Work Session Minutes of the Town

Minutes of the Town of Cary , NC

Mixed Use Sketch Plan

April 22, 2008

5:30 p.m.

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

Mayor Weinbrecht called the meeting to order at 5:38 p.m.

Present: Mayor Harold Weinbrecht, Mayor Pro Tem Julie Robison, Council Members Don Frantz, Erv Portman, Jennifer Robinson, and Jack Smith

Absent: Council Member Gale Adcock participated by conference call.

Jeff Ulma of the Planning Department reviewed the agenda and the proposed overall process. He said that the desired outcome is for council to direct staff to move forward with the mixed use sketch plan process. (Staff’s PowerPoint Presentation is attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.)

Product: Metrics and Other Standards

Mr. Ulma reviewed the objectives for “metrics” and standards, provided a summary of the mixed use submittals, mixed use actions/decisions and mixed use data. He said that the work on the Alston Regional Center accounts for most of the development activity that’s been approved under mixed use plans. Alston accounts for 4 million of the office and retail, and 4300 of the 6700 residential units.

Mayor Pro Tem Robison asked for percentages. Mr. Ulma responded that more than half of the office and institution is Alston, more than half is retail (1.9 is commercial) and two-thirds are attached units. Mrs. Adcock asked how many activity centers are in Cary . Mr. Ulma stated that there are 35.

Mayor Pro Tem Robison asked about future redevelopment. Mr. Ulma said staff would have to ensure that they account for future redevelopment.

Staff Conclusions

Mr. UIma said that out of the 35 centers, 20 percent of land mass is left within all of them which equates to about 1200 acres of land to build out.

Changes to Metrics and Standards

Mr. Ulma reviewed the changes to the numbers and the requirements for the centers and using the metrics and standards.

Mayor Pro Tem Robison asked if the vision is to take a step back, look at what’s there and what would enhance the centers. Mr. Ulma said that staff would suggest alternatives on some of the areas. He said that staff would look at the numbers, evaluate the current center, and make suggestions for what to do in those area.

Mr. Frantz asked about the community workshop. He said he likes the idea of the workshop but if a project exceeds the standard by a little and the Planning and Zoning Board likes it, then going through the workshop is an extra step. He said that he can see a controversial project going through the workshop. Mr. Ulma said staff can look into variability.

Mr. Ulma reviewed the following draft proposed matrix of “metrics” and land use standards:

Proposed “Metrics” & Evaluation Criteria for Mixed Use Centers

April 22, 2008

PERFORMANCE MEASURE	Neighborhood Center	Community Center	Regional Center
Max. number of shopping centers[1]	1	2	4
Max. number of major anchors (“big boxes”)[2]	0	1	5
Max. number of jr. anchors (“mid-boxes”)[3]	1	2	No limit
Max. Total Commercial Floorspace	250,000	500,000	2,250,000
Max. Total Office Floorspace	350,000	600,000	1,500,000
Uses not counted against nonresidential floorspace limits	Hotels/Motels, Places of Worship, Schools, Hospitals
Uses that count as Residential units (HDR)	Hotels, Motels
Min. amount of Office as a % of Total Nonresidential Floorspace	33%	33%	25%
Geography within which a mix of uses is required	Within Overall Center (all Quadrants)	Within at least half the Quadrants	Within at least half the Quadrants
Max. Building Height	3 stories or 45 ft.	5 stories or 75 ft.	7 stories or 100 ft.
Required Public Spaces in Nonresidential or Mixed Use pods	1 plaza, square, or green per 10 acres of nonresidential or mixed use area
Spacing of Required Public Spaces	Evenly distributed based on acreage per quadrant, but at least 1 on each quadrant
Target number of residential units per 1,000 s.f. of Nonresidential	1	1	1
Max. Residential Density	18 dwellings/ac.	36 dwellings/ac.	no limit

1 For this table, qualifying shopping centers are characterized as having either (a) a grocery/supermarket or a retail tenant of over 30,000 sq. ft. as its principal tenant, or (b) 50,000 sq. ft. or more of total commercial floor space, or (c) 5 acres or more of total land area.

2 Major anchors/big boxes are defined as retail spaces over 70,000 sq. ft. (excluding supermarkets), limited to no more than 120,000 sq. ft. in a community center or 180,000 sq. ft. in a regional center without the provision of structured parking

3 Junior Anchors/mid-boxes are defined as retail spaces of 30,000-70,000 sq. ft. (excluding supermarkets).

Mr. Ulma said that for the most part all of the regional centers—either existing or projected—fit within the limits shown for commercial floor space. Scott Ramage of the Planning Department added that Crossroads is projected to build out at slightly over 2 million square feet, Cary Towne Center at slightly over 1.8 million square feet, Alston Regional Center 1.6 million, and SAS is the smallest.

Mr. Portman asked about reviewing proposals that are far less specific and more general. Mr. Ulma said that staff has heard over time that the community wants to know what they can expect to occur in an area near them. He said staff was trying to make the process simpler.

