October 11, 2001 Page 1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN OF
Transcription
October 11, 2001 Page 1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN OF
REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CARY, NORTH CAROLINA October 11, 2001 PRESENT: Mayor Glen Lang, Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith, Council Members Marla Dorrel, Jennifer Robinson, Nels Roseland, Jess Ward and Harold Weinbrecht A. COMMENCEMENT Mayor Lang called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., and Mrs. Robinson provided the invocation. ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular Town Council meeting held September 27, 2001. Second was provided by Mr. Ward, and unanimous approval was granted by Council. _________________________ Police Chief Hunter updated the Council and the public on the condition of Officer George Almond, who was shot in the line of duty yesterday. He stated BB&T has established a trust fund to help the Almond family, and he stated people can write checks to the George Almond trust fund and take them to any BB&T. Chief Hunter stated they were successful in apprehending a suspect in this crime. Mrs. Dawn Jernigan, president of the Cary Police family support group, stated a November 5 golf tournament was previously scheduled, and all proceeds will go to the Almond family. She stated they are also planning a golf tournament at Prestonwood to benefit the Almond family. Mayor Lang stated the Town will include all the events to help the Almond family on the cable channel and will broadcast it regularly. He stated he feels confident that the citizens of Cary will show their support for the Almond family. _________________________ B. RECOGNITIONS, REPORTS, AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Report on the status of the involuntary annexation proposal. Mr. Barker stated staff is preparing the written report to detail the policy and financial implications of the annexation alternatives discussed at the last Council meeting (refer to those minutes for details). The Council instructed staff to plan for a public input session on the annexation proposals to be held on November 8, 2001. _________________________ 2. Presentation of a proclamation proclaiming Red Ribbon Week in Cary. Ms. Dorrel presented the proclamation to Police Chief Windy Hunter, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Director Mary Barry, and Creating Assets Reaching Youth representative Liza Weidle. DESIGNATING OCTOBER 23-OCTOBER 31, 2001 AS RED RIBBON WEEK WHEREAS, alcohol, tobacco, and other drug-related problems continue to plague communities; and WHEREAS, it is imperative that communities band together with coordinated efforts to educate students about the dangers of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs in order to prevent their abuse; and WHEREAS, it is the goal of Town of Cary Council Members, Police Department, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department, and Creating Assets Reaching Youth to involve students, parents, families, schools, businesses, congregations, and service organizations in all aspects of this campaign and to support awareness, education, and ongoing initiatives to prevent drug use. October 11, 2001 Page 1 NOW, THEREFORE, I, Glen Lang, Mayor of the Town of Cary, North Carolina, do hereby proclaim the week of October 23 – October 31, 2001, as Red Ribbon Week And encourage all the citizens to actively support and participate in alcohol, tobacco, and other drug prevention activities, making a visible statement that we are firmly committed to a healthy and safe community. PROCLAIMED this 11th day of October, 2001. (Proclamation 01-043 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.) _________________________ 3. Report on the proposed sports complex. Mr. Hill Carrow’s power point presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit A. Mr. Carrow distributed renderings of the facility, and this handout is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit B. Refer to Exhibit A for Mr. Carrow’s recommendation. Mr. Ward questioned the Town paying to build the expansion of Trinity Road to serve this facility. Mayor Lang stated this proposal does not create the need to build Trinity Road. Ms. Dorrel asked if phase 1 and phase 2 of this proposal could be built by 2004, and Mr. Carrow responded affirmatively. Mayor Lang added that phase 1 could stand alone if Mr. Carrow is unsuccessful with his fundraising efforts. Council asked staff to report on this presentation in the next 60-90 days through the Operations Committee. Mayor Lang encouraged Mr. Carrow to share the business aspects of this proposal. Mr. Carrow stated in the first five years of the facility, approximately $2 million per year would be generated in income. He stated the Greater Raleigh Chamber is working with him to develop this business proposal. Mr. Roseland asked staff to analyze revenues, building permit rates, etc., (July, August, September) to see if the Town is on target for projected revenues for this year. Ms. Dorrel asked staff to review the needs analysis and review how this type of facility meets those needs. _________________________ C. LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith made the following motion for closed session, which was seconded by Ms. Dorrel and unanimously approved by the Council: Pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11(a)(3) and (5), closed session was called for the following purposes: 1. To consult with attorneys employed by and/or retained by the Town in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorneys and the Town. The Council expects to receive advice concerning the J. Nelson Dollar v. Town of Cary and Rockett Burkhead & Winslow, Inc., lawsuit. 2. To establish or to instruct the Town of Cary’s staff concerning the position to be taken by or on behalf of the Town in negotiating the price and other material terms of a contract or proposed contract for the acquisition of real property by purchase, option, exchange or lease. _________________________ October 11, 2001 Page 2 D. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Consideration of adoption of certificates of sufficiency and resolutions calling for public hearing on the following annexation petitions: a. 01-A-22, Weatherstone Limited Partnership b. 01-A-23, Weatherstone Limited Partnership c. 01-A-70, Marilyn S. Lee, et.al. d. 01-A-71, Susan F. Daniel e. 01-A-72, Patricia Boyd Sutton f. 01-A-73, Eparchy of Passaic, c/o Saints Cyril & Methodun g. 01-A-74, George Stephenson, et.al. h. 01-A-75, E.W. Sauls i. 01-A-76, Rebecca Sauls j. 01-A-77, David J. and Marilyn B. Martin k. 01-A-78, David J. Martin l. 01-A-79, Hilda F. Carpenter Family Limited Partnership m. 01-A-80, Carpenter Land Company n. 01-A-81, Hilda F. Carpenter o. 01-A-83, John and Thelma Buffaloe, Jr. p. 01-A-84, Mary Mettler q. 01-A-86, Mark and Lisa Hollowell r. 01-A-90, ARH International Company (Resolutions 01-510 through 01-167 are on file in the town clerk’s office and are incorporated in these minutes by reference.) 2. Consideration of adoption of resolutions directing staff to investigate the sufficiency of the following annexation petitions: a. 01-A-92, Colon Willis Hobby and Mae Omie H. Mosley PETITION: 01-A-092 OWNER & ADDRESS: Colon Willis Hobby and Mae Omie H. Mosley 3024 Buckingham Way Apex, NC 27502 ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 8400 Regency Park LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Approx. 300 ft South of Regency Forest Drive on Regency Pky. ASSOCIATED REZONING: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: None October 11, 2001 Page 3 UTILITIES Water: 16" DIP line approx 20 ft. South on Regency Pky. Sewer: 24" RCP line running through property. WAKE CO. PARCEL ID #: 075220914497 REALID NUMBER: 0032663 AREA: 31 acres 0 acres of adjacent right-of-way ZONING: R30 CURRENT/PROPOSED USE: Vacant Land FIRE DISTRICT: Western Wake VOTING DISTRICT: C TAX VALUE: $342,839 CORPORATE LIMITS: Contiguous TOWN COUNCIL DATES: Request to investigate sufficiency: Certificate of sufficiency: Public hearing: PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE: 10/11/01 11/8/01 12/13/01 12/13/01 (Resolution 01-174 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) b. 01-A-93, Curlee Machinery Co., Inc. PETITION: 01-A-093 OWNER & ADDRESS: Curlee Machinery Co. Inc. 412 Field St. Cary, NC 27513 ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 1155 & 1121 West Chatham St. & 206 Trimble Ave. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: SW corner of Commerce Ct. and Trimble Ave. ASSOCIATED REZONING: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: None UTILITIES Water: 6" AC running 20' north. Sewer: 8" PVC running through the property. WAKE CO. PARCEL ID #: 075312758402, 075312851646, & 075312852512 REALID NUMBER: 0134086, 0135776, & 0020359 AREA: 6.07 acres 1.96 acres of adjacent right-of-way October 11, 2001 Page 4 ZONING: O&I, R30, & R8 CURRENT/PROPOSED USE: Vacant Land FIRE DISTRICT: Western Wake VOTING DISTRICT: D TAX VALUE: $400,275 CORPORATE LIMITS: Contiguous TOWN COUNCIL DATES: Request to investigate sufficiency: Certificate of sufficiency: Public hearing: PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE: 10/11/01 11/8/01 12/13/01 12/13/01 (Resolution 01-175 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) c. 01-A-94, John and Beatrice Kuhn PETITION: 01-A-094 OWNER & ADDRESS: John & Beatrice Kuhn 6333 Tryon Rd. Cary, NC 27511 ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 2109 & 2117 Piney Plains Rd. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 450' south of the intersection of Stephens and Piney Plains Roads ASSOCIATED REZONING: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: none UTILITIES Water: 6" AC on site. Sewer: 8" DIP line 1,450' northwest. WAKE CO. PARCEL ID #: 077206388737 & 077206387693 REALID NUMBER: 0029889 & 0029888 AREA: 2.07 acres 23.33 acres of adjacent right-ofway ZONING: O&I CU CURRENT/PROPOSED USE: Vacant Land & a Daycare Center FIRE DISTRICT: Swift Creek VOTING DISTRICT: C TAX VALUE: $305,213 October 11, 2001 Page 5 CORPORATE LIMITS: Contiguous TOWN COUNCIL DATES: Request to investigate sufficiency: Certificate of sufficiency: Public hearing: PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE: 10/11/01 11/8/01 12/13/01 12/13/01 (Resolution 01-176 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) d. 01-A-95, Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church PETITION: 01-A-95 OWNER & ADDRESS: Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church 105 Gray St. Cary, NC 27513 ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 9220 Chapel Hill Rd & 0 Evans Rd. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Near the intersection of NW Maynard & Chapel Hill Road ASSOCIATED REZONING: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: none UTILITIES Water: 6" DIP on site. Sewer: 8" PVC line 380' south. WAKE CO. PARCEL ID #: 076409064828 & 076409053997 REALID NUMBER: 0242126 & 0114186 AREA: 4.31 acres 0 acres of adjacent right-of-way ZONING: RU12 CU & RM CU CURRENT/PROPOSED USE: Vacant Land & Low Density Residential FIRE DISTRICT: Western Wake VOTING DISTRICT: B TAX VALUE: $176,986 CORPORATE LIMITS: Contiguous TOWN COUNCIL DATES: Request to investigate sufficiency: Certificate of sufficiency: Public hearing: PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE: 10/11/01 11/8/01 12/13/01 12/13/01 October 11, 2001 Page 6 (Resolution 01-177 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) e. 01-A-96, Good Shepherd Church PETITION: 01-A-96 OWNER & ADDRESS: Good Shepherd Church 1050 NW Maynard Rd. Cary, NC 27513 ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 305 High House Road LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 850' East of Intersection of NW Maynard & High House Roads ASSOCIATED REZONING: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: none UTILITIES Water: On Site. Sewer: 8" PVC 230' southeast. WAKE CO. PARCEL ID #: 075307698975 REALID NUMBER: 0077302 AREA: 0.47 acres 0 acres of adjacent right-of-way ZONING: R30 C CURRENT/PROPOSED USE: Low Density Residential FIRE DISTRICT: Western Wake VOTING DISTRICT: D TAX VALUE: $106,675 CORPORATE LIMITS: Contiguous TOWN COUNCIL DATES: Request to investigate sufficiency: Certificate of sufficiency: Public hearing: PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE: 10/11/01 11/8/01 12/13/01 12/13/01 (Resolution 01-178 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) _________________________ Mr. Ward asked to be excused from voting on item 2-d. ACTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA: Mr. Weinbrecht made a motion to approve the consent agenda, with the exception of item 2-d. Mr. Roseland provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval. ACTION: Mr. Weinbrecht made a motion to excuse Mr. Ward from item 2-d. Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval. October 11, 2001 Page 7 ACTION: Mr. Roseland made a motion to approve consent agenda item 2-d. Mr. Weinbrecht provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval. _________________________ E. COMMITTEE REPORTS Operations Committee (October 5, 2001) Chairperson Jack Smith called the meeting to order at noon. Committee Members Marla Dorrel and Nels Roseland were in attendance. The meeting adjourned at 1:32 PM. A. Consent Agenda 1. Municipal Agreement – Railroad Corridor Study (EN02-46) Committee recommended approval of an NCDOT municipal agreement to conduct a Traffic Separation Study of railroad crossings within the planning limits of the Town of Cary. The N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has forwarded a municipal agreement to conduct a Traffic Separation Study of crossings on the North Carolina Railroad and CSX Transportation corridors within the planning limits of the Town of Cary. The comprehensive Traffic Separation Study and highway/railroad at-grade crossing analysis of the public crossings would benefit the traffic circulation and improve safety within the planning limits of the Town of Cary, along the North Carolina Railroad Company’s designated “H” line and CSX Transportation’s “S” line. The Traffic Separation Study will include comprehensive evaluations of overall traffic patterns and road usage, which will assist in determining the need for improvements and/or elimination of public grade crossings. NCDOT will be responsible for hiring an engineering consulting firm to perform the Traffic Separation Study. Upon completion of the study, NCDOT, Town Staff, and the consultant will meet to discuss the findings and ensure that all scoping items have been adequately addressed. The Town of Cary shall make a “best effort” to implement the overall recommendations of the study, in order to improve safety for the general public at the crossing locations. Many of the improvements could potentially be constructed as part of future Capital Improvements Projects. NCDOT does not anticipate beginning the study until 2003. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the municipal agreement for Traffic Separation Study with NCDOT be executed. (Resolution 01-179 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) _________________________ 2. NW Maynard Road Bid Award (EN02-47) Committee recommended that Thompson Contracting Inc. be awarded the contract for NW Maynard Road for $2,963,769.06. On September 7, 2001, engineering staff received bids for the widening of NW Maynard Road from Godbold Park to James Jackson Avenue. The project consists of widening of NW Maynard Road to a 7-lane, median-divided section from Chapel Hill Road to Evans Road with appropriate traffic signalization at Evans Road, Chapel Hill Road, and James Jackson Avenue. The project also calls for the installation of a right turn lane at James Jackson Avenue that includes the construction of a pileand-panel retaining wall. Thompson Contracting Inc. is the low bidder with a bid of $2,963,769.06. The engineer’s estimate for this project was $3,270,217.22. Funds for this project have been budgeted. