elements in the streetscape project.
Mr. Frantz has discussed this with the artist. He stated much of the theme through downtown is small brick pillars, memory markers, etc. He does not think the art before council tonight is in keeping with the streetscape art elements.
Mr. Portman stated the streetscape art component is part of the roundabout at the intersection of Cary Elementary and Kildaire Farm and Walnut. Other council members stated the council has approved funding for the streetscape but not specific details of the design elements. Mr. Frantz stated the 90% completion concept has been presented to council in small groups. He stated he has personally requested a meeting with staff and the artist to propose changes to the streetscape art.
ACTION: Mrs. Robinson called the question to stop debate. Mr. Portman, Mrs. Adcock and Mrs. Robison voted “no”. All others voted “aye”. The mayor announced that the motion to stop debate carried.
ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion to refer the issue back to the public art advisory board. Mr. Portman, Mrs. Adcock and Mrs. Robison voted “no”. All others voted “aye”. The motion carried by majority vote.
Mrs. Robison stated if the streetscape art design is being readdressed by one council member, then she’d like all council members to be involved. Mr. Frantz stated he has scheduled a meeting with staff and the artist to talk about the art and learn more about it. Afterwards, he will follow the correct process if he chooses to bring anything to council.
_________________________
H. OLD/NEW BUSINESS (any item pulled from the regular consent agenda for discussion [agenda item B.1.] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda)
1. Consideration of a council-initiated request from Council Member Robinson and co-sponsored by Council Member Frantz to begin the process of having Cary staff assist the council in working with the City of Raleigh, Wake County, and State legislators to redefine the distribution formula for the Food and Beverage tax and the Occupancy tax. The council may take one of the following actions: (1) Discuss the issue and take action at the meeting if no information is required from staff and if council does not seek public input; (2) refer the request to the appropriate council or committee meeting, at which time a staff report with staff recommendation will be prepared; or (3) decide not to pursue the council-initiated request. (Tabled to the September 11, 2008 council meeting)
Jennifer, I wholeheartedly support this. Can council discuss this at our next meeting? Don Frantz Cary Town Council District B 919-612-6870 ********** To: Council@townofcary.org Subject: Distribution Formulas for Food and Beverage Tax and Occupancy Tax Revenue From: Jennifer.Robinson@townofcary.org Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 13:13:23 -0400
Hi all, I would like to begin the process of having our staff assist the Council in working with the City of Raleigh, Wake County, and our State legislators to redefine the distribution formula for the Food and Beverage tax and the Occupancy tax. I am asking that we initiate this effort at this time because a series of discussions must occur before consideration of this issue is ultimately included in our 2009 Legislative Agenda next Spring. Please let me know if you support having the Council consider this initiative under Old/New Business at one of our upcoming Council meetings. History Before 1991, the Town of Cary had its own Occupancy tax. In 1991, when the County sought and was granted authority from the State to levy two separate taxes (a Prepared Food and Beverage Tax and a Room Occupancy Tax), Cary's Occupancy tax was withdrawn and replaced with the new County-wide taxes. To compensate the Town for the lost revenue, a percentage of the revenue from the Occupancy Tax (5%) was designated for Cary. In addition, Cary (as well as all other Wake municipalities), was given the opportunity to apply for a portion of both the Food and Beverage and Occupancy taxes.
|