Mr. Smith said they need a little bit of structure. Mr. Ulma said it can be structured in the land use plan. He said that criteria can be set for evaluating a proposal to include guidelines within the land use plan.

Mayor Pro Tem Robison said she is concerned about how this process will fit within the community visioning process and wants to see qualitative aspects of what the community desires. Mr. Ulma said they still have design guidelines for creating place, making connections and sense of scale. He said that the overall vision could ultimately temper this process and could be revisited if needed.

Mayor Pro Tem Robison asked about affects on water capacity. Mr. Ulma said that the Town does land use with the provision of water and sewer. He said it is connected and interrelated so that the master planning is iterative and they are connecting the dots with the long range planning for water and wastewater provisions.

Mr. Ulma reviewed the information for amending and using the existing criteria for evaluating the mixed use sketch plans.

Mr. Frantz said that he would like to see a threshold for the community workshop. Mrs. Robinson suggested that if it is exceeds by 10 percent then let staff deal with it. She said that anything more than 10 percent goes to the Planning and Zoning Board and has to go to a community workshop. Mayor Weinbrecht and Mrs. Adcock said they would like to see it all go to the citizens. Mayor Pro Tem Robison said the sooner the community workshop is integrated into the process the better quality for the outcome and the smoother the process will be for the applicant. Mr. Portman said there is a process for land owners to have their ideas vetted in the community and citizens to participate and add feedback. He said that the rezoning gives full disclosure and provided for participation in the process.

Mrs. Robinson said they need to establish where the community workshop falls in the process. She said an alternate recommendation is that if there is a slight increase then the Planning and Zoning Board can send it forward; if it exceeds that then it is automatically sent to a community workshop.

Mayor Pro Tem Robison said having the community workshop up front at the beginning would do the most good. Mayor Pro Tem Robison said there should be a collaborative outcome that is mutually beneficial.

Mrs. Robison said the flow chart provided by staff is designed to give due diligence and to be a very deliberate process. She said the neighborhood meeting is appropriate where it is because it gives people an idea of what’s coming. She it would be obvious to the Planning and Zoning Board if guidelines are exceed whether the community workshop is needed.

Mrs. Adcock said neighborhood meetings are more passive for the citizens. They are good for information sharing but it’s still more developer driven. She said the workshop is more collaborative and more of a partnership. She said if the application goes to the Planning and Zoning Board and they have concerns and can’t reach a consensus then that would be a sign that a community workshop is needed. Mr. Ulma said staff previously provided some structure for expectations for design or community workshop. He said that the Town hosted it, not the developer, and it provided a starting point for the context and metrics to be laid out and explained.

Mr. Smith said he likes the flow of it coming after the Planning and Zoning Board meeting; he’s neutral to the idea of what triggers it going to the community meeting; and, if it’s truly a controversial issue that forces a split vote he is open to the idea of a super majority. He agrees that the neighborhood meeting is by design the first meeting and tends to be an information giving meeting. He said the neighborhood meeting and the community meeting are two distinctly different things and he likes the idea that there are parameters to the community meeting so that it can be productive.

Mrs. Robinson recommended going from the second Town council hearing to the community workshop. She said that would provide an opportunity for council to send it to a community workshop if it hasn’t already gone through one. She said council would then take action at the meeting occurring after the third public hearing. Mayor Weinbrecht asked if council members were in agreement with Mrs. Robinson’s suggestion and council concurred.

Mr. Portman asked if they want to keep the current rezoning process in mixed use plans. Mr. Ulma said it depends on the outcome council wants.

Mayor Pro Tem Robison asked about the performance measures and the wastewater capacity budget. She said she would like to see the process more transparent. Mr. Ulma said the land use plan and infrastructure planning are meshed so that staff is looking at that. He said as part of staff reports for zoning cases, development plans or mixed use plans there would be additional information on the water demand for that particular proposal.

Process: The second stage rezoning is a good idea. Use evaluation criteria and expand, considering qualitative aspects of development as well as numerical requirements, assess compatibility and harmony with surrounding area. Let the Planning and Zoning Board determine whether a community workshop is needed (i.e., if guidelines are exceeded, concerns and reaction from neighborhood). The community workshop is in the right spot—from the Planning and Zoning Board. Create solid guidelines for the community workshop. Add an option for council to send a case to the community workshop and change the action step for council after the third hearing. It’s okay to consider single use proposals within a mixed use are depending on the surroundings

Product and Metrics: The proposed metrics and their applicability are okay. Include metrics in the land use plan as guidelines instead of codifying straight into the LDO.

Next Steps: Translate the agreed-upon process and the product requirements into new language for both the Land Use Plan and the LDO. Present LDO text and plan amendments to Council for consideration. Provide mailed notice to owners of all land zoned for the Mixed Use Overlay District and conduct the necessary developer focus group, Planning and Zoning Board work session, and other similar review meetings during the formal adoption process.