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Thompson Contracting Inc. be awarded the contract for the sum of $2,963,769.06. The bids follow: October 11, 2001 Page 8 Bid Tabulation $2,963,769.06 $3,138,706.40 $3,139,598.01 $3,233,300.70 $3,513,829.78 $3,561,504.96 $3,623,244.30 $3,639,894.69 $3,807,002.30 Thompson Contracting Inc. Blythe Development Co. W. E. Garrison Allen Grading Co. Jones Brothers Triangle Grading and Paving C. C. Mangum S. T. Wooten Blythe Construction Co. _________________________ 3. SE Cary Parkway at Lochmere Drive Traffic Signal (EN02-50) Committee recommended that $100,000 from the Traffic Signalization project budget be used for the design and installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of SE Cary Parkway and Lochmere Drive. This item was pulled from the consent agenda for discussion. _________________________ 4. Bid Award – Honeysuckle Pump Station Elimination Project (EN02-51) Committee recommended that 1) Utility Development Corporation be awarded the construction contract for the Honeysuckle Pump Station Elimination Project for $213,305, 2) $8,105 be transferred from the land and site acquisition account of this project to the construction account, and 3) $60,000 be transferred from the Fairfield Inn Grinder Addition Project to Honeysuckle Pump Station Elimination Project construction account. The Town received bids for the Honeysuckle Pump Station Elimination Project on Tuesday, August 21, 2001. The Town of Cary Engineering Department designed the project. This project will remove the pump station at the end of Honeysuckle Lane by extending 1,338-LF of gravity sewer main along Castlefern Drive that connects to an existing sewer main. The elimination of the pump station was recommended in the Wastewater System Report produced by Diehl and Phillips in 1992. The gravity sewer main is preferred over the existing pump station because it does not require power, needs very little maintenance and is reliable during periods of bad weather. The Capital Improvements Budget has provided $145,200 for the construction of this project. The Engineer’s estimated construction cost was $200,000, and the tabulation of all received bids is shown below. BIDDER BASE BID UTILITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION $213,305.00 CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION SERVICES, INC. $239,625.00 WILKERSON CONTRACTING CO., INC. $265,950.00 PARK CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION $293,522.64 BILLINGS & GARRETT UTILITY CONTRACTORS $304,087.50 RAMEY, INC. $488,100.00 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Utility Development Corporation be awarded the construction contract for the Honeysuckle Pump Station Elimination Project for the bid amount of $213,305. Staff also recommends that within the Honeysuckle Pump Station Elimination Project, October 11, 2001 Page 9 number SW1033, $8,105 be transferred from the land & site acquisition account (061-0000-574.71-00) to the construction account (061-0000-574.75-10). Staff further recommends that $60,000 be transferred from the Fairfield Inn Grinder Addition Project, number SW1051, to the SW1033 construction account (061-0000-574.75-10). _________________________ 5. Water Service to Properties on E. Chatham St. (EN02-52) Committee recommended granting a waiver on the dual utility connection requirement for the purpose of preventing human exposure to potential petroleum-impacted groundwater. A request was received from EPOCH Environmental Group on behalf of the property owners to provide public water service to six properties located on E. Chatham Street without being required to receive public sewer service. These parcels are within the current Town limits. They are located within 1,000 feet of a site (former Conoco store) which is listed in the State of North Carolina Leaking Underground Storage Tank database. These properties are currently served with private wells and septic systems. Recent ground water data confirms that the drinking water wells in the area are not petroleum impacted. However, in an effort consistent with NC regulatory requirements, EPOCH hopes to mitigate potential human exposure by connecting these dwellings to public water and abandoning the wells. Town Policy Statement 12 – Requests for Utility Connection, states that “Any request for a single utility service shall be required to connect to both utilities. The Town Council shall have the authority to grant a waiver or extension to this requirement.” Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Town Council grant a waiver on the dual utility connection requirement in this case, considering that the request for water service is to prevent human exposure to potential petroleum impacted groundwater. Properties Requesting Water Service Without Sewer Service October 11, 2001 Page 10 _________________________ 6. Gallup Road Extension Project – Bid Award (EN02-54) Committee recommended that Bailey Contracting, Inc. be awarded a contract for $260,361.48 for constructing the Gallup Road Extension Project and that $180,000 be transferred from General Capital Reserve (Powell Bill) to the Gallup Road Extension Project. The Town received bids for the Gallup Road Extension Project on Tuesday, September 18, 2001. This project consists of connecting Gallup Road from the intersection of Silvergrove Drive to Evans Road. The overall length of the project is 600 feet. The Engineer’s estimate for this project was $408,012. The bid tabulation is shown below: CONTRACTOR BID Bailey Contracting, Inc. $260,361.48 Narron Construction $281,445.00* Pacos Construction $307,042.50* B&B Paving $313,725.75 Blythe Development $346,662.50 S.T. Wooten $350,096.70 Triangle Grading & Paving $360,854.06 CC Magnum $420,169.00 * bid modified due to mathematical error Based on increases in unit prices since this project was originally funded in 1996, the cost to relocate the existing parking lot for the Cary United Church of Christ at Evans Road and the cost to relocate a major gas line that crosses the roadway, Staff is requesting an additional $180,000 for construction. October 11, 2001 Page 11 Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Bailey Contracting, Inc. be awarded the construction contract for the amount of $260,361.48 and that $180,000 be transferred from the General Capital Reserve (Powell Bill) to the Gallup Road Extension Project (ST1010), Account #062-0000-514.7510. _________________________ 7. Transportation Development Fee – Preston PUD and Waverly (EN02-56) Committee recommended extensions of transportation development fee credits for Preston PUD and Waverly. Two developments have requested an extension to the expiration date for transportation development fee credits given for road improvements to thoroughfares. Agreements expire 10 years after execution. Preston PUD has requested a two year extension. They have not asked for an extension in the past. These fees would apply to a few lots remaining in the original development. Staff feels that a two-year extension is reasonable based on the amount of development remaining. Waverly is requesting a second extension until December 31, 2003. This coincides with the target date for the buildout of the office area. Staff supports this request since it follows a logical implementation of the approved site plan and is for a limited time. Staff Recommendation: credits as requested. Staff recommends extensions to both transportation development fee _________________________ 8. Morrisville Fire-Rescue Department Service Contract (FD02-01) Committee recommended approval of an emergency service contract with the Morrisville FireRescue Department for the Kitty Hawk/Airport area of Town. Currently we have an emergency service contract with the Parkwood Fire Department in Durham County to help supplement emergency services to the Kitty Hawk/Airport Area of Town. Within the past 18 months, the Morrisville Fire-Rescue Department has opened a new fire station at Chapel Hill Road and Perimeter Parkway. The new Morrisville Fire Station is closer to the area than Parkwood and is staffed with full-time personnel 24 hours per day 7 days a week. In order to provide emergency service to the area with the nearest emergency unit, we recommend a new Automatic Aid Fire Service Contract with the Morrisville Fire-Rescue Department. The contract with Morrisville will be implemented at the same cost as the current contract with the Parkwood Fire Department. The current contract with Parkwood Fire Department will be terminated on September 30, 2001. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the new contract with Morrisville Fire-Rescue Department and termination of the contract with the Parkwood Fire Department. _________________________ 9. Amendment to Stop Sign Ordinance (PD02-005 ) Committee recommended approval of proposed amendments to the ordinance concerning stop streets. Stop signs have been place or ordered, for the streets as per the following listing. The proposed stop street additions are made to facilitate the safe movements of vehicular traffic on the town-maintained streets as listed. Staff Recommendation: Approve amendments to the Street Schedules Ordinance as listed in the interest of traffic safety. October 11, 2001 Page 12 WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Cary has determined that a certain street or streets should be designated or deleted as “Stop Streets”; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Cary: Section 1. Pursuant to Code Section 12-98, the following streets should be designated as “stop streets” and added to Schedule IX (Section 12-208), in alphabetical order: Allenhurst Place at its southeast intersection with Wayfield Lane. Anita Way at its northwest intersection with Evans Estates Drive. Ballard Creek CT. at its southwest intersection with Dominion Hill Drive. Barret Manor CT. at its southwest intersection with Peachtree Point CT. Cakebread CT. at its northwest intersection with Briardale Avenue. Dominion Hill Drive at its northwest intersection with April Bloom Drive. Dominion Hill Drive at its southeast intersection with April Bloom Lane. Dominion Hill Drive at its southeast intersection with Carpenter Town Lane. Evanvale CT. at its southwest intersection with Devonhall Lane. Hall Mill Drive at its northeast intersection with Sherwood Forest Place. Lord Levens Lane at its northeast intersection with Hamilton Hedge Place. Millsford CT. at its southwest intersection with Shillings Chase Drive. Minden Lane at its southwest intersection with Tecumseh CT. Morganford Place at its southeast intersection with Wayfield Lane. Presidents Walk Lane at its southeast intersection with Morrisville Carpenter Road. Prince Oliver Place at its northwest intersection with Ballard Creek CT. Prince Oliver Place at its southeast intersection with April Bloom Lane. Prince Oliver Place at its southeast intersection with Ballard Creek CT. Red Top Hills CT. at its northwest intersection with Barret Manor CT. Shillings Chase Drive at its northwest intersection with Wayfield Lane. Wayfield Lane at its northeast intersection with Stephenson Road. Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective upon its adoption. (Ordinance 01-021 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.) _________________________ 10. Approval for Expenditure of funds donated to the Police Department by the GlaxoWellcome Corporation (PD02-006) Committee recommended appropriation of $2,500 in donated funds to the police department’s software account for the purchase of firearms training software. The Glaxo-Wellcome Corporation has donated $2,500 to the police department for the purchase of firearms training software. The product to be purchased, the Beamhit Firearms Training Tool, is an indoor system used to improve the shooting skills of police officers. The software is installed on a dedicated PC and will be operated in the department’s training room. October 11, 2001 Page 13 The software is designed so that police officers can practice sight alignment, sight picture, trigger pull, stance, and other shooting fundamentals. The police officer uses an unloaded sidearm with the aid of a laser device. The laser calculates the exact point of impact of each simulated round. This information aids the police officer in identifying weaknesses in shooting performance. Proper instruction can then be given to correct the mistakes, thereby enhancing the shooting skills of the police officer. All of this can be done with the aid of a firearms instructor and without the use of live ammunition. In summary, the Glaxo-Wellcome Corporation has donated $2,500 to the department for the purchase of a firearms training software system. The funds were donated in FY01 and have been placed in the General Fund. It is requested that these funds be appropriated from the General Fund and be placed in the department’s software account to accommodate the purchase of the Beamhit Firearms Training Tool. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Cary Town Council appropriate $2,500 in donated funds from the General Fund to the police department’s software account. The funds will be used for the purchase of firearms training software. _________________________ 11. YMCA After School Program Agreement (PR02-14) Committee recommended that the Town enter into an agreement with Southwest Wake YMCA to operate an after school program at Middle Creek Community Center for a reduced rental fee of $40/day through October 1, 2002 at which time the rental fee will convert to the Cary based non-profit rate. This item was pulled from the consent agenda for discussion. _________________________ 12. Effective Utilization of Reclaimed Water System Policy (PWUT02-004) Committee recommended approval of a policy statement refining the Town’s commitment to utilizing reclaimed water for a variety of secondary water use facilities. The Town of Cary began piping reclaimed water to residents and businesses on June 22, 2001. This “first in North Carolina” reclaimed water system diverts the discharge of treated wastewater from the Neuse River Basin and, instead, pipes it to nearly 400 business and residential water customers for irrigation and cooling uses. The project is designed to reduce the amount of wastewater going into streams and rivers while also reducing the non-essential use of drinking water. Council has acknowledged the benefits of a reclaimed water system and, more broadly, water conservation principles, both through previous policy statements (Policy Statement 111, “Water Conservation and Demand Management Policy”) and the adoption of ordinance 99-013. Ordinance 99013 is now the Cary Code’s Reclaimed Water Ordinance (§19-105 to 19-124). To ensure the continued effective establishment and operation of the Town’s reclaimed water system, the policy statement “Effective Utilization of Reclaimed Water System” is proposed for review and approval. The policy formally establishes the Town’s commitment to the use of reclaimed water for “secondary water use facilities” such as irrigation systems and cooling towers. In addition to this report, Staff has completed an analysis of the costs and benefits associated with the major “secondary water use facilities.” In summary, the analysis did not show there was a consistent benefit to nonresidential customers who could utilize reclaimed water for some secondary purposes (e.g., toilet flushing and other indoor uses of reclaimed water). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the proposed policy statement “Effective Utilization of Reclaimed Water System.” October 11, 2001 Page 14 POLICY STATEMENT 132 EFFECTIVE UTILIZATION OF RECLAIMED WATER SYSTEM Purpose and Background In an effort to reduce the amount of wastewater going into streams and rivers while also reducing nonessential use of drinking water, the Town of Cary developed a reclaimed water system, which officially went online June 22, 2001. A limited service area has already been defined for hundreds of residents and businesses, and the Town plans to extend the system in the future. This policy has been adopted to ensure the continued effective utilization of the reclaimed water system. Policy It is the policy of the Town of Cary that residents and businesses utilize—to the maximum extent possible—the Town’s reclaimed water system for secondary plumbing usage, including irrigation, cooling towers, and other potential uses (“secondary water use facilities”) as determined by the Town Manager or designee (hereafter “Manager”). If reclaimed water is not available to a site for use when that site is ready for development, but the Manager determines that reclaimed water will be available in the future, all on-site secondary water use facilities suitable for reclaimed water shall be designed to be converted to use reclaimed water. The Town will provide potable water to secondary water use facilities on such site only until reclaimed water is available to the site and connection to the Town’s reclaimed water system is possible. At the time that reclaimed water is available to the site, connection to the reclaimed water system is required. No person shall plumb or alter secondary plumbing fixtures, including irrigation systems, or otherwise modify such potential reclaimed water appurtenances so as to preclude the use of reclaimed water when such becomes available. This policy directs staff to develop the necessary ordinances and procedures to ensure the effective utilization of the Town’s reclaimed water system. (Policy Statement 132 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.) _________________________ 13. Approval of funding for bicycle helmets using grant funds from the NC Department of Transportation (PD02-007) Committee recommended acceptance and appropriation to the Police Department’s uniform account of a $700 grant from the NC Department of Transportation for the purchase of 100 bicycle helmets for distribution to children in Cary. The NC Department of Transportation has awarded the Police Department $700 to purchase bicycle helmets in support of the new state bicycle helmet law. These monies are part of a one-time grant program sponsored by NCDOT. The Department proposes that the Council authorize the acceptance of this funding, to be used for the purchase of approximately 100 low-cost, high-quality bicycle helmets for distribution to needy children in Cary. In order to comply with grant stipulations, helmets must be purchased by October 31, 2001 and distributed by December 31, 2001. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Cary Town Council authorize the acceptance of $700 from the NC Department of Transportation for the immediate purchase of 100 bicycle helmets for distribution to children in Cary. All monies will be placed in the Police Department's uniform account for expenditure. _________________________ October 11, 2001 Page 15 14. 