06/14/01 Page 1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CARY

Transcription

REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CARY, NORTH CAROLINA
JUNE 14, 2001
COUNCIL MEMBERS 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 asked to discuss Cary’s new proposed
flag. Ms. Moran, public information officer, stated she hopes that the Council will adopt the new
municipal flag on the official “flag day.” A depiction of the flag is attached to and incorporated in
these minutes as Exhibit A. The staff report follows:
Earlier this year and at the request of citizens, Mayor Lang and Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked
Town staff to prepare for Council review and adoption a new Town flag.
In carrying out this direction, it was discovered that there appears to be no record of Council ever
adopting the existing flag as the official flag of the municipal corporation. Therefore, with this
proposed action, Council will be adopting the Town government’s first flag of record.
The proposed new flag was developed by Town staff working with a graphic artist and is
presented to Council for consideration following review of nearly two dozen alternatives by
numerous staff.
Staff Recommendation: Adopt the following resolution designating the Town government’s official
flag.
RESOLUTION OFFICIALLY DESIGNATING THE COLORS
AND DESIGN OF THE TOWN OF CARY FLAG
Whereas, flags have been used for thousands of years to symbolize leadership and to display the
insignia of a community, an office, an organization, or an individual; and,
Whereas, flag color and design should not be selected arbitrarily, but, rather, be deliberately
chosen to symbolize the culture, history, principals, and values of the body that the flag is to
represent; and,
Whereas, the following colors are determined to appropriately represent the Town of Cary
municipal corporation as follows:
GREEN, the most predominant color on the planet, the color of nature; symbolizing
honor, inspiring balance, sensitivity, and compassion, and awakening greater
friendliness, hope, faith, and peace; represents the Town of Cary’s commitment to
preserving and protecting our finite natural resources;
WHITE, containing all the colors of the light spectrum; symbolizing tolerance and
inclusion, inspiring truth and purity, and awakening greater creativity, and intensity;
represents the Town of Cary’s commitment to an open, democratic process and an
involved electorate;
BLUE, the ancient color for public service, the color of water; symbolizing loyalty and
faithfulness and inspiring scholarship and achievement; represents the Town of Cary’s
commitment to serving citizens in the most effective and efficient manner;
GOLD, one of the most resistant metals--defying tarnish, discoloration, or crumbling;
connecting civilizations throughout recorded history; symbolizing economic well-being,
inspiring enthusiasm, and awakening the entrepreneurial spirit; represents the Town of
Cary’s commitment to providing infrastructure, facilities, and other resources necessary
to ensure the highest quality of life for Cary citizens;
06/14/01
Page 1
BLACK, the predominant color of space, night, and the written word; symbolizing
constancy, eternity, and infinity, inspiring sophistication and elegance, and awakening
strength and fortitude; represents the Town of Cary’s commitment to doing the hard work
and making the difficult decisions necessary to prepare for a long, healthy future; and,
Whereas, the Town seal is registered with the State of North Carolina as an official insignia of the
Town of Cary municipal corporation and contains the follow elements:
1861, the date of the Town of Cary’s incorporation;
DOGWOOD, the official flower of the State of North Carolina;
HOUSE, representing a commitment to serving citizens;
CHURCH, representing a commitment to religious freedom;
TORCH, representing a commitment to enlightenment;
SCHOOL, representing a commitment to education.
Now be it resolved that the Cary Town Council designates the following colors and design to
comprise the official flag of the municipal corporation, Town of Cary, North Carolina:



Three large bands of color—emerald green, pearl white, and sapphire blue—
arranged horizontally the length of the fly, one below the other;
The official Town seal--shown in onyx black--followed by the words, “Town of Cary,
North Carolina” across the central band of pearl white;
A band of gold fringe surrounding the entirety of the flag.
Adopted this the 14th day of June 2001.
ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith made a motion to adopt Cary’s new official flag. Mr.
Roseland provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval.