24-Hour Town Hall Upgrade (AD02-004) Committee recommended upgrade the Town’s telephone-based citizen information be upgraded and enhanced and that $28,450 be appropriated from General Fund fund balance for this project including the multilingual enhancement. In 1994, the Town of Cary joined a growing list of hundreds of local governments throughout the nation committed to increasing citizen access to government by placing important information on an automated telephone system. At that time, the Town chose to utilize the Automated Citizen Information System (ACIS) from Tele-Works, Inc. of Blacksburg, VA. Over the years, Cary’s “24-Hour Town Hall” has become a vital information tool, especially for thousands of Cary residents and business owners who do not have access to the Internet, who are visually impaired or dyslexic, or who are otherwise unable to read. Currently the service averages about 6,000 calls a month. ACIS enhances the Town’s customer service to residents and businesses by: Making information accessible 24 hours a day from any touch tone telephone Providing one telephone number for all information requests Offering informational messages for every department, every topical area Similar to the web, ACIS also has the potential to reduce costs: Staff time reduced on answering repetitive questions from citizens on the phone or in person Fewer customers to wait on in person Of course, ACIS is a management tool designed to supplement the Town’s other information tools and is not designed to eliminate person-to-person contact. REVIEW: While still operational, the features and functionality of this Town’s DOS-format ACIS have become limited and cumbersome relative to the needs of the Town and in light of the advances in technology in recent years. In addition, the Town’s outdated system is no longer serviced by its manufacturer or known vendors. I. After examining the options for improving the Town’s telephone-based information resource, staff has determined that upgrading the existing Tele-Works system is the most efficient, effective, and economical way to proceed. Of the numerous enhancements available from Tele-Works, staff is recommending that the Town upgrade its existing DOS ACIS to Windows NT and to include the following features: Telecommunications Device for the Deaf Enhancement -- equips the Town to continue to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act requirements by providing TDD/TTY access for hearing-impaired citizens. Call Transfer - Allows a caller that has accessed the system to transfer to another number. Automated Fax-on-Demand -- allows callers to have faxed to them up to 9,000 documents from our website. Call-Out -- allows the Town to initiate outbound voice calls to lists of people in the event of an emergency, for routine notifications, and for polling. Call-Out can quickly alert thousands of internal and external recipients to urgent information such as severe weather conditions, water main breaks, localized crime, or other safety bulletins. The Town can also conduct polling of citizens who sign up to be called periodically and asked up to 9 questions, given up to 9 multiple choice answers for each question and prompted to respond by pressing the appropriate key. The system tallies the responses and summarizes the results via either touch-tone phone or a printable report. II. In addition to the above recommended features, the updated ACIS can be modified to accommodate message delivery in several languages, either as part of this proposed upgrade or in the future as Council desires per the following: October 11, 2001 Page 16 Multilingual ACIS Enhancement -- allows system content to be available in up to 9 languages. There are two common multilingual configurations. The first way permits callers to access the pertinent directory whether it is a preferred language or department by selecting 19. The second way gives a separate telephone number for each directory so users can access their preferred language or department specific information directly. III. To utilize the proposed faxing feature and to address our inability to handle current call volumes during peak times, staff proposes adding 3 telephone lines to the existing four at a cost of $300 for installation and $45 per month for service. One of the three additional lines would be dedicated to the faxing option. Staff also proposes purchasing three copies of PC Anywhere software ($180 each) to allow the system to be updated remotely (as opposed to physically at the server) from the Town Manager’s Office and from the Operations Center in case of emergencies. See the following table for the Tele-works costs associated with the proposed upgrade, including maintenance of the new system for one year. Product – Unit Name Base Upgrade Platform Upgrade Services (included) Upgrade Services (not included) Call Transfer Call-Out ATIC Installation/Training (included) Annual Maintenance Total to Tele-Works Total for III. Internal Needs GRAND TOTAL Optional: Multilingual Software Annual Maintenance for Multilingual Software Multlingual Recordings Multilingual Enhancement Total GRAND TOTAL w/ MULTILINGUAL ENHANCEMENT Product – Unit Description Passive Backplane – Industrial Grade Chassis, 8-Port w/Fax-on-Demand, CRM, Print Capture Scriptware© & Customer Service Center Account, Content Conversion of Audio/Text New Content Recordings ($10 per message) for 100 messages Allows a caller to transfer to another number Performs Outbound Calling (includes Emergency Notification and Citizen Polling/Survey) TDD Enhancement Upgrade Option Must be scheduled via Tele-Works’ upgrade calendar Assumes Purchase of a Standard 8-Port Upgrade and All Options Allows the system to be available in different language(s) Costs $13,950 0 $1,000 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $0 $3,600 $24,550 $1,200 $25,750 $2,000 $200 Spanish Recordings ($10 per message) for 50 messages $500 $2,700 $28,450 Staff Recommendation: (1) Appropriate $25,750 from General Fund Fund Balance to upgrade the 24-Hour Town Hall Citizen Information Telephone System and (2) Give staff direction on if/when to include the multilingual enhancement at a cost of an additional $2,700, also to be appropriated from General Fund Fund Balance if approved. _________________________ 15. Review of the Annual Street Improvement process and the address of concerns raised – Update (EN02-18A) October 11, 2001 Page 17 Committee recommended: 1) Acceptance of a 2.0” (with 0.5” tolerance) drop-off on projects completed to date and correcting those areas which exceed that tolerance for projects completed within the previous year. 2) Development of a standard procedure outlining public notification and tighter standards for future review by Town Council. 3) On future repaving projects, allow one direct overlay and have subsequent overlays into the gutter. This item was pulled from the consent agenda for discussion. _________________________ 16. Construction of a left turn lane on Kildaire Farm Road at Arthur Pierce Road (EN02-55) Committee recommended that the construction of a left turn lane on Kildaire Farm Road at the Arthur Pierce Road intersection be included in the FY2003 Capital Improvement Budget process to allow the relative priority of this project to be evaluated along with the other $57 million in FY2003 projects identified for the FY2003 as represented in the FY2002 Capital Improvements Plan. This item was pulled from the consent agenda for discussion. _________________________ 17. Town Center Area Plan (PL02-015) Committee recommended that the $12,500 be appropriated from General Fund fund balance for the Developer Interest Study. The Town Council is requested to authorize an extension to the scope of services currently being undertaken by The Chesapeake Group on behalf of the Town. The extended service would be to undertake a Developer Interest Study. The additional fee would be $12,500. BACKGROUND On August 9, 2001, the Town Council adopted the Town Center area plan (TCAP) a long-range land use and transportation plan for the downtown and surrounding neighborhoods. The plan identifies and recommends several studies and work tasks to implement the plan vision. These are set out below: Downtown Design and Signage Guidelines. In June 2000, running in parallel with TCAP the Town engaged consultants and appropriated $128,000 to produce downtown design and signage guidelines. The contract includes an assessment of the current, future and potential use and market conditions. The project is 60% complete including 90% of the market assessment. It is scheduled for final completion this fall. Revision of downtown zoning districts. Included in the existing contract with Clarion to rewrite the unified development ordinance (UDO). Train Horn Noise Study: The Town has forwarded its concerns relating to noise generated from the operation of the proposed regional rail system in order for the Triangle Transit Authority to address as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The need for a study is, therefore, on hold until feedback is received. Downtown Stormwater Study and Public Improvements Cost Benefit Study: Proposals for these need to be drawn up and will likely be submitted for consideration of inclusion in the 2003 Budget. Developer Interest Study: This is the logical next step to the Market Study nearing completion. A proposal was requested from the Chesapeake Group in anticipation of TCAP adoption. REASONS FOR A STUDY Further to the market assessment carried out by The Chesapeake Group, it is recognized that implementation of the plan vision will take developers who are able to address and look beyond the following issues: October 11, 2001 Page 18 Multiple property ownership. The image of Cary as a suburban community. Few examples of urban density in other downtowns in the region. No known local or regional development interests seeking intensification of activity in the core of Cary. Uncertainty with respect to market for intensive development that would support multiple property acquisition costs as part of development costs. Additionally, it cannot be assumed that: Development interests are aware of opportunities and, Local interests will not respond when confronted with non-local development interests “entering the market.” PROPOSAL This study is desired to actively attract developers with a track record of facilitating redevelopment of the more intensive type envisioned, also to “spread the word” or “broadcast the opportunities” to entities that have experience in accomplishing quality intensive development in other communities and are seeking like opportunities at present. It is estimated that a study can be completed within 13 weeks of commissioning. The study will include the following tasks: Identify potentially interested parties; Obtain reasonable publicity with respect Cary’s desire for intensive development in its core area in a cost-effective manner; Establish contact with selected parties that might have an interest in pursuing intensive development; and Obtain an interest and working relationship between the developers and the Town with a few development interests that would or could lead to the redevelopment of key parcels. The objective of the study would be to establish a relationship with one or more development interests, leading to or resulting in reinvestment and selective redevelopment. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Town appropriate $12,500 from the General Fund Balance Account for the Developer Interest Study. _________________________ 18. Accelerated Greenway Development Program (PR02-13) Committee recommended that acceleration of the Greenway Development Program be evaluated in conjunction with the update of the Greenways Master Plan and any potential bond issues. This item was pulled from the consent agenda for discussion. _________________________ Items 3, 11, 15, 16, and 18 were pulled from the consent agenda. ACTION ON THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Pro Tem Smith made a motion to approve the consent agenda, except for items 3, 11, 15, 16 and 18. Mr. Weinbrecht provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval. _________________________ October 11, 2001 Page 19 Consent Agenda Item 3: SE Cary Parkway at Lochmere Drive Traffic Signal Committee recommended that $100,000 from the Traffic Signalization project budget be used for the design and installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of SE Cary Parkway and Lochmere Drive. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has approved a request by several Cary citizens to install a new traffic signal at this intersection. The intersection is presently controlled by four-way stop signs. A recent study showed that four traffic signal warrants based on traffic volumes are satisfied and an additional warrant based on collision history is also satisfied. An average of five collisions that would be correctable with traffic signal control have occurred every year since 1997. These factors led staff to recommend installation of a traffic signal, and NCDOT concurred with the recommendation. While NCDOT supports this improvement, funding for this type of project is extremely restricted at this time. NCDOT has agreed to assume the costs of signal design reviews and installation inspections if the Town of Cary funds the design and installation. Staff recommends the use of metal poles with mast arms to support the traffic signal based on consistency with nearby signals, reductions in future maintenance costs, and aesthetics. Staff intends to request proposals from engineering consulting firms to perform the necessary design services. The total estimated cost for design and construction of this signal is $100,000, which may be funded with the balance available in the annual Traffic Signalization budget. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the installation of a traffic signal on SE Cary Parkway at Lochmere Drive. Staff recommends funds in the amount of $100,000 be used for the design and installation of the signal, and that these funds come from the balance available in the annual Traffic Signalization project budget. Mayor Pro Tem Smith announced that the committee recommended a traffic signal at this dangerous intersection. Mr. Weinbrecht asked when the light will be installed. Mr. Bailey stated metal poles are required in this location due to the buried power lines, and it will take 10 to 12 months to get the signal installed and operational. ACTION ON CONSENT AGENDA ITEM #3: Mayor Pro Tem Smith made a motion to approve this item. Mr. Roseland provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval. _________________________ Consent Agenda Item #11: YMCA After School Program Agreement Committee recommended that the Town enter into an agreement with Southwest Wake YMCA to operate an after school program at Middle Creek Community Center for a reduced rental fee of $40/day through October 1, 2002 at which time the rental fee will convert to the Cary based non-profit rate. Southwest Wake YMCA has approached Town staff requesting the use of Middle Creek Community Center to conduct an after school program for West Lake Middle School students. Currently YMCA staff is using the middle school to house the program. The community center would provide an improvement in the variety of space needed to meet program expectations for the participants. The program would utilize the community center gym and activity room, as well as outdoor basketball courts, tennis courts, and softball field facilities. The details of the program are as follows: October 11, 2001 Page 20 Enrollment: Hours of Operation: Fee: Site: Facility Cost: 40 participants (21 Cary Residents) 3pm – 6pm, Monday –Friday, year-round $1250/year YMCA members $1500/year non YMCA members West Lake Middle School $27/day to Wake County Community Schools The current Community Center fee schedule allows Cary based non-profits a 50% discount weekdays 8am – 2pm. Town staff submitted a proposal to the YMCA for the 50% discount rate. According to YMCA staff, their current budget can only support $40 per day. The table below provides current nonprofit and proposed rental rates. Rental Fees Room/Gym Fee Revenue (3 hrs/day) Revenue (Annual) *Non-profit Rate $17.50/hour $52.50/day $13,125 YMCA Proposal $13.33/hour $40/day $10,000 However, YMCA staff has agreed to increase the fee to the non-profit rate effective October 1, 2002. There are several positive aspects of entering into an agreement with the YMCA. Since Middle Creek Community Center is a new facility, programs have not been established and staff believes that the after school program will enhance its own programs and activities. Also, the need for teen programming is an initiative that staff is currently addressing through events and activities. Finally, the YMCA has been a collaborative partner in several events and programs with the Town of Cary such as Run in the New Year and Youth Triathlons. In existing community centers the highest volumes of classes are held in the evening with morning being the second most desired class time. Therefore, facilitating the YMCA would not substantially impact community center class/program revenue. Staff estimates program revenue of approximately $6000 per year for typical community center activities during this time frame. The most efficient use of the facility during the time requested would be to enter into an agreement with the YMCA to provide space for an after school program. Staff Recommendation: Enter into an agreement with the Southwest Wake YMCA for a facility rental fee of $40/day to provide an after school program at Middle Creek Community Center. Effective October 1, 2002, the rental fee will convert to the Cary based non-profit rate. Ms. Barry of the parks, recreation and cultural resources department stated the YMCA wants to run an after school program at the Middle Creek community center. She stated this is a good use of Town facilities and it will provide activities for the middle school age group. Mr. Weinbrecht stated the county attorney will soon make a decision on excluding other after school providers, because the YMCA has a contract with the school system. He stated this issue appears to be a school by school issue. Ms. Barry stated the YMCA approached the Town and asked to use the community center. She stated the Town considers this as a rental request, and staff requests a reduction in the fee structure. ACTION ON CONSENT AGENDA ITEM #11: Mayor Pro Tem Smith made a motion to approve the YMCA after school program agreement. Mayor Lang provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval. _________________________ Consent Agenda Item #15: Review of the Annual Street Improvement process and the address of concerns raised -- update October 11, 2001 Page 21 Committee recommended: 1) Acceptance of a 2.0” (with 0.5” tolerance) drop-off on projects completed to date and correcting those areas which exceed that tolerance for projects completed within the previous year. 2) Development of a standard procedure outlining public notification and tighter standards for future review by Town Council. Staff prepared a report to overview the rating and construction process associated with the annual street re-paving project. This report was presented to the Operations Committee on August 3, 2001, and then to the Town Council on August 9, 2001. The recommendations proposed by staff in that report are listed as follows: 1. Maintain the current method of block by block analysis. 2. Maintain the services of ITRE for pavement evaluation until data from the pilot study is in for comparison. 3. Maintain the current program of pavement overlay with an acceptable elevation difference of 2.5”. 4. Inventory and evaluate methods of resolution to any areas exceeding the 2.5” criteria or abrupt driveway transitions. 5. Relay information on decision by Town Council through a community contact. During those meetings, questions were raised regarding some of the recommendations, and staff was directed to revisit the following areas: 1. Develop a cost matrix of different methods that do not produce an elevation difference. 2. Develop a cost estimate to address any areas paved within the past calendar year which exceed a 1” elevation difference. 3. Develop methods to increase public notification and implement tighter standards. Cost Matrix An asphalt street will typically require a complete surface paving every 15 to 20 years. To maintain pace with the pavement life cycle, staff has programmed approximately $1M (current dollars) per year for every year in the Capital Improvement Plan. These program costs are based upon overlaying an existing street twice. Upon completion of the second overlay, a difference of 2” to 2-1/2” is expected between the asphalt roadway and the concrete gutter. The options and associated costs for different methods, which do not produce an elevation difference, are outlined below. 1. Gutter Overlay – This method would overlay the street and into the gutter portion of the curb and gutter. The pros of this method are that it is the least costly and labor intense to construct. The cons of this method are that it would reduce the storm drain capacity of the gutter, produce a dropoff around the perimeter of storm drain grate openings, and change the appearance of the roadway. This method could be employed two times before a complete milling of the street would be required. 2. Partial Milling – This method would remove asphalt within a five-foot width nearest the curb and gutter to allow overlay of the street at a steeper pitch but flush at the gutter. The pros of this method are that it is the least costly method which will not affect the gutter capacity. The cons of this method are that it would increase the cross slope of the roadway thereby causing cars to pull more to the right, causing cars to scrape while exiting and entering driveways, and possibly requiring the modification to drainage structures in curved sections of the roadway. This method could be employed one time before a complete milling of the street is required. 3. Full Milling – This method would remove asphalt within the entire width of the roadway and then replace with new asphalt. The pros of this method are that it would not negatively effect any of the existing parameters of the roadway (i.e. gutter capacity, roadway slope, etc.). The cons of this method are that it would require more intensive traffic control and utility work and is, therefore, costly to construct. This method may be used repeatedly. 4. Curb and Gutter Replacement – This method would remove the existing curb and gutter and replace with new curb and gutter at the higher elevation of the new overlay. The pros of this method are that it would have limited effect on the existing parameters of the roadway. The cons October 11, 2001 Page 22 of this method are that it is the most costly option and would impact existing driveways and sidewalks. This method could be employed one time before one of the other methods is required. Method Direct Overlay Gutter Overlay Partial Milling Full Milling New Curb & Gutter Cost per foot $12.0 $23.3 $28.5 $46.5 $55.6 Miles per year 15.5 8.0 6.5 3.9 3.3 Cost Factor 1.0 1.9 2.4 3.9 4.6 Annual Budget on 20-yr. cycle $1.0M $2.0M $2.4M $4.0M $4.7M Listed below for reference are the maintenance programs employed by various municipalities and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Municipality / Agency* Initial Maintenance Method NCDOT 1.5” Direct Overlay Charlotte 1.5” Direct Overlay Raleigh 1.5” Direct Overlay Greensboro 1.5” Direct Overlay Winston-Salem 1.0” Direct Overlay Asheville 1.5” Direct Overlay Wilmington 2.0” Direct Overlay High Point 1.0” Direct Overlay * All groups generally accepted a tolerance of 0.5”. Subsequent Maintenance Method Partial Milling Partial Milling Gutter Overlay Gutter Overlay Partial Milling Partial Milling Gutter Overlay Gutter Overlay Address of Existing Drop Off Staff has reviewed the number of streets completed within the previous calendar year. There are approximately 40 miles of streets where the elevation difference between the asphalt and gutter exceeds 1”. The estimated cost to ameliorate this lip through a gutter overlay is $4.9M. The estimated cost to remove this lip through partial milling is $6.0M. There is approximately 1 mile of streets where the elevation difference between the asphalt and gutter exceeds 2.5”. The estimated cost to ameliorate this lip through a combination of methods is $200,000. Public Notification and Tighter Standards Upon completion of the Pavement Condition Survey, staff will review those streets to ensure no lower priority block segments were inadvertently missed. Staff will then present the priority list of streets to the Town Council. Upon approval by Town Council, staff will then proceed with the design and construction documents. This process will make available to the public a notice on the Town’s web page and an open meeting. Inspection staff will direct corrections when tolerances are exceeded at time of construction. Staff will formalize this process through development of a Standard Procedure. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends acceptance of 2.0” (with 0.5” tolerance) drop-off on projects completed to date, and address of those areas which exceed that tolerance for projects completed within the previous calendar year. Staff also recommends the implementation of a standard procedure outlining public notification and tighter standards for future review by Town Council. Finally, Staff requests direction from council on how to proceed with future projects by selection of one of the following alternatives: 1) proceed as presently defined with a 2.0” lip and 0.5” tolerance, 2) allow one direct overlay and have subsequent overlays into the gutter, or 3) allow no lips and pursue the most cost effective method to obtain a flush surface. October 11, 2001 Page 23 Figure 1. Direct Overlay (second application) Figure 2. Valley Gutter Overlay (first application) Figure 3. Standard Gutter Overlay (first application) October 11, 2001 Page 24 Mr. Bailey’s power point presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit C and contains various photo depictions of street repavings. He stated prior to bringing a recommendation forward to the operations committee summarizing which streets to repair and what methods to use, staff will develop a policy or procedure. Mayor Lang voiced his opposition to the proposal and instead suggested milling to the curb and gutter. He stated he would like to spend more money on milling for a more aesthetically pleasing product and to provide safer streets. Mr. Bailey stated Cary spends over $1 million annually on repaving, and this cost increases slightly each year based on inflation. He stated full milling will cost approximately 3.9 times as much as an overlay. Mayor Lang asked about milling to the edge. Mr. Bailey stated a partial mill will cost 2.4 times as much as an overlay. Ms. Dorrel expressed her concern that the milling may cause motorists to scrape on their driveways. She stated she understands there will be some cases in which the overlay cannot be used because of stormwater issues. Mr. Roseland suggested considering both options and allowing staff to make a list of streets that would fit best into the options. ACTION ON CONSENT AGENDA ITEM #15: Ms. Dorrel made a motion to accept the Operations Committee recommendation, and Mr. Roseland provided the second. “No” votes were registered by Mayor Lang, Mr. Weinbrecht and Mrs. Robinson. All others voted “aye,” and the motion carried by majority vote (4-3). _________________________ CONSENT AGENDA ITEM #16: Construction of left turn lane on Kildaire Farm Road at Arthur Pierce Road Committee recommended that the construction of a left turn lane on Kildaire Farm Road at the Arthur Pierce Road intersection be included in the FY2003 Capital Improvement Budget process to allow the relative priority of this project to be evaluated along with the other $57 million in FY2003 projects identified for the FY2003 as represented in the FY2002 Capital Improvements Plan. Kildaire Farm Road at Arthur Pierce Road is a two-lane, two-way, 24-foot wide road on a 60-foot right of way. The speed limit is 45 MPH. Based on a request from Council Member Harold Weinbrecht, a traffic study was performed at this location. The average daily traffic on Kildaire Farm Road is 11,000 and the PM peak hour left turn movement onto Arthur Pierce Road is 200 vehicles. A left turn lane at this location will be a positive benefit to the flow of traffic along Kildaire Farm Road and will decrease the possibility of rear end collisions. The left turning southbound movement onto Arthur Pierce Road in the afternoon peak hour volume of 200 vehicles will require a 150-foot left turn bay. Transitional tapers of 270 feet north and south of the intersection, in conjunction with the left turn bay, will create a 754 foot work zone. The pavement widening could be done symmetrically (6 feet on each side) and should be possible within the existing right-of-way. Staff has estimated the construction cost of this left turn lane and pavement widening to be $77,000. Construction of this left turn lane could be performed in March of 2002. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the construction of a left turn lane on Kildaire Farm Road at the Arthur Pierce Road intersection be included in the Fiscal Year 2003 Capital Improvement Budget development process. This will allow the relative priority of this project full consideration along with the other $57M in FY2003 projects identified for the FY2003 year as represented in the FY2002 Capital Improvements Plan. Should Council elect to proceed with this project as a FY2002 mid-year appropriation, Staff would recommend that $77,000 be transferred from the General Capital Reserve Fund Balance. Should this $77,000 appropriation take place in FY2002, the General Capital Reserve Fund Balance would be approximately $4.5M by the end of FY2002. Refer to Project ST 1096. October 11, 2001 Page 25 Mr. Weinbrecht stated he has heard several complaints about the traffic throughput in this area and public safety issues. He stated staff has indicated that if money is taken from the general fund, then it can be fixed by March of 2002. Mr. Bailey stated staff included funding alternatives, and one of the alternatives was the capital budget in which higher safety issues are handled first. He stated this situation does have some rear-end potential accidents, which do tend to be the less severe accidents. Mayor Lang stated this location is where the Middle Creek high school students are making left-hand turns off Kildaire Farm Road. ACTION ON CONSENT AGENDA ITEM #16: Mr. Weinbrecht made a motion to transfer $77,000 from the general fund to go ahead and move forward with the left turn lane at Kildaire Farm Road and Arthur Pierce Road. Mr. Roseland provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval. _________________________ CONSENT AGENDA ITEM #18: Accelerated Greenway Development Program Committee recommended that acceleration of the Greenway Development Program be evaluated in conjunction with the update of the Greenways Master Plan and any potential bond issues. The Town of Cary has been building greenway trails for walking, jogging and bicycling since 1980. Because of this commitment, greenways remain as one of Cary’s most popular recreational amenities, exemplifying the Town’s long term commitment to preserve open space and provide recreational opportunities for all its citizens. The following update is based upon a request by Council Member Nels Roseland to identify issues related to accelerating the pace of developing greenways. Council approval of the 1998 Parks, Greenways and Bikeways Master Plan limited the development of greenways to two miles per year. With approximately 66 miles of greenway proposed in the Master Plan, it would take approximately 33 years to complete. Parks, Greenways and Bikeways Master Plan In 1998, the Town Council adopted a ten-year master plan that addressed the implementation of a system of parks, greenways and bikeways to meet recreation and transportation needs of local residents to the 2010. These needs were defined through an analysis of the current distribution of facilities, workshops with local residents, town staff, Cary Town Council, a citizen survey and research on programming needs. An inventory of the existing greenways found that despite the popularity of the greenways, the existing system of trails was dispersed throughout Town. Most of the Town’s 12 miles of trail functioned primarily as isolated recreation facilities. Many were located within residential areas and did not connect with nearby schools, shopping centers, or office parks. With some exceptions, these trails tended to lack connectivity and did not function as a continuous network. The 1998 goals for the new greenway plan included the following: Encourage alternative transportation by providing linkages among existing greenways, onroad bikeways and sidewalks. Provide a continuous system of greenway trail facilities linking destinations within the Town, including neighborhoods, schools, parks, shopping and office developments. Emphasize the multi-objective role of greenways as recreational facilities, transportation corridors, habitats for wildlife and water quality improvement facilities. Encourage the development of environmentally sensitive greenway facilities by incorporating certain techniques such as the use of recycled materials, native plantings, streambank stabilization and protection of wetlands and other natural areas. Provide greenways which can be enjoyed by a variety of users and minimize user conflicts through design and education. October 11, 2001 Page 26 Provide for people with disabilities in the design of greenways, wherever practical. Develop greenways with specific standards that ensure the safety of trail users. Based on the above-listed goals, the plan recommended the development of a continuous system of greenways and bikeways throughout Cary to transform the current system of fragmented recreational paths into a multi-objective system. The system as comprised would have approximately 66 new miles of greenway and over 50 miles of bikeway. In all, 13 new greenways were recommended to compliment Cary’s existing greenways. The system was recommended to be off-road as much as possible. In keeping with the goal of developing a multi-objective system of greenways, the majority of these greenways were recommended to be paved at a width between 10 – 12’. Major origins and destinations were recommended to link with the system, including RTP, downtown Cary, Bond Park, Lake Crabtree, Umstead State Park, Cary Towne Center and numerous neighborhoods and smaller parks. Existing Conditions & Current Progress Currently Cary has 11 existing greenways totaling over 12 miles. Five of these greenways – Hinshaw, Swift Creek, Black Creek, White Oak and Symphony Lake – are paved to accommodate the needs of bicyclists, people with disabilities, strollers and in-line skaters. The remaining greenways, representing half of the total miles of trail, offer residents opportunities for hiking, walking and jogging for recreation. Trail Name Annie Jones Trails Black Creek Phase Segment I Length (Miles) 1.21 I,II W. Dynasty to Reedy Crk Rd 2.50 Bond Lake Trail I Along west side of Bond Lake 0.86 Higgins Greenway I Maynard to Danforth Drive 0.40 Hinshaw I From Greenwood Circle to Seabrook Avenue 0.80 Oxxford Hunt Greenway I Oxxford Hunt 1.50 Parkway Greenway I Bond Park Dam to Cary Parkway 0.80 Pirate’s Cove Greenway I Greenwood Circle south to Glengarry Drive 0.65 Swift Creek I Ritter Park to Regency Parkway 0.79 Symphony Lake I Trail surrounds Lake Symphony 1.20 White Oak Creek I,II Davis Drive Schools to Parkscene 1.29 Total (Existing) 12.00 Table 1: Existing Trails Balancing off this public system of greenways is over 25 miles of private greenways. These are located within subdivisions throughout Town. While some of these private trails are open to the public, most prohibit use by those living outside of the subdivision or PUD. In January of 2000, staff submitted staff report PR00-29 updating Council on the progress of the greenway element of the Master Plan. It recommended three major principles in which to guide the development of greenways within Cary. These include: Develop Bond Park as the major pedestrian hub of the Cary Greenway System. Prioritize those greenways which will provide an east/west and north/south connection and which link Cary residents with regional