(Resolution 01-095 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)
_________________________
Mr. Ward read a passage from the Bible and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith made a motion for the approval of the minutes of the
regular Town Council meeting held on May 24, 2001; the minutes of the joint meeting with
Cary and Morrisville officials held on May 30, 2001; and the minutes of the operating
budget work session held on May 31, 2001. Second was provided by Mr. Ward, and
unanimous approval was granted by Council.
_________________________
B. RECOGNITIONS, REPORTS, AND PRESENTATIONS
There were no recognitions, reports or presentations on this agenda.
_________________________
Mayor Lang asked to move the Annexation Report forward for discussion at this time. The report
prepared by Mr. Barker follows as well as an updated report prepared by Mr. Coleman just prior
to the meeting that was actually discussed at the meeting. (Note: If the reports contain conflicting
information, then the information in Mr. Coleman’s report takes precedence.)
Mr. Barker’s report:
At its May 10th meeting Council held a public feedback session on involuntary annexation. The
main concern that was mentioned by the public was the cost of annexation. Council directed staff
to develop a new proposal that would reduce and/or eliminate the cost of installing utilities. This
06/14/01
Page 2
new proposal only provides the framework for a new policy that will be submitted for Council
approval at a future meeting. The new policy will contain more detail on implementation of items
included in this report.
Since most residents stated at the May 10th meeting that they did not need public water and
sewer services, staff has revisited the need to provide water and sewer lines adjacent to all the
properties in the involuntary annexation study area immediately upon annexation. State law only
requires that towns provide “major trunk water and sewer outfall lines” to the areas that are
involuntarily annexed. This is the type of method currently utilized by Winston-Salem and Rocky
Mount. Trunk lines would be those utility lines that are larger than what we typically provide to
service development. For example, any line over 8 inches in diameter for sewer and water may
be considered a trunk line. If the Town is only required to provide water and sewer trunk lines
within these annexation areas, the cost will be significantly reduced and can be absorbed by the
Town. The exception to this would be if any of the owner(s) within the proposed annexation
areas request water and/or sewer service during the involuntary annexation process (within five
days after required public hearing). However, the Town will need to make a provision for
extensions after the properties are annexed if individual well and/or septic systems failure occur.
To address the citizens’ expressed concerns of costs associated with tying on to utilities
“unnecessarily,” staff recommends extending the water and/or sewer lines to the property owners
that experience failure of their private systems within the involuntary annexed areas only upon
request. Extension of the utilities will be done based upon the policy that exists at the time the
request is made. The cost of this extension would be assessed to the property owners adjacent
to the new water and/or sewer line in accordance with standard assessment procedures.
Historically, these types of assessments have been based on the full cost of utility extensions, but
that cost may be less depending upon Council action. Prior to the adoption of the Resolution of
Intent, a new policy will be established that states how the assessment of the cost will be applied
to individual properties. However, the assessment would not begin until the property owner
connected to the utility or until ten years after the utility line has been installed (whichever comes
first). According to State law, the maximum assessment period (time for the property owner to
pay the assessed amount) can be up to 10 years. With this proposal, some property owners may
not need to pay the full assessment amount for up to 20 years.
Since the costs of providing major lines to all the proposed annexed areas would be significantly
less than the full utility collection system, the staff recommends annexing all these areas in the
original proposal at the same time.
In summary, staff’s revised proposal is as follows:
1. Annex all the Qualifying Areas Together (approximately 1,820 parcels) – Since the capital
expenditure would be limited to the provision of trunk utility lines, the Town can annex all the
areas at the same time as most of these lines are already in place or will be in place within
the required two years after the annexation effective date.
2. Provide Only the Trunk Lines to the Annexation Areas Within Required Two Years– Since
none of the property owners in the annexed area expressed an immediate desire for Town
water and sewer, the Town will forgo the expense and disruption to these areas of installing a
complete utility collection system. Property owners will not be assessed for the cost of any
trunk line extension.
3. Extend Collector Water and/or Sewer Lines to Involuntarily Annexed Areas Upon Request –
a) During Involuntary Annexation Process: When and if property owners request connection
to town water and sewer lines within 5 days after the required public hearing, the Town will be
required to make these services available to the requesting owners within the two year
period.
b) After Deadline for Utility Extension Request: If any owner experiences private utility failure
06/14/01
Page 3
and requests connection anytime after the deadline for the utility extension request (see “3a”
above) or after the property is annexed, then the Town will consider extending the utility line
and assessing the cost to owners adjacent to the new line.
4. Assessment of Cost for Utility Line Extension –
a) Assessment Based Upon Request for Extension - No assessments will take place within
any of the involuntary annexation areas unless the town elects to extend utility lines upon
request by a property owner(s) experiencing failure of their private systems. The cost that is
assessed will be based on the policy that is in effect at the time. Historically, these types of
assessments have been based on the full cost of utility extensions, but that cost may be less
depending upon Council action. However, prior to the beginning of the involuntary
annexation process, a new policy will be established that will identify how the assessment of
the cost will be applied to individual properties.
b) Delay Assessment Until Connection To Utilities or Ten (10) Years After the Line is
Installed – The assessment period for all property owners adjacent to the extended utility line
will not begin until the owner connects to the utility or ten years after the line is completed,
whichever comes first. The assessment period can be up to ten (10) years.
c) Interest Over the Assessment Period (interest can be avoided by paying early) – Eight
percent (8%) is the standard interest rate that the town has charged with previous
assessments. This may encourage owners to pay their assessments early. However,
Council may choose a lower rate.
5.
Require Owners that Connect to Pay the Full Utility Development Fee – Since the Town is
only installing trunk lines to the annexed areas, there should not be a reduction or waiver of
the development fee. Many of the annexed areas will not have direct access to utility lines so
incentives to connect are not necessary. This fee, paid at the time of connection, is needed
to pay for future expansion of our utility plants. The owners will need to pay the fees that are
in place at the time they connect. The table below includes the current fees.
Square Feet
< 1,700
1,701 - 2,400
2,401 - 3,100
3,101 - 3,800
> 3,800
Water
$1,773
$1,960
$2,405
$2,720
$3,432
Sewer
$3,061
$3,103
$3,770
$4,094
$4,664
Total
$4,834
$5,063
$6,175
$6,814
$8,096
6. All municipal services required by law will be provided upon the effective date of annexation.
These services include such things as police, fire, and solid waste.
If Council concurs with these recommendations, staff will develop an official policy regarding
these involuntary annexations prior to initiating the process.
The following table lists a preliminary schedule of the involuntary annexation project. The
schedule is subject to change based on when our consultant completes a final annexation plan.
A contract amendment has not been completed to finalize the time it will take to complete this
plan. This schedule goes into detail about the major events for the involuntary annexation
project.
EVENT
Council Adopts Involuntary Annexation
Approach
Council Finalizes Involuntary Annexation
Policy
PURPOSE
To set forth an outline of the timing
and related costs for the annexation
areas
To provide more details about the
provisions of utilities, costs, and
assessments
TIMEFRAME
June 2001
Aug 2001
06/14/01
Page 4
Consultant Finalizes Annexation Plan
Resolution of Intent Adopted
Property Owners Provided Notice
Public Information Meeting
Public Hearing
Adoption of Annexation Ordinance
Effective Date of Annexation
Town Makes New Trunk Lines Available
To meet Statutory Requirements
To identify properties to be annexed
and initiate involuntary annexation
process
To provide owners a schedule of
the process and dates and times for
public feedback/information
sessions
To provide information and answer
questions related to annexation and
the provision of town services
To receive feedback from property
owners
To have Council take action
To meet one year waiting period
requirement
To meet Statutory Requirements
Sept.-Oct 2001
Nov. 2001
Nov –Dec. 2001
Jan.-Feb. 2002
Feb –Mar. 2002
June 2002
June 2003
No later than June
2005
Staff Recommendation: Recommends that Council approve this revised involuntary annexation
proposal and direct staff to finalize an involuntary annexation policy and have our consultant finalize the
required annexation report.
Mr. Coleman’s revised report follows (this reports updates Mr. Barker’s report):
The major elements of the proposal for annexation are as follows:
1. All the areas would be annexed simultaneously with basis for annexation being the
availability of major utility truck lines being installed within two years.
2. Utilities would be provided to the individual properties in these areas upon the request of
property owners.
3. Individual property owners would not have to tie on to the utilities for ten years with the
assessment being paid over a ten-year period.
4. The assessments would be paid on the basis of the policies in existence at the time or based
on the policy that the assessment would be 50% of the cost of providing utilities plus payment
of the impact fees. The impact fees would be waived if individual properties tied on to the
utilities within some specific period of time, e.g. three months.
5. If isolated property owners requested utilities, the Town would have the option of repairing
the existing well or septic tank or running utilities.
6. The Town would need to adopt a policy that outlines the conditions under which the Town will
extend utilities in the future to areas that have been annexed involuntarily. This policy will
state the method of assessment, the costs to be assessed, the Town's policy with regard to
waiver of development fees, and the specifics of a petition process to request utilities (i.e.,
establishing a rule that a certain percentage of property owners of a certain area have to
request utilities before the Town will extend them).
This report was developed in order to address the major concerns expressed by residents in
these areas at the previous public meeting. The major concerns expressed were:
1. That the Town would install public utilities before they were needed.
06/14/01
Page 5
2. That individual properties would have to take public utility service before it is needed and
abandon their investments in wells and septic tanks.
3. That the costs being assessed were burdensome.
Mr. Coleman, Town Manager, stated some time ago, the Council directed staff to undertake a
study to investigate the feasibility of annexing areas that were either completely surrounded by
the corporate limits of Cary or whose borders were substantially contiguous to the Town of Cary.
He stated the staff undertook the study and identified a number of areas that met these criteria,
and then came up with a proposal for annexation. He stated the elements of that plan included
that the annexation would occur on a phased approach over a period of 10-12 years, the phases
would be annexed every two years, the Town would extend utilities to every property within two
years of the annexation, the cost of the extension of utilities was to be assessed based on 50% of
the cost with development fees waived if the property owners connected to the system
immediately. He stated the assessment was to be paid over five years with 8% interest.
Mr. Coleman stated after a public input session on the annexation proposal, the Council directed
staff to review the annexation study to address some of the issues raised by the public. He stated
during that meeting, some speakers mentioned that property taxes were an issue; however, the
major concerns expressed were related to the placement of utilities in these areas and the cost of
the utilities that residents were being required to pay. He stated the issues raised included: (1)
The Town would be installing public utilities before they were needed and subjecting the residents
of these areas to the disturbance of their properties and rights-of-way and creating disruption in
the neighborhoods before the utilities were needed. (2) Individual properties would have to take
public utility service before it was needed and would have to abandon their investments in the
existing wells and septic tanks, which would be a financial burden to the property owner. (3) The
cost being assessed would be burdensome and would be a financial hardship on the property
owners.
Mr. Coleman stated the staff reviewed the annexation report, reviewed options available to the
Town, and developed an alternative proposal (see Mr. Coleman’s report herein).
Mr. Coleman stated staff requests Town Council direction on proceeding with the completion of
the annexation report based on the concepts outlined in the (Mr. Coleman’s) report. He stated
once completed, the annexation report will be brought back to Council for a final decision.
ACTION: Mr. Weinbrecht made a motion to approve the proposal as laid out by the town
manager (Mr. Coleman’s proposal). Mayor Lang provided the second.
Mr. Roseland stated Medfield has 106 vacant lots. He stated that it is possible that developers will
rush to request town utilities so they can sell and develop those lots. He stated other cities have a
policy that stipulates that 50% of the neighborhood must agree to take on the additional lots. He
asked about a similar policy for Cary to be a safeguard to people who are not ready to be
annexed. Mrs. Robinson stated the policy is 50% of the block, not 50% of the neighborhood. She
stated instead of saying that the residents are not ready for annexation, it should be stated that
the people are not ready for the cost of utility hook-ups, because they will be annexed.
Mayor Lang stated tonight staff is seeking direction from Council on whether to proceed with the
annexation report and prepare appropriate policies for Council’s future adoption. He stated Mr.
Coleman will review the details of the policy.
Mr. Coleman stated staff feels that the issue outlined by Mr. Roseland should be addressed in the
policies, and Cary needs a similar policy as a component of the final annexation.
Mr. Ward stated he assumes that the financial implications with regard to the capital improvement
budget will be laid out. He stated the impact to current citizens and future budgets is important.
Mr. Coleman responded affirmatively.
06/14/01
Page 6
Ms. Dorrel asked if the $8,000 assessment in the earlier proposal represented 50% of the cost.
Mr. Coleman responded that it represented 50% of the average cost.
Mr. Barker gave an example of the proposed schedule of the involuntary annexations. He stated
in August or September, 2001, the Council will finalize the annexation policy. He stated then the
consultant will finalize the annexation plan. He stated the resolution of intent will be adopted in
November 2001, and the process concludes with the adoption of the annexation ordinance in
June 2002. He stated the annexations will be effective June 2003, because state statutes state
that the ordinance is effective one year after adoption.
Mr. Barker stated anytime between adoption of the resolution of intent and five days after the
public hearing if staff gets a request from property owners requesting utilities, then no later than
June 2005, the Town must make those utility lines available to the property in accordance with
Town policies. He stated after the collector line is run, an annexation assessment public hearing
would be done, and the annexation would be set at that time after the line is in place. He stated
the real costs are not known until after the completion of the project. Mr. Barker stated if this
occurred in July 2005, and the person made the request in the five day period after the public
hearing, then the property owner does not have to connect, but they can connect to it if they need
to do so. He stated if the Town runs the line July 2005 and the assessment is adopted, then no
one would start the assessment until someone decided to connect to the line, and this is when
the assessment would begin. He stated if people decided not to connect to utilities, then it would
be 10 years after the line is run (July 2015) when the Town would begin the assessment process
on all the properties adjacent to the line that the Town installed.
Mayor Lang stated the soonest someone would have to voluntarily begin paying the assessment
is July 2015, and he stated if the assessment in the Year 2005 was $8,000, then in 2015, the
property owner would begin paying the $8,000 over an additional 10 year period (between 2015
and 2025). Mayor Lang asked when the interest would begin on the $8,000. Mr. Barker stated the
interest would begin at the beginning of the assessment. Mayor Lang stated in this scenario, no
interest would compound between 2005 and 2015. Mayor Lang stated there will not be any
inflation adjustment between 2005 and 2015. Mayor Lang stated if the property owner is on a well
and septic system in 2005, and the well and septic system is still working in 2025, then they do
not have to connect to the system. He added no one will be forced to connect to the system. Mr.
Barker concurred, but he stated the property owner does have to pay the full development fee
connection at that time if they connect because they passed up connection during the six-month
period. Mayor Lang stated if the property owner does not connect to Town utilities, then all they
have to pay is the extension costs. The proposed schedule follows:
Phase
Event
Timeframe
Pre-Resolution
Council adopts involuntary
annexation approach
June 2001
Council finalizes involuntary
annexation policy
August 2001
Consultant finalizes annexation plan
September-October 2001
Process Begins
Resolution of Intent Adopted
November 2001
Pre-Hearing
Property owners provided notice
November-December 2001
Public information meeting
January-February 2002
Public hearing
February-March 2002
06/14/01
Page 7
Post-Hearing
Deadline for utililty extension
requests.
5 days after hearing
Adoption of annexation ordinance
June 2002
Effective date of annexation
June 2003
Town makes new trunk lines
available
No later than June 2005
Mr. Barker stated the Council previously decided that after the line was in place and the
assessment was adopted, then the property owner has six months to put in an application to
connect in order to have the development fee waived. He stated if the property owner passes up
this opportunity, then they would have to pay the development fee that is in place whenever they
connect. Mayor Lang reiterated that if they do not ever connect, then they do not pay. Ms. Dorrel
clarified that they still pay the assessment, but they do not pay the impact fee.
Mr. Barker stated any request after the five-day period will warrant an evaluation by staff to
determine all alternatives available. He stated the Town may choose to repair a septic system
instead of running the line.
Mr. Ward asked when the citizens will begin paying property taxes. Mr. Barker stated the people
will pay taxes in June 2003 (the effective date of annexation).
Ms. Dorrel stated some people are concerned that even after the annexation is approved, then
the Town will choose not to extend the utility lines. She stated this will not happen. She stated the
Town may choose not to extend the lines that would trigger the assessment. She stated if the
Town repaired someone’s septic system, then this would not trigger the assessment.
Mayor Lang suggested a 5% interest rate.
ACTION: Mr. Weinbrecht amended his motion to reflect a 5% interest rate.
Mayor Lang stated the Council is adopting a policy – a recommendation – for future Councils. He
stated this policy will not bind future Councils to this recommendation. He stated a future Council
may change policies. He stated the only direction from Council tonight is directing staff to develop
detailed policies for Council’s future approval.
Mayor Lang stated this process includes a public hearing, and the public will have an opportunity
to speak at that time.
Ms. Dorrel asked if the motion approves the staff report (Mr. Barker’s report) or the assessment at
50% (Mr. Coleman’s report). Mr. Weinbrecht stated the motion is to approve Mr. Coleman’s report
(as contained herein). Ms. Dorrel read from the report, “The assessment will be paid on the basis
of the policies in existence at the time or based on the policy that the assessment will be 50% of
the cost to provide the utilities plus payment of the impact fees.” She asked if the motion is
either/or. Mayor Lang stated the motion is for the policy to be 50%, but Mr. Coleman worded his
statement this way because a future Council can change it to 0% or to 100%. Ms. Dorrel stated
the difference between Mr. Barker’s report that was posted on the web and Mr. Coleman’s report
(being voted on now) is 50% vs. 100% of the assessment, the ability to waive the utility impact
fee within some specified period of time which is not being set at this time, and an interest rate of
5%. Mayor Lang concurred.
Ms. Dorrel stated she is concerned, because many of the people who have contacted her feel this
proposal is worse than the previous proposal. She stated there seems to be a lot of confusion,
and she would like time to help people better understand the proposal. Mayor Lang stated
06/14/01
Page 8
between now and the time the resolution is adopted in November, various examples can be
posted on the website to help people understand.
Mr. Ward stated he has heard that there is movement at the legislative level that may impact a
municipality’s ability to involuntarily annex. He asked the implications for Cary. Town Attorney
Henderson stated if adopted, it could impact Cary’s proposal. He stated typically, things adopted
during the summer are effective in October. He stated he is not familiar with exactly what they are
considering.
ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion to approve Mr. Coleman’s report (herein) with
5% interest. “No” votes were registered by Ms. Dorrel and Mr. Ward. All others voted
“aye.” The motion carried by majority vote.
_________________________
C. CONSENT AGENDA
1. Consideration of adoption of certificates of sufficiency and resolutions calling for
public hearings on the following annexation petitions:
a. 01-A-28, James L. Justice
b. 01-A-29, Rosa Lee and Horace Stephens, Jr.
c. 01-A-31, F.D. Nutt and Mildred D. Nutt
d. 01-A-32, James and Beth Cooke
e. 01-A-33, David and Keiko Holloman
f.
01-A-34, James M. Ritchey and Triangle Transit Authority
g. 01-A-35, E.H. Bridger, P.A.
h. 01-A-36, Kristi Streeter
i.
01-A-37, Monumental Life Insurance Company
(Resolutions 01-080 through 01-088 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-38, Carpenter Ruritan Club, Warren Hill
PETITION:
01-A-038
OWNER & ADDRESS:
Carpenter Ruritan Club, Warren Hill
4137 NC Highway 55
Morrisville, NC 27560
ADDRESS OF PROPERTY:
0 Morrisville Carpenter Rd
LOCATION OF PROPERTY:
Approx. 200 Ft. East of the intersection of NC
Hwy 55 and Morrisville Carpenter Rd.
06/14/01
Page 9
ASSOCIATED REZONING OR
DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
None
Utilities
Water: 10" DIP Line Approx. 180 Ft. West.
Sewer: 14" DIP Line Approx. 630 Ft. North.
WAKE CO. PARCEL ID #:
073504737605
REALID NUMBER:
168194
AREA:
0.45
ZONING:
PEC
PROPOSED USE:
Office/Industrial
FIRE DISTRICT:
Morrisville
VOTING DISTRICT:
D
TAX VALUE:
$19,602.00
CORPORATE LIMITS:
Non-Contiguous
TOWN COUNCIL DATES:
REQUEST TO INVESTIGATE SUFFICIENCY:
CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
PROPOSED EFFECTIVE DATE:
June 14, 2001
July 12, 2001
August 9, 2001
August 9, 2001
(Resolution 01-096 is on file in the town clerk’s office and is incorporated in these minutes by
reference.)
_________________________
b. 01-A-39, Carpenter Community Development Court, c/o Mitchell J. Petway
PETITION:
01-A-039
OWNER & ADDRESS:
Carpenter Community Development Court; C/O
Mitchell J. Petway
7032 Inidan Wells Rd.
Morrisville, NC 27560
6701 Carpenter Fire Station Rd
NW Corner of Carpenter Fire Station Rd. &
Morrisville Carpenter Rd.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
Utilities
Water: 16" DIP Line along Carpenter Fire
Station Rd. Sewer: 14" DIP Line along
Carpenter Fire Station Rd.
06/14/01
Page 10
073504831983
REALID NUMBER:
0011716
AREA:
0.84
ZONING:
PEC
PROPOSED USE:
Low-Density Residential
FIRE DISTRICT:
Morrisville
VOTING DISTRICT:
A
TAX VALUE:
$56,295.00
CORPORATE LIMITS:
Contiguous
TOWN COUNCIL DATES:
PUBLIC HEARING:
June 14, 2001
July 12, 2001
August 9, 2001
August 9, 2001
reference.)
_________________________
c. 01-A-40, SD Partners, c/o Zalzneck Enterprises, Inc.
PETITION:
01-A-040
OWNER & ADDRESS:
SD Partners c/o Zalzneck Enterprises Inc.
PO Box 6054
Rocky Mount, NC 27802
0 US 64 HWY
Approx. 1000 Ft. East of the intersection of US
Hwy 64 and Lake Pine Dr.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
Z-440-87-1
Utilities
Water: 12" AC Line along US Hwy 64. Sewer: 8"
PVC Line approx. 330 Ft. East.
075210454860
REALID NUMBER:
0168946
AREA:
9.5
06/14/01
Page 11
ZONING:
OI Conditional Use
PROPOSED USE:
Office/Industrial
FIRE DISTRICT:
Hipex
VOTING DISTRICT:
D
TAX VALUE:
$1,241,460.00
CORPORATE LIMITS:
Contiguous
TOWN COUNCIL DATES:
PUBLIC HEARING:
June 14, 2001
July 12, 2001
August 9, 2001
August 9, 2001
reference.)
_________________________
d. 01-A-41, Angelina Roque
PETITION:
01-A-041
OWNER & ADDRESS:
Angelina Roque
2909 Piney Plains Rd.
Cary, NC 27511
2909 Piney Plains Rd
Approx. 200 Ft. South of the intersection of
Franklin Heights Rd. & Piney Plains Rd.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
None
Utilities
Water: 12" PVC Line along Piney Plains Rd.
Sewer: 8" PVC Line approx. 370 Ft. North on
Bourne Wood Dr.
077210255056
REALID NUMBER:
0002958
AREA:
0.44
ZONING:
R40
PROPOSED USE:
Low-Density Residential
FIRE DISTRICT:
Swift Creek
VOTING DISTRICT:
C
06/14/01
Page 12
TAX VALUE:
$109,399.00
CORPORATE LIMITS:
Non-contiguous
TOWN COUNCIL DATES:
PUBLIC HEARING:
June 14, 2001
July 12, 2001
August 9, 2001
August 9, 2001
reference.)
_________________________
e. 01-A-43, Bruce and Catherine Booth
PETITION:
01-A-43
OWNER & ADDRESS:
Bruce and Catherine Booth
1226 Lawrence Road
Cary, NC 27511-5918
0 Lawrence Rd
property located approximately 240 feet north
east from the intersection of Lawrence Road
and Whitby Court
DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
N/A
UTILITIES:
Sewer: 8" PVC sewer line 110 feet south west
Water: 8" AC water line 30 feet south east
077317224315
REALID NUMBER:
0062800
AREA:
0.52 acres
ZONING:
R-12
PROPOSED USE:
Vacant
FIRE DISTRICT:
Western Wake
VOTING DISTRICT:
C
TAX VALUE:
30,000
CORPORATE LIMITS:
Contiguous
TOWN COUNCIL DATES:
06/14/01
06/14/01
Page 13
PUBLIC HEARING:
07/12/01
08/09/01
08/09/01
reference.)
_________________________
f.
01-A-44, Jean P. Hunt
PETITION:
01-A-44
OWNER & ADDRESS:
Jean P. Hunt
7 Dixie Trail
Raleigh, NC 27607
2700 Cowley Road
property is located at the corner of Cowley Road
and Lawrence Road
DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
N/A
UTILITIES:
Sewer: 12" PVC sewer line 700 feet to the east
Water: 16" DIP water line 70 feet to the north
and 12" DIP water line 480 feet to the north
west
077210363297
REALID NUMBER:
0024579
AREA:
0.50 acres
ZONING:
R-40
PROPOSED USE:
Residential - Low
FIRE DISTRICT:
Swift Creek
VOTING DISTRICT:
C
TAX VALUE:
$24,500
CORPORATE LIMITS:
Non-contiguous
TOWN COUNCIL DATES:
PUBLIC HEARING:
06/14/01
07/12/01
08/09/01
08/09/01
06/14/01
Page 14
reference.)
_________________________
g. 01-A-46, Jagdeep and Sneh Dutta
PETITION:
01-A-046
OWNER & ADDRESS:
Jagdeep and Sneh Dutta
3520 Piedmont Dr.
Raleigh, NC 27604
104 Joppa Court
Corner of Reedy Creek Rd. & Joppa Ct.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
Utilities
Water: 8" PVC Along Reedy Creek Rd. Sewer:
3" DIP line approx. 550 Ft. South on Reedy
Creek Rd.
076519713384
REALID NUMBER:
0206155
AREA:
0.97
ZONING:
R30
PROPOSED USE:
Low-density Residential
FIRE DISTRICT:
Western Wake
VOTING DISTRICT:
B
TAX VALUE:
$60,000.00
CORPORATE LIMITS:
Contiguous
TOWN COUNCIL DATES:
PUBLIC HEARING:
June 14, 2001
July 12, 2001
August 9, 2001
August 9, 2001
reference.)
_________________________
06/14/01
Page 15
h. 01-A-47, Apex Northwest Partnership, c/o J. Michael Edwards
PETITION:
01-A-047
OWNER & ADDRESS