destinations. Invest in grade-separated road crossings at strategic locations throughout Town to maintain continuous pedestrian connections and to insure the safety of pedestrians. October 11, 2001 Page 27 With Bond Park as Cary’s largest and most popular park and it being in close proximity to a large portion of Cary’s population, it would be ideal to use it as the major hub of Cary’s greenway network. The master plan recommended the development of 13 new greenways in addition to the existing 11 greenways. PRCR recommended prioritizing 8 of these greenways, which, if developed, would provide pedestrian access for the majority of the Town. Lastly, to create a continuous and safe system of greenways, it was recommended to provide gradeseparated crossings at specific locations. These included controlled access roads (Cary Towne Boulevard), high traffic volume roads (Cary Parkway, Maynard Road, Davis Drive, NC 55, High House Road), rail lines and other cases where a signalized intersection was not appropriate. Grade separated crossings could be attained by taking a greenway over or under a road. Grade-separated crossings are estimated to cost between $200,000 and $500,000 per crossing. Based upon these principles, since 1998, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department has initiated over 16 miles of greenway trail projects. These include the following: Trail Name Phase Bachelor Branch I Black Creek Black Creek Panther Creek Speight Branch Walnut Creek White Oak Creek Total III IV I Segment Development Status Length (Miles) NC 55 to Sears Farm Road Park and extends to Tom Brooks Dynasty to Maynard In Design 1.70 875,300 High In Design 1.00 771,448 High Godbold Park to NC 54 and Bond Park Surrounds Cary Park Lake In Design 4.74 2,641,800 High In Design 1.87 Dedication High In Design 0.60 546,900 High In Design 1.67 731,361 High In Design 4.43 3,549,900 High 16.01 $9,116,709 I Tryon Road south to Cary Parkway I Buck Jones Road to Cary Towne Center III, IV Bond Park to Green Level Church Road Budget Priority Table 2: Current Greenway Projects in Design An additional 18 miles of greenway have been budgeted in the CIP for FY03 to FY07. Table 3 provides a summary of these projects. Trail Name Phase Bachelor Branch Preston Village Connector Trail Crabtree Creek II I I Segment Development Length CIP Budget Priority Status (Miles) Tom Brooks Park to Green Level West Road Morrisville Parkway south to NC55 10-year CIB Black Creek Greenway to edge of Morrisville limits 10-year CIB 1.20 1,210,600 High 1.68 1,487,500 High 2.06 1,399,800 High 10-year CIB October 11, 2001 Page 28 Trail Name Phase Kids Together/M cDonald Wds Trail NC 55 Underpasses Panther Creek Speight Branch Swift Creek Swift Creek Tryon Rd Ped. Under-pass Walnut Creek Total I II III II II III II Segment Development Length CIP Budget Priority Status (Miles) Links McDonald Woods to Kids Together Park. Includes underpass at US 1/64 5 Year CIB 3 pedestrian underpasses as part of NC55 Road widening project From Cary Park Lake to ATT From NC 55 west to Green Level to Durham Road Cary Parkway to Swift Creek 5 Year CIB 10-Year CIB 10-Year CIB 10-Year CIB From Holly Springs Road to Lake Pine. Link w/ Regency. From Lake Pine to Bond Park 10-Year CIB Provides linkage between Speight Br Greenway and proposed Tryon Rd Park Adams Elem. To State Capital Soccer and East Chatham 10-Year CIB 10-Year CIB 10-Year CIB 0.70 1,250,700 High _ 1,350,000 High 1.80 1,665,400 High 1.83 1,465,500 High 1.40 1,884,900 High 4.34 1.86 519,600 (Design only) 356,700 (Design only) High - 500,00 High 1.60 1,146,500 High 18.21 $14,237,100 Table 3: Greenway Projects in the 10-Year CIB Schedule and Funding The following are several alternatives indicating how the Town might schedule and fund an accelerated greenway program. Three alternatives have been developed. The remaining 50 miles (includes 18 miles budgeted within the CIB and 32 miles that are not budgeted.) of greenway that remain to be constructed is estimated to cost approximately 36 million dollars. This estimate was reached by budgeting approximately $600,000-700,000 per mile of greenway. In addition, the estimate also includes potential pedestrian underpasses that have been estimated at $200,000 - 400,000 each. Generally these were included at high volume roads. (It should be noted that additional research would need to be done as to the exact need for these underpasses at the proposed locations. This should be done on a case-by-case basis as each individual greenway is built.) Alternative A This first alternative is the most aggressive. Its schedule is 10 miles of greenway per year for 5 years. This would require an appropriation of approximately $6.5 million per year. Given the amount of time required to develop greenways, a 2-year lag has been provided between the first year of funding for design and when construction would actually start. Completion of the plan would occur in 2009. Greenway Development Alternative "A" Design Construction YEAR FY03 920,000 FY04 966,000 FY05 1,014,300 5,600,000 FY06 1,065,015 5,880,000 FY07 1,118,266 6,174,000 FY08 6,482,700 FY09 6,806,835 Subtotal 5,083,581 30,943,535 Total CIB Miles Total 920,000 966,000 6,614,300 10 10 6,945,015 10 20 7,292,266 10 30 6,482,700 10 40 6,806,835 10 50 36,027,116 50 50 October 11, 2001 Page 29 Total Budget* Existing Trail Mileage (Includes trails in development) TOTAL PROPOSED SYSTEM OF TRAILS * Based on a 5% inflation factor 36,027,116 50 miles 28 78 Alternative B The second alternative provides a development schedule of 10 years. The schedule would provide for the development of approximately 5 miles of greenway per year for 10 years. As with Alternative A, a 2-year lag has been provided between the first year of funding for design and when construction would actually start. Completion of the plan would occur in FY14 or 2013. Greenway Development Alternative "B" YEAR Design Construction FY03 450,000 FY04 472,500 FY05 496,125 2,976,750 FY06 520,931 3,125,588 FY07 546,978 3,281,867 FY08 574,327 3,445,960 FY09 603,043 3,618,258 FY10 633,195 3,799,171 FY11 664,855 3,989,130 FY12 698,098 4,188,586 FY13 4,398,015 FY14 4,617,916 Subtotal 5,660,052 37,441,242 Total Budget* 43,101,293 Existing Trail Mileage (Includes trails in development) TOTAL PROPOSED SYSTEM OF TRAILS * Based on a 5% inflation factor Total CIB Miles Total 450,000 472,500 3,472,875 5 5 3,646,519 5 10 3,828,845 5 15 4,020,287 5 20 4,221,301 5 25 4,432,366 5 30 4,653,985 5 35 4,886,684 5 40 4,398,015 5 45 4,617,916 5 50 43,101,293 50 50 50 miles 28 78 Alternative C Alternative C would allocate approximately $13 million for the development of 20 miles of greenway in 5 years. Completion of these 20 miles would occur by FY09 and would produce a greenway system totaling 48 miles. Greenway Development Alternative "C" Design Construction YEAR FY03 330,000 FY04 346,500 FY05 363,825 1,984,500 FY06 382,016 2,083,725 FY07 401,117 2,187,911 FY08 2,297,307 FY09 2,412,172 Subtotal 1,823,458 10,965,615 Total Budget* 12,789,074 Existing Trail Mileage (Includes trails in development) TOTAL PROPOSED SYSTEM OF TRAILS * Based on a 5% inflation factor Total CIB 330,000 346,500 2,348,325 2,465,741 2,589,028 2,297,307 2,412,172 12,789,074 Miles Total 4 4 4 4 4 20 4 8 12 16 20 20 20 miles 28 48 October 11, 2001 Page 30 Benchmark Comparison with Other Communities In an effort to provide perspective to Cary's current and proposed greenway program, several communities, both local and national, were contacted regarding the development of greenways. Table 4 summarizes the findings from this comparison. A range of communities was selected, both demographically larger and smaller than Cary. Communities within North Carolina include Charlotte, Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill. Communities located outside North Carolina include Colorado Springs, Boulder, Loveland, and Westminster, Colorado and Chattanooga, Tennessee. Most of the communities contacted do not have a "standard" amount of trail mileage they construct per year. Both Charlotte and Colorado Springs plan for 5 miles per year but they also have the most proposed trail miles at 185 and 165 respectively. Most communities instead plan for specific greenway projects, regardless of the mileage. This is also due to the variability of funding for greenways. In terms of funding, most communities provide a set amount per year. Most rely on appropriations from the general fund to budget greenway development. This is particularly true for communities within North Carolina. In terms of amounts, this varies from $100,000 per year for Chapel Hill to $1.2 million for Colorado Springs. (Colorado Springs has a dedicated funding source from the city sales tax. These funds are proportionally divided among trail, open space and park projects.) Both CharlotteMecklenburg and Durham have used bonds to advance their greenway development program. Raleigh appropriated $7 million from the general fund several years ago to accelerate their greenway program. This resulted in 6-10 additional miles of greenway. Although the various communities have differing amounts of proposed greenway trail mileage, additional research is required to ascertain if it is due to purely the size of the population or the physical size of the community (sq. miles). It is also difficult to compare because of either the limitations of geography or abundance of natural resources that exists in any one community. Some communities might enjoy an abundance of rivers and streams, which would potentially provide more opportunity to develop a greenway system. Communities also have different standards as to what constitutes a "greenway" or "trail". In Roanoke, VA, several of its designated greenways are located along downtown sidewalks not typically considered a location for a greenway. In terms of funding, the comparison is also difficult due to the differing ways that communities fund the development of their greenways. Durham receives a portion of their funding from Durham County. Charlotte-Mecklenburg also is directly tied to county funding. October 11, 2001 Page 31 Greenways Benchmark Existing Greenway Mileage 22 5 unpaved 17 paved Planned Greenway Mileage 15-20 Proposed Greenway Mileage 143 360,890 67 - 98 165 Raleigh, NC 276,093 42 28 paved 14 unpaved 18 187,035 8.95 (paved) 13.5 No set amount (at least 100 miles) 122 No standard Durham, NC 270 (natural linear corridor) 100 Westminster, CO 100,940 80 40 paved 40 unpaved 50 130 No standard Cary, NC 98,000 12 50 78 Chapel Hill, NC 48,715 2 miles per year 1 project per year Community* Population CharlotteMecklenburg, NC 500,000 Colorado Springs, CO 16 Total 185 Standard Funding: Amt. 5-10 miles per year - Park, facility dev. funded by bonds. Last bond issue ('99) was 7 million. 5 miles per - - 1.2 million per year year (additional funding from grants) No standard - 415,000 per year (7 million appropriated several years ago is almost spent) - 200,000 - 600,00 per year - 8 million in bonds nearly spent - 1,200,000 approp. For FY01. (No set amount. Varies from year to year.) 8 1 27 36 - 100,000 per year 4 paved 4 unpaved * Additional communities currently being inventoried include Chattanooga, TN; Boulder, CO and Loveland, CO Funding: Type - Bonds - Sales Tax - Grants (both Federal and state) - - General Fund - Grants - Impact Fees - County Funds - Bonds - Grants - General Fund - Grants - General Fund - Grants - General Fund - Grants - Bonds Table 4 October 11, 2001 Page 32 Summary of Issues Issues related to an accelerated program of greenway construction include the following: Land Acquisition - An important issue that can place limitations on the actual rate that greenway development can be accelerated is the required time necessary to acquire land to construct the greenways. This is typically a lengthy process with many negotiations with landowners. Sufficient time must to be provided for this process. Open Space - The Town recently approved the Open Space and Historical Resources Plan, which recommends the protection of approximately 7,000 acres of land. Much of this land is located within corridors proposed for greenway trails. Any plan to accelerate the development of new trails will require an acceleration to acquire the corresponding proposed open space. Currently, staff acquires the minimum required property to construct a greenway corridor. With approval of the Open Space Plan, staff will now acquire substantial riparian buffer to protect the entire natural corridor. For example, the current plan to protect land along White Oak Creek would preserve over 220 acres at a potential cost of $3.3 million dollars. Funding - Any acceleration of greenway projects would clearly need to be reviewed in light of all Town priorities and funding availability and needs. Staffing - If Council chooses one of the above listed scenarios that accelerate greenway development, there will be additional staffing needs to manage the projects, including land acquisition, design and construction administration. Master Plan Update - Town Council has approved funding to update the 1998 Parks, Greenways and Bikeways Master Plan. Even if an accelerated funding program is approved for greenways, it is recommended that the Greenway element of the PRCR master plan be updated. It has been nearly five years since the master plan was approved. The proposed corridors should be reviewed and re-prioritized in light of the completion of the Open Space and Historical Resources Plan. Since 1998 there have been additional trail connections identified by the Greenway Committee, and are recommended to be included in any update to the Master Plan. Also, approximately 14 miles of proposed greenways have been rated as either medium or low priority. In some cases, several of the recommended trail projects are not likely to be built due to cost or difficulty in locating the trail. These should be reviewed and, if unlikely to be built, should be removed from the plan. Lastly, the Towns of Morrisville and Apex are proceeding with their own greenway master plans. This offers the Town of Cary an excellent opportunity to partner with these communities to develop trail projects that benefit the entire region. Staff Recommendation: Staff has prepared this information as requested and seeks Council direction. Mr. Roseland stated public support of any plan is critical. He suggested that this issue be included on the biennial survey. He also stated staff should work with businesses, environmental and neighborhood groups to gauge their support of this accelerated program. ACTION ON CONSENT AGENDA ITEM #18: Mayor Pro Tem Smith made a motion to accept the committee’s recommendation that it be evaluated in conjunction with the updated greenways master plan and be considered as a potential bond issue if it so merits. Mr. Ward provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval. _________________________ B. For Discussion 1. Traffic Calming Projects (EN02-49) Committee recommended approval of traffic calming projects on Bond Lake Drive, October 11, 2001 Page 33 Coltsgate Drive, Hogans Valley Way, Kilarney Drive, Parkgate Drive, Plumtree Way, Summer Lakes Drive, Windstream Way, Seabrook Avenue, Crabtree Crossing Parkway, Hampton Valley Road and Walcott Way as part of the 2000 Street Improvements Project Phase 3. Committee requested further information regarding the “area of influence” in relation to the request on Kilarney Drive. Several neighborhoods have satisfied all of the requirements of the Traffic Calming Policy and are now awaiting the construction of speed humps. Construction of speed humps and/or Raised Pedestrian Crosswalks will occur on the following streets: STREET Bond Lake Drive Coltsgate Drive Hogans Valley Way Kilarney Drive Parkgate Drive Plumtree Way Summer Lakes Drive Windstream Way # SPEED HUMPS 3 2 10 6 9 2 4 6 In addition, a combination of speed humps and raised crosswalks are proposed as follows: STREET Crabtree Crossing Parkway # HUMPS 6 locations # CROSSWALKS 3 locations Staff is also preparing to add a one-inch thick overlay to existing speed humps that are deficient in height as follows: STREET Hampton Valley Road Walcott Way # HUMPS W/1-INCH OVERLAY 2 3 In the case of Kilarney Drive, the requestors did not meet the requirements of the Policy in entirety in that they did not meet the 70% signature requirement. The requestors received signatures from 48% of all the 137 households in the “area of influence.” Of these, however, they received signatures from 84% of the 37 households that front Kilarney Drive and an additional 36 signatures from households in close proximity to Kilarney Drive and within the area of influence. The residents in this neighborhood satisfied the financial requirement of the Policy by submitting $2400 by personal checks (6 speed humps at a fee of $400 per hump). Based on the fact that the 85th percentile speed was found to be 34 MPH in a 25 MPH zone along Kilarney Drive, in addition to the efforts extended by the requestors, staff recommends approval of speed hump construction along Kilarney Drive. Staff is pursuing the addition of this Traffic Calming construction through a change order to the existing contract with Barnhill Construction Company for the 2000 Street Improvements Project Phase 3. The contract completion date of street resurfacings is November 19, and the Traffic Calming construction would commence upon the completion of that work. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends proceeding with the construction of these speed humps as a part of the 2000 Street Improvements Project Phase 3, including construction of humps along Kilarney Drive. Mr. Weinbrecht stated he is on one of the homeowners association boards, and he asked to be excused from discussing and voting on this issue. October 11, 2001 Page 34 ACTION: Mr. Ward made a motion to excuse Mr. Weinbrecht from discussing and voting on this issue. Mayor Lang provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval. ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith made a motion to approve this item (including Kilarney Drive which has the appropriate signatures). Mr. Ward provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval. _________________________ 2. Schools Funding Initiative (PL02-012) Committee recommended that the Council hold a work session to clarify the objectives of the Town’s school funding initiative. BACKGROUND: The schools funding initiative in Fiscal Year 2001 targeted $3.7 million for assistance to Wake County public schools. The assistance was distributed to public schools having at least 30 students who were Cary residents, at the amount of $200 per Cary student. Final expenditures for FY2001 were as follows: Wake County Public Schools Cary Home Schoolers (Library) Wake County Charter Schools Wake Education Partnership (admin) Total: $3,462,600 $17,800 $34,200 $215,000 $3,729,600 In order to determine the funding amounts for each of the qualifying schools, staff collected enrollment data from the Wake County Public School System, and then analyzed the data to identify the number of students at each school that lived within the Cary town limits. Council directed staff to use the 20th-day enrollment figures as the basis for the calculations. DATA COLLECTION FOR 2001/2002 SCHOOL YEAR: In order to evaluate public school funding requests for the 2001/2002 academic year, staff has requested this year’s 20th-day enrollment figures from the Wake County Public School System. The data was received by Cary on September 21. It will take staff several weeks to process the County data to develop enrollment figures for Cary residents attending each school. WCPSS delivers the data as a spreadsheet with student addresses listed by school. For each school, staff then uses the Town’s geographic information system to map the location of each student’s residence, to determine how many students live within Cary’s corporate limits. Staff has not yet begun collecting enrollment data for charter schools or home-schooled children. If Council elects to extend funding again to these categories, staff will move forward with collecting that data in order to distribute the FY02 funding. Staff seeks direction from Council on the method of distribution of funds to the Wake County Public School System and whether or not charter and home schools should be included in the FY2002 distribution. POLICY OPTIONS: The current fiscal year’s budget includes $3 million for public education assistance. Since this amount is less than last year, and since Cary’s overall student enrollment has gone up over the past year, it will not be possible to maintain funding at $200 per student for all schools having at least 30 Cary students. Therefore, funding options are discussed below for Council consideration. The figures used in the following options are based on staff projections of the September 2001 enrollment, since the actual 20th-day figures have not yet been processed. October 11, 2001 Page 35 1. Decrease the amount funded per Cary student from $200 to about $156. This will enable the funding to be distributed among all schools having 30 or more Cary students. 2. Raise the threshold for schools that are eligible for funding in order to maintain the $200 per student funding level. The threshold would need to be set at about 360 Cary students in a school in order to maintain $200 per student. 3. Both decrease the amount funded per Cary student and raise the threshold for schools that are eligible for funding. However, raising the student threshold to 100 Cary students would only raise the funding per student to about $160 (up from $156 under Option 1, above). Raising the student threshold to 200 Cary students would raise the funding per student to about $165. 4. Only make eligible for funding those schools located within the Cary planning area (town limits, ETJ, and Urban Services Areas) having at least 30 Cary students. This would enable the funding per student to rise to about $236. WAKE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT: The Wake Education Partnership (WEP) has prepared a consulting agreement for the 2001-2002 school year which sets their compensation at $150,000 for services in administering the Town’s school funding for this year, down from the $215,000 charged last year. WEP requests that this agreement be forwarded to Council for approval. Staff Recommendation: Advise staff whether to proceed with enrollment data collection, and whether some or all of the policy options should be investigated. Forward the 2001-2002 Consulting Agreement for the Wake Education Partnership to Council for approval. CONSULTING AGREEMENT This Consulting Agreement (this “Agreement”) is entered into as of ______________, 2001 between Wake Education Partnership, a North Carolina nonprofit corporation (“WEP”) and the Town of Cary, a municipal subdivision of the State of North Carolina (“the Town”). RECITALS A. The Town, pursuant to a resolution dated June 28, 2001, has decided to appropriate $3,000,000 for its 2001-2002 Fiscal Year to enhance educational opportunities for school students who reside in the Town (the “Appropriation”); and B. In order to accomplish its goal of expeditiously putting the Appropriation to work to enhance educational opportunities, the Town desires to engage WEP to provide consultation and advice in connection with, among other matters, establishing procedures for public schools to apply for funds, reviewing those applications, and assessing the effectiveness of the funds expended, in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; and C. WEP agrees to provide these services to the Town in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual promises and covenants hereinafter expressed, the parties agree as follows: 1. SERVICES In connection with the Appropriation, WEP will provide the following services (collectively the “Services”): October 11, 2001 Page 36 Begin work to complete these tasks within fourteen working days from signing this Agreement; Within 30 days of the signing of this Agreement, submit to the Town a schedule identifying the steps in this process with appropriate dates for completion; Assign a project administrator to serve as overall project coordinator; Consult with school leaders to obtain recommendations on proposal materials and criteria for distribution of funds to public schools; Refine the “Request for Proposals” for eligible public schools to complete, including proposed use of funds and relationship to School Improvement Plans; Review with Town designee to insure that reports from WEP to the Town meet all GAAP and statutory requirements; Recommend proposals received from public schools for funding by the Town; Host one or more orientation sessions in conjunction with the public schools to explain the parameters for use of the funds (School Improvement Plans), reporting requirements and timelines; Produce print materials to explain project goals to citizens, community groups and public school faculty, subject to review and approval by the Town; Work with the Town to establish an Internet presence, in addition to use of the existing Cary web site, to inform citizens about the specific use of funds by each public school along with clear references to each school’s Improvement Plan; Consult with the Town Manager and staff as needed to refine project goals and timelines; Consult with school-level personnel and community members about questions related to the project and its goals; Assist public school level personnel as needed with evaluation and reporting; Follow up with public schools to complete reports in a timely manner; and, Consult with the Town to determine format for and then produce a final program evaluation and report for presentation by June 15, 2002 for Fiscal Year 2002 expenditures. 2. COMPENSATION As compensation for the Services, the Town shall pay WEP $150,000, payable as follows: Upon execution of this Agreement November 1, 2001 February 1, 2002 May 1, 2002 June 30, 2002 $45,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 15,000 WEP will be responsible for its own out-of-pocket expenses incurred in providing the Services. 3. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES Nothing herein contained will be construed to imply a joint venture, partnership or principal-agent relationship between the Town and WEP. WEP will provide Services as an independent contractor. WEP does not undertake by this Agreement or otherwise to perform any obligation of the Town, whether regulatory or contractual. The Town will have final authority over the amount of and directions for any funds granted to schools. 4. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES (a) By WEP. WEP represents and warrants to the Town that it has the corporate power and authority to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement and that this Agreement has been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action. October 11, 2001 Page 37 (b) By WEP. WEP represents and warrants that all work performed under this agreement will be done in a good and workmanlike manner. (c) By the Town. The Town represents and warrants to WEP that it has the legal authority to make the Appropriation and to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, and that this Agreement has been duly authorized by all necessary municipal action. 5. LIMITED LIABILITY (a) Limited Liability. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, the total aggregate liability to the Town of WEP regardless of whether such liability is based on breach of contract, tort, strict liability, breach of warranties, failure of essential purpose or otherwise, under this Agreement shall be limited to the fees paid by the Town to WEP. (b) Exclusion of Consequential Damages and Limited Recourse. In no event will WEP or the Town be liable for consequential, incidental, indirect, punitive or special damages from all causes of action of any kind, including contract, tort or otherwise, even if advised of the likelihood of such damages occurring. (c) No Other Warranties. EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THIS AGREEMENT, WEP MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND OR NATURE, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, OR WARRANTIES OF ANY PRODUCTS OR SERVICES. 6. INDEMNIFICATION (a) Indemnification by Town. The Town shall defend, release, indemnify and hold WEP and its directors, officers, stockholders, employees and agents and the assignees of each harmless from and against any and all claims, suits, liability, costs and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses, resulting from, arising out of or in any way connected with (i) the Town’s authority to appropriate funds in the manner or for the purposes described in the Appropriation or (ii) the Town’s authority to enter into this Agreement (an “Indemnity Event”). (b) Claims Procedure. The party seeking indemnification pursuant to this Section 6 (the “Indemnification Obligee”) shall give prompt notice to the Town after the Indemnification Obligee has knowledge of any Indemnity Event or the commencement of any indemnity Event. The Town may assume the defense of any Indemnity Event, which defense shall be acceptable to the Indemnification Obligee, by engaging counsel reasonably satisfactory to the Indemnification Obligee; provided that the Town promptly assumes such defense and acknowledges to the Indemnification Obligee in writing its obligation to indemnify the Indemnification Obligee in accordance with the terms of this Section 7 within no more than fifteen (15) days following the notice of such Indemnify Event or, in the case of a claim seeking injunctive relief, as soon as possible under the circumstances. 7. DATA COLLECTED The Town will own all documents produced in connection with this agreement. After completion of the Services, WEP will be entitled to retain for its own use copies of materials received and/or developed by WEP in connection with the provision of the Services. 8. TERMINATION October 11, 2001 Page 38 Either party to this Agreement may terminate the Agreement in the event of a material breach by the other party of any covenant contained herein, which is not cured within ten (10) days after providing written notice. 9. FURTHER UNDERSTANDINGS (a) Notices. All notices, reports, requests, acceptances and other communications required or permitted under this Agreement will be in writing. Notices will be deemed given when mailed, first class mail, to the address below. All communications will be sent to the receiving party’s address as set forth below or to such other address that the receiving party may have provided for purposes of receiving notices as provided in this Section. To WEP: To the Town: Wake Education Partnership 706 Hillsborough Street, Suite A Raleigh, NC 27603 Attn: President Town of Cary Post Office Box 8005 316 North Academy Street Cary, NC 27512 Attn: Town Manager (b) Binding Nature. This Agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns. (c) Severability. If any provision of this Agreement, or the application thereof, shall for any reason and to any extent be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall be interpreted so as best to reasonably effect the intent of the parties. The parties further agree to replace any such invalid or unenforceable provisions with valid and enforceable provisions designed to achieve, to the extent possible, the purposes and intent of such invalid and unenforceable provisions. (d) Entire Agreement. This Agreement and any Exhibits hereto constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersede all agreements and understandings between the Town and WEP with respect to the subject matter hereof made prior to the date hereof. There are no representations, warranties, understandings or agreements relating to the subject matter hereof that are not fully expressed in this Agreement. No amendment, modification, waiver or discharge of this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and signed by an authorized representative of the party against whom such amendment, modification, waiver or discharge is sought to be enforced. (e) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of North Carolina. (f) No Waiver. No waiver or failure to exercise any option, right or privilege under the terms of this Agreement by either of the parties hereto on any occasion or occasions shall be construed to be a waiver of the same on any other occasion or of any other option, right or privilege. (g) Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by either party without the prior consent of the other party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. (h) No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is entered solely by and between WEP and the Town. Except as provided in Section 6, this Agreement shall not be deemed to create any rights in third parties, or to create any obligations of a party to any such third parties. October 11, 2001 Page 39 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. **************** Mr. Smith stated the discussion during the last budget process was clear that this funding should not become an entitlement. He stated if the Town is going to continue to invest money in the schools, there should be well-defined plans, and these plans should be thoroughly reviewed (as was done last year). He stated the return on investment should be clear. He stated there has not been a consensus about what the programs should be this year, and during the last budget process, the money was escrowed ($3 million). He stated the committee recommends a work session to clarify the objectives of this year’s school funding initiative. Mr. Weinbrecht stated the work session is a good idea, but he suggested that one-half of the money should be used for operations and the other one-half should be discussed at the work session. Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated he attended a meeting with principals from the western Wake County area, and they shared the results of last year’s efforts. He stated this information from the principals was a direct correlation to the improvement of the test scores that were recently published in the News & Observer. He stated each of the schools indicated that the investment of funds created a series of tools and provided relief, primarily in the technology area, and this helped the principals, teachers and PTA’s achieve their goals. He stated these principals recognize that the Cary funding is less this year, but using the Wake Education Partnership, they have appealed that the Town of Cary provide them with some funding this year. Mrs. Robinson stated she understands that the money was well used last year, but she feels it would also be well spent if applied towards siting schools in Cary to address the capacity issues. She stated both are worthwhile, but she feels it is more worthwhile to try to address capacity. She stated the Council agreed during the budget meetings to budget the money for school related issues, but at the time she noted that she had a problem with the manner in which the funds were dispersed last year, and the Council decided to have future discussions on how to disperse the funds this year. Mayor Lang stated if the Council delays getting the money into the schools, then it will have less of an impact during this school year. He stated the number one issue is teacher quality, and he stated the quality of the school, its technology, etc., has an impact on teacher recruitment. He stated the principals can best make the decisions that are best for their schools. He urged the Council to put some of the money into the schools immediately so that it will have a positive effect during this school year. Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated the Council seemed to agree on setting aside the $3 million for the schools, but Council Members had different reasons for setting aside the money. He stated he does not want the money to become an entitlement program, and he wants there to be well defined justifications, and the results should be tied to a return on the investment that is measurable. He stated he supports the idea of having the work session and giving one-half of the $3 million to the schools for operational purposes. Mr. Roseland stated he feels that capacity is an important issue in Cary, and more school seats equates to smaller schools, smaller class sizes, and better performance. He stated the Council surveyed Cary citizens in June 2001 and asked them their most pressing school need. He added that 78% of Cary residents stated that school capacity was a critical issue. He stated data from the schools who received money last year should be reviewed to see if these schools are meeting the Wake County goals. He stated the Council should also review trends in capacity data. He stated the complaint he hears most often is bussing children away from neighborhood schools October 11, 2001 Page 40 and school reassignment. He stated the Council should review whether there is anything they can do with this money to address the reassignment issue. Mayor Lang stated the Council has been addressing the capacity issue by asking the developers to voluntarily contribute. He stated the Town has been successful in one instance and there are two more proposals now going through the process. He stated the schools had good results last year with the money going towards operational issues. He stated the school system officials have stated that they prefer the money for operational needs. He suggested that the principals comment on whether they need more capacity or money for operational issues. Mrs. Robinson suggested that Wake County school system officials attend and participate in the work session. ACTION: Mr. Weinbrecht made a motion to move forward with giving $1.5 million to the schools and holding a work session next week to decide what will be done with the remaining $1.5 million. Mayor Pro Tem Smith provided the second. Ms. Dorrel stated if the $3 million is divided in half, then the amount per student will have to be readdressed. She suggested that this subject will be appropriate for the upcoming work session. Mr. Weinbrecht agreed that this issue should be a part of the work session. He stated his intent with the motion is to let school officials know that some of the money will be set aside for operations. He stated his motion does not expedite the money, but it assures the schools that the Town will give the money. He stated this will help the schools in their planning. Mayor Lang stated if the Council approves Mr. Weinbrecht’s motion, then the formula stays the same. He stated the $1.5 million would be allocated among all eligible students. He stated it would be approximately $88 per student instead of the $200 that was spent last year per student. ACTION: Vote was called for on Mr. Weinbrecht’s motion. “No” votes were cast by Ms. Dorrel, Mr. Roseland, Mr. Ward and Mrs. Robinson. “Aye” votes were cast by Mayor Lang, Mayor Pro Tem Smith and Mr. Weinbrecht. The motion failed for lack of majority vote. Mayor Pro Tem Smith instructed staff to set up a work session as soon as possible. Mr. Roseland requested trend analysis and data on performance, capacity and reassignments. Mrs. Robinson stated it will be good to compare tests scores for the past two years for these schools. She stated she is interested in having school officials at this work session so they can convey to the Council their most pressing needs. Mayor Lang also stated that some of the principals from Cary schools should attend. ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith made a motion to set up a work session as soon as possible; Mr. Ward provided the second; Council granted unanimous approval. _________________________ F. OLD/NEW BUSINESS ACTION: Mr. Ward made a motion to designate Mayor Pro Tem Smith as Cary’s voting delegate at the N.C. League of Municipality’s annual business meeting on Monday. Ms. Dorrel provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval. ACTION: Mr. Ward made a motion to designate Mayor Pro Tem Smith as the Mayor’s official representative at the Metropolitan Coalition meeting at the League’s conference. Mr. Roseland provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval. _________________________ October 11, 2001 Page 41 1. Consideration of one appointment to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Advisory Board to fill an unexpired term. ACTION: Mr. Weinbrecht made a motion to appoint Kay Struffalino to fill an unexpired term. Ms. Dorrel provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval. _________________________ 2. Review of the Town’s sign ordinance (from the September 20, 2001, Planning and Development Committee meeting). In January 2000, the Town Council adopted a new sign ordinance. Since the adoption of the ordinance, concerns have been noted with respect to several areas. The first six items are offered as suggestions by the staff with respect to those areas of concern. These items range from computation of wall signage to the amount of allowable window signage. The next six items are citizen and developer generated requests. These requests range from real estate to yard sale and changeable copy signage. The Planning and Development Committee met on September 20, 2001 and its recommendations are provided. Staff requests Council’s direction on these issues prior to preparing new ordinance language for a public hearing. STAFF GENERATED REQUESTS Request Staff Response Support Change Committee Response Undecided 2. Real Estate Signage – Sales Office Current Ordinance: One informational ground sign 42 inches high and 15 square feet in area. Proposed Change: One informational ground sign 72 inches high and 16 square feet in area. Support Change Do not agree with staff 3. Window Signage Current Ordinance: Allowed provided they cover no more than 25 percent of each windowpane or section. Proposed Change: Allowed provided they cover no more than 25 percent of entire area of the building wall. Support Change Do not agree with staff 4. ATM Signage Current Ordinance: No provisions. Proposed Addition: Colors shall conform to main building or signage for Support Addition Agree with staff 1. Menu Boards Current Ordinance: Menu board colors shall be neutral or earth tone and have architectural ties to the main building. Proposed Change: Menu board color(s) shall have ties to the main building or other signage for the project. Comments Survey Results for window signs: Raleigh: No regulation of window signs. Bessemer City: No regulation of window signs. Nags Head: Limited to 20% of the glass area. Greensboro: Limited to 25% of the window area. October 11, 2001 Page 42 the project or follow colors specified in a uniform sign plan. 5. Signs on Mailboxes in Residential Areas Current Ordinance: No provisions. Proposed Addition: Allow name of individual(s) and address only. No commercial message or directional information. 6. Computation of Individual Wall Signs Current Ordinance: Signs for singleoccupant buildings and multi-occupant buildings (generally office type buildings) are computed for a single wall, all pieces of information on that wall are measured as though part of one sign, encompassed by one rectangle. Prior to 2000 Ordinance: Single tenant locations allowed a maximum of two wall signs. Multi-tenant office buildings allowed one wall sign giving the name of the project or a uniform listing of tenants. Proposed Change: For both single tenant and multi-tenant, two wall signs allowed. Directory or individual signage permitted. Individual wall signage not to exceed ten percent of total wall area to which sign is attached. Support Addition Agree with staff Support Change Agree with staff Survey Results for computation of multi-tenant wall signs: Raleigh: Tenant directory sign only. Chapel Hill: Tenant directory sign only. Apex: One sign per wall per tenant, allowed at 10% of the total building elevation. Durham: Wall signs may not exceed 15% of the wall area in size; however a minimum of 25-sq. ft. of wall signage is allowed. CITIZEN/DEVELOPER REQUESTS Request 1. Construction Sign – Non-Residential Current Ordinance: Allowed at 42 inches high and 32 square feet in area. Proposed Change: Allowed at 72 inches high and 32 square feet in area. 2a. Real Estate Sign Vacant Parcels Current Ordinance: Allowed at 30 inches high and 5 square feet in area. Proposed Change: Allowed at 72 inches high and 16 square feet in area. Staff Response Support Change Committee Response Agree with Staff Support Change Agree with staff Comments October 11, 2001 Page 43 2b. Real Estate Sign Separate Ground Sign Current Ordinance: A separate ground sign made of the same materials and colors as the principal ground sign limited to 30 inches in height and 5 square feet in area is allowed. May also be incorporated into the principal ground sign. Proposed Change: Separate ground signs constructed of color and materials other than that of the principal ground sign limited to 60 inches in height and 5 square feet in area. 2c. Real Estate Sign Setback Current Ordinance: Must be at least 30 feet from any public right-of-way. Proposed Change: Must be at least 10 feet from any public right-of-way. 3a. Residential Sign Off-Site Directional (Not Adjacent to Roadway) Current Ordinance: Not allowed Proposed Change: One sign limited to 60 inches high and 6 square feet in area. Do not support change. Undecided. The committee requested that staff research the permitting of real estate leasing signs for a specified period of time ending when the property is leased. Municipalities surveyed do not permit these signs in this manner. Do not support change. Agree with staff. Do not support change. Undecided. 3b. Residential Sign Off-Site Directional (General) Current Ordinance: Not allowed. Proposed Change: Signs limited to 42 inches high and 4 square feet in area. Do not support change. Undecided. Survey Results for setbacks: Raleigh: Out of right of way. Chapel Hill: Out of visual right of way. Apex: Out of right-of-way. Durham: Out of right-of-way. Survey Results for off-site directional signage: Raleigh: Not allowed. Chapel Hill: Not allowed. Apex: One on private property. Durham: not allowed. Holly Springs: Allowed 5 ft from the street pavement between 8 p.m. Fri. and 5 a.m. Mon., sign no bigger than 42 inches high and 6 sq. ft in area. Greensboro: Not allowed. Hillsborough: Not allowed. Nags Head: Not allowed. Survey results for off-site directional signage: Raleigh: not allowed Chapel Hill: not allowed Apex: One on private property Durham: not allowed Holly Springs: allowed 5 ft from the street pavement between 8 p.m. Fri. and 5 a.m. Mon., sign no bigger than 42 inches high and 6 sq. ft in area. Greensboro: Not allowed. Hillsborough: Not allowed. Nags Head: Not allowed. The committee requested that staff research the possibility of off-site signage for October 11, 2001 Page 44 3c. Residential Sign Off-Site Directional (Yard Sale) Current Ordinance: Not allowed. Proposed Change: Unlimited number of signs allowed to be displayed the night before the sale and removed the day after the sale. Do not support change. Undecided. 4a. Temporary Sign New Businesses. Current Ordinance: Allowed for initial opening for a period ending not later than 60 days from issuance of first business license. Proposed Change: Allowed for initial opening for a period ending not later than 60 days from issuance of temporary sign permit. 4b. Temporary Sign Temporary Ground Sign Current Ordinance: Sign limited to 42 inches high and 16 square feet in area. Proposed Ordinance: Sign limited to 72 inches high and 16 square feet in area. 5. Yard Sale Sign –Clarification Item Current Ordinance: One additional sign allowed on a different property. Proposed Ordinance: One additional sign allowed on a different private property. 6. Changeable Copy Sign Current Ordinance: Allowed only at theaters, service stations, restaurants or schools. Proposed Ordinance: Also allow churches to have changeable copy signs. Support change. Agree with staff. Support change. Agree with staff. Support change. Agree with staff. Do not support change. Undecided. organizations located on private streets. No municipality surveyed allows for any type of off-site signage. Survey results for off-site directional signage: Raleigh: Not allowed. Chapel Hill: Not allowed Apex: One on private property. Durham: Not allowed. Holly Springs: Allowed 24 hrs before the sale and must be removed 24 hrs after the sale, signs no larger than 4 sq. ft. and may not be placed on utility poles or obstruct vision of motorist. Hillsborough: Not allowed. Nags Head: Not allowed. Greensboro: Not allowed. Principal of Interpretation: Unless otherwise permitted, a temporary ground sign is to be used until the permanent ground sign is constructed and placed on the site. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that a public hearing be scheduled on November 8, 2001 for those items the Council supports. Mr. Shearin’s power point presentation outlining issues that need Council discussion is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit D. October 11, 2001 Page 45 Listed below are the Council decisions on the issues outlined in Exhibit D: Menu boards: Council supported staff’s recommendation to support the ordinance change Real Estate Sales Office: Council supported the committee’s recommendation to not change the ordinance Window signs: Council supported the committee’s recommendation to not change the ordinance Separate ground signs (real estate leasing and sale): Council decided to not change the ordinance Real estate and yard sale directional signs: Council decided to not change the ordinance Changeable copy for churches: Council decided to not change the ordinance ACTION: Conduct a public hearing on November 8, 2001, for the items referenced herein that are recommended for changes _________________________ G. PUBLIC SPEAKS OUT Ms. Julie Aberg Robison, 112 Brant Pointe Place, Weston PUD, stated her neighborhood was recently informed of a request for an amendment to the Weston PUD from office and institutional to mixed use (including high density residential, commerical and office and institutional). She stated the proposal will quadruple the number of residential units in the PUD by adding 2,000 new residential units. She stated the traffic impact analysis indicates that numerous intersections in the area will deterriorate to unacceptable levels. She stated the school capacity impact indicates that the area will exceed capacity. She stated buffer reductions are requested. Ms. Robison stated she and her neighbors have many concerns about this proposal. She stated the key to integrating this type of high density into an existing PUD will require more up-front involvement from citizens and the businesses already in the PUD. She stated if everyone is involved in the early planning stages, it will eliminate confusion and result in more productive dialog and more buy-in from existing residents. She recommended that the homeowners meet with the Town’s planning staff, and she encouraged that the data sheets lead to a synthesized version to avoid confusing homeowners. She requested broader citizen participation to involve the neighbors. Mr. Tom Hemrick, 112 Arrowhead Way, representing the Silverton Homeowners Association, thanked Mr. Roseland and the Town staff for sidewalks leading from their neighborhood to the North Cary Park. _________________________ H. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 01-REZ-16 / 01-LPA-12: Application by Howard and Judith Pickett, owners, to rezone property from Downtown Residential (DR) to Planned Employment Center Conditional Use District (PEC). The property contains 0.45 acre and is located at 204 N. Dixon Avenue, just east of Dixon Avenue and south of Holloway Street. PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING: October 11, 2001 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD: October 15, 2001 TOWN COUNCIL: November 8, 2001 Parcel # 076418218784 PARCEL INFORMATION Realid # 0031004 Area .45 October 11, 2001 Page 46 Zoning: Overlay District: Land Use: REZONING DATA CURRENT PROPOSED Downtown Residential (DR) Planned Employment Center (PEC) CUD Downtown: Core Neighborhoods Downtown: Core Neighborhoods Residential Commercial REZONING CONDITIONS CURRENT PROPOSED 1. Prohibited uses otherwise allowed by this district: trade schools; colleges; hospitals; radio, television transmission towers and broadcasting studios; outdoor amphitheater, govt. and commercial; communication, radio, TV and other telecomm. towers; golf courses; commercial outdoor recreation; dormitories; motor vehicle raceway; sexually oriented business 2. Exterior walls facing residentially zoned property shall be brick. 3. Maximum building size shall be 8,200 square feet. None REZONING HISTORY N/A SITE DATA WATER/SEWER SERVICE Staff Remarks: Based on Town of Cary MapInfo: Water service is connected to the property. Sanitary sewer service is connected to the property. TRANSPORTATION Traffic Impact Analysis Required: Yes [ ] No [ X ] A building of 8,200 sq.ft. or 0.45 acres in PEC zoning will not generate 100 trips during the peak hour or 1000 trips per day. Therefore, no traffic impact study required. Thoroughfare plan improvements will not be required as part of a site plan submittal for this parcel. N. Dixon Street has been constructed to a collector street standard (35’ back-to-back) which meets Town Standards. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS This project meets all of the environmental considerations of the Town of Cary. North: South: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES Zoning: Downtown Residential (DR) Residential Industrial 1 Commercial Business 2 Commercial Land Use: October 11, 2001 Page 47 East: West: Downtown Residential (DR) N. Dixon Avenue Downtown Residential (DR) Residential Residential TOWN OF CARY FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DATA Plan Designation: Alternate Designation: Activity Center: CURRENT High Intensity Mixed Use (commercial, office, institutional and / or residential) None None PROPOSED Office/Industrial None None LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT HISTORY Prior to the adoption of the Town Center Area Plan August 9, 2001, the Land Use Plan showed the future land use as Medium Density Residential. OPEN SPACE CONSIDERATIONS None. Property is not within the Open Space System. Refer to Exhibit E attached to and incorporated in these minutes for Mr. Shearin’s power point presentation. Ms. Beth Trahos, 4601 Six Forks Road, Raleigh, representing the Pickett family, stated this request is to allow the expansion of the family warehousing and distribution business for electrical supplies that currently exists on the adjacent lot. She stated nothing is produced on site. She stated she feels the use is actually more comparable to an office or commercial use. No one else came forward to speak, and Mayor Lang closed the public hearing. ACTION: Referred to the October 15, 2001, Planning and Zoning Board meeting _________________________ 2. 01-REZ-18 / 01-LPA-14: Application by Panther Creek Raleigh LTD Partnership, owners with the Town of Cary, to amend the conditions of the current Residential40 Planned Unit Development zoning designation. The property contains 2.56 acres and is located just south of Cary Glen Boulevard and east of Green Level to Durham Road. PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING: October 11, 2001 PLANNING & ZONING BOARD: November 19, 2001 TOWN COUNCIL: December 13, 2001 Parcel # 073503014559 “Part” 072504939430 “Part” Total Acres PARCEL INFORMATION Realid # 0048557 “Part” 0266897 “Part” Area 2.56 acres October 11, 2001 Page 48 Zoning: Overlay District: Land Use: REZONING DATA CURRENT PROPOSED Residential 40 Planned Unit Amendment to Residential 40 Planning Development (PUD) Unit Development (PUD) Jordan Lake Watershed Jordan Lake Watershed Vacant Land Amendment consisting of 2.56 acres to the MR-9 parcel to allow more development potential. Second amendment is to allow for town homes to be added as another residential product under single family cluster. REZONING CONDITIONS CURRENT PROPOSED Cary Park PUD. See Master Plan for details Addition of 2.56 acres to the MR-9 parcel of the Cary Park PUD. See Master Plan for details. REZONING HISTORY 98-REZ-17 Rezoning Request to RMF-8CU (withdrawn) SITE DATA WATER/SEWER SERVICE Staff Remarks: Based on information available to town staff, water to the proposed land addition is currently available from an existing 12” water main located on Cary Glen Blvd. Gravity sewer service to the addition will be available via an approved 12” gravity sewer within the parcel (sewer permit # NP01014). TRANSPORTATION Traffic Impact Analysis Required: Yes [ ] No [ X ] The addition of 2.56 acres to MR-9 Mixed Residential parcel will not generate 100 trips during the peak hour or 1000 trips per day. Therefore, no traffic impact study required. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS The proposed addition, The Hawes Tract, will be subject to the Reservoir Watershed Protection Ordinance and the Nitrogen Removal Ordinance of the Town of Cary. The riparian buffers on this project are already delineated. North: South: East: West: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES Zoning: Residential -40 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Cary Glen Blvd. Residential-40 Residential-40 Residential-40 Land Use: Cary Park PUD Vacant Land Vacant Land Vacant Land October 11, 2001 Page 49 TOWN OF CARY FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DATA CURRENT Low Density Residential Traditional Neighborhood Development None Plan Designation: Alternate Designation: Activity Center: PROPOSED High Density Residential None No Change LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT HISTORY None. OPEN SPACE CONSIDERATIONS Parcel is within “open space system” corridor associated with proposed Panther Creek Greenway. Mr. Shearin’s power point presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit F. He stated this property is part of the Hawes tract that the Town purchased a few months ago, and the owner is requesting that the Town sell this property to them so they can rezone 2.56 acres and incorporate it into an existing project. He stated this request will add land area to the tract, but it will not increase any residential densities. He stated it will allow the developer more flexibility in design. Mr. Jerry Turner, 311 Kelso Court, stated one element of the request is to allow the use of townhouses in the mixed residential areas. He stated presently, all the single family residential areas are limited to patio homes, cluster homes, etc., and they originally intended for townhouses to be included but did not include this in the conditions. No one came forward to speak, and Mayor Lang closed the public hearing. ACTION: Referred to the November 19, 2001, Planning and Zoning Board meeting _________________________ 3. Public hearing on the Public Art Master Plan. The public art master plan is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit G. Ms. Mary Barry stated the Appearance Commission, the Planning and Zoning Board and the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Advisory Board have all endorsed the plan. Ms. Jennifer Murphy’s power point point presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit H. Mr. Weinbrecht asked what happens to unspent money that was designated for public art. Mr. Coleman stated if it was a general fund project, then funds would revert to the general fund, and if it was a utility fund project, then funds would revert to the utility fund. Mr. Dick Ladd, 208 Glasgow Road, Cary, thanked the Council for investing in the public art study and the committee members for their hard work. He encouraged the Council to approve the plan. Ms. Laura Harrar, executive director of Cary Visual Arts, 1823 Park Summit Boulevard, noted that broad public input has gone into the public art plan. She stated public art brings the community together by creating gathering places and enhancing economic development. She encouraged the Council to approve the plan. Ms. Daphne Ashworth, 110 Greenock Court, Cary, thanked the Council for allowing her to serve on the public art committee. She stated that public art will enhance economic development. She October 11, 2001 Page 50 stated if Council adopts an ordinance, she hopes to have the privilege of serving on the commission for public art. Mr. Toby Kennedy, chair of the Cary Cultural Arts Committee, 105 Jesnick Lane, Cary, stated the Cultural Arts Committee unanimously voted to support the public art concept. He stated public art equals good design and he is excited about this being integrated into the capital improvement budget. He stated the art will not increase the overall cost of a project. No one else came forward to speak, and Mayor Lang closed the public hearing. ACTION: Mr. Roseland made a motion to approve the revised public art plan. Mr. Ward provided the second. Mr. Weinbrecht stated he will support this plan, because he feels it will enhance the quality of life in Cary, but he is concerned that there is not a cap (ceiling), and he fears that this might be an issue during the budget process. He thanked the committee members for their hard work. Mayor Lang stated the City of Asheville requires matching private funds. He stated he feels the current proposal is very good, but he thinks it would be even better if matching funds were required. Ms. Dorrel stated she feels that matching funds is a very important part of the plan to insure maximum results. She stated the plan addresses and encourages matching funds, but it is currently not a requirement of the plan. She stated as the Council approves art projects in the budget cycle, they could at that time require – on a case-by-case basis – a certain match. Mayor Lang suggested that instead of mandating the matching funds in the plan, the Council can instead address the matching funds issue in a guideline that will weigh heavily in the process. Mrs. Robinson stated the matching funds should be encouraged but not mandated. Ms. Dorrel asked if the guidelines encouraging matching funds is different than the current plan. Ms. Barry stated there is a lot of discussion in the plan about partnership and leveraging private money, but matching funds is not a requirement. Mayor Lang stated the ordinance should stipulate that private matching funds will be strongly considered with each project. Ms. Barry noted that an ordinance will be drafted to implement the plan. ACTION: Vote was called for on Mr. Roseland’s motion to approve the plan, and Council granted unanimous approval. _________________________ 4. Public hearings on the following annexation petitions: a. 01-A-48, Good Hope Church (The property is located on the corner of Good Hope Church Road and Morrisville Carpenter Road. The property is zoned PEC and is contiguous with the Town’s Corporate Limits. The proposed use is for a church building. The properties consist of Wake County PIN # 073502856522 & portion of 073502758984; and equal 0.78 acres with 0 acres of right of way. Staff recommends annexation effective 10/11/01.) (Resolution 01-113 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) b. 01-A-50, Walter and Bernice Lasater (The property is located east of the intersection of Sherwood Forest Place and Davis Drive. The property is zoned R40 and is contiguous with the Town’s corporate limits. The property is currently vacant, and includes Wake County PIN #074302654208 and 074302653037. This annexation case includes 5.69 acres and (+/-) 1.47 acres of right of way. Staff recommends annexation effective 10/11/01.) October 11, 2001 Page 51 (Resolution 01-114 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) c. 01-A-52, Robert and Cheryl Ysidron (The property is located approximately 220 feet north of the intersection of Old Apex Road and Marilyn Circle. The property is zoned R12 and is contiguous with the Town’s corporate limits. The proposed use is low-density residential. The property’s Wake County PIN # is 075315530886, and includes 0.56 acres and (+/-) 0.16 acres of right of way. Staff recommends annexation effective 10/11/01.) (Resolution 01-116 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) d. 01-A-53, Pleasant Grove Church (The property is located approximately 300 feet south of the intersection of Pleasant Grove Church Road and Nelson Road. The property is zoned PEC and is contiguous with the Town’s corporate limits. The property is currently used as low density residential, (Wake County PIN # 075701464113), and includes 1.95 acres and 0 acres of right of way. Staff recommends annexation effective 10/11/01.) (Resolution 01-117 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) e. 01-A-54, James C. Crone Trustee (The property is located approximately 140 feet south of the intersection of High House Road and Jenks Carpenter Road. The property is zoned R40 and is contiguous with the Town’s corporate limits. The proposed use is for low-density residential. The property’s Wake County PIN # is 074403212749, and it includes 2.18 acres and 0 acres of right of way. Staff recommends annexation effective 10/11/01.) (Resolution 01-118 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) f. 01-A-55, Shakil Ahmed (The property is located approximately 1240 feet southwest of Old Apex Road and Marilyn Circle. The property is zoned R30 and is contiguous with the Town’s corporate limits. The proposed use is for low-density residential, and includes Wake County PIN #075314421855, 075314329745 and 075314327667. This annexation case includes 1.54 acres and (+/-) 1.59 acres of right of way. Staff recommends annexation effective 10/11/01.) (Resolution 01-119 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) October 11, 2001 Page 52 g. 01-A-58, Colon Willis Hobby and Mae Omie H. Mosley (The property is located approximately 300 feet south of Regency Forest Drive on Regency Parkway. The property is zoned B2 and is contiguous with the Town’s corporate limits. The proposed use is for O&I. The property’s Wake County PIN # is 076217015215, and includes 17.11 acres and 0 acres of right of way. Staff recommends annexation effective 10/11/01.) (Resolution 01-120 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) h. 01-A-59, George O. Castleberry Executor (The property is located on the southeast corner of Lawrence Road and Walnut Street. The property is zoned R12 and is contiguous with the Town’s corporate limits. The proposed use is for low-density residential, and includes Wake County PIN # 077314335350. The parcel is 0.6 acres in size, and includes 0 acres of right of way. Staff recommends annexation effective 10/11/01.) (Resolution 01-121 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) i. 01-A-60, Mattias M. and Catherine E. Gould (The property is located approximately 800 feet north of the intersection of Weston Parkway & Old Reedy Creek Road. The parcels are zoned R30 and are contiguous with the Town’s corporate limits. The proposed use is for low-density residential, and include the following Wake County PIN #’s: 076502585300, 076502580489, 076502583408, 076502584646, and 076502581667. This annexation case includes 7.425 acres and (+/-) 0.63 acres of right of way. Staff recommends annexation effective 10/11/01.) (Resolution 01-122 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) j. 01-A-61, Kelly Maurice and Helen M. Cooper (The propety is located on the northern corner of the intersection of N. Harrison Avenue and Homestead Drive. The property is zoned R30 and is non-contiguous with the Town’s corporate limits. The proposed use is for low-density residential. The Wake County PIN # is 076519613511, and the property includes 1.28 acres and 0 acres of right of way. Staff recommends annexation effective 10/11/01.) (Resolution 01-123 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) k. 01-A-62, Thomas R. and Rhonda J. McKay (The property is located approximately 250 east of the intersection of Vickie Drive and Greenwood Circle. The property is zoned R12 and is contiguous with the Town’s corporate limits. The proposed use is for low-density residential, and includes Wake County PIN #077313122751. October 11, 2001 Page 53 The parcel is 0.71 acres in size, along with and 0 acres of right of way. Staff recommends annexation effective 10/11/01.) (Resolution 01-124 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) l. 01-A-63, Charles M. Evans Jr. (The property is located approximately 40 feet north of the intersection of Fairbanks Road and Sunrise Road (Lot 13 Hazelwood Subdivision.). The parcel is zoned R30C and is contiguous with the Town’s corporate limits, and the proposed use is for low-density residential. The property is Wake County PIN #075408886666, and includes 0.46 acres with 0.16 acres of right of way. Staff recommends annexation effective 10/11/01.) (Resolution 01-125 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) m. 01-A-64, WACA Partnership (The property is located south of intersection of Donaldson Drive and Walnut Street. The property is zoned R12 and is contiguous with the Town’s corporate limits. The proposed use is for low-density residential, though there are several roadway improvements planned in the area. The Wake County PIN # is 077314424985, and the property includes 0.58 acres and 0 acres of right of way. Staff recommends annexation effective 10/11/01.) (Resolution 01-126 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) n. 01-A-66, John Evans (The property is located on the southeast corner of Abingdon Court and Evans Road. The property is zoned R30 and is contiguous with the Town’s corporate limits. The proposed use is for low-density residential. The parcel’s Wake County PIN # is 076405190791. This annexation case includes 1.8 acres and (+/-) 0.23 acres of right of way. Staff recommends annexation effective 10/11/01.) (Resolution 01-128 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) o. 01-A-91, Cary Parkway Associates II (The property is located approximately 800 feet southwest of the intersection of SW Cary Parkway & Old Apex Road. The parcel is zoned PEC CU and is contiguous with the Town’s Corporate Limits. The proposed use is for Mixed Use multi-family & office. The property’s Wake County PIN # is 075317212529, and it includes 2.28 acres with 0 acres of right of way.) This property is undergoing a rezoning (case # 01-REZ-13) to a mixed use designation, but was granted the ability to petition for annexation pursuant to a waiver granted by Town Council on October 11, 2001 Page 54 June 28, 2001. The parcel is completely surrounded by Cary’s corporate limits, and is appropriate for annexation. (Resolution 01-149 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by reference.) _________________________ No one came forward to speak, and Mayor Lang closed the public hearings. ACTION ON ANNEXATIONS: Mayor Pro Tem Smith made a motion to approve all of the annexations (a through o). Mr. Ward provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval. _________________________ NOTE: Annexations 01-A-65, CEX Investment Partnership, and 01-A-69, William Jackson Carpenter and Kathy Watson, have been withdrawn by the applicants. _________________________ I. PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REPORT There were no Planning and Zoning Board Report items on this agenda. _________________________ J. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Lang adjourned the meeting at 10:18 p.m. October 11, 2001 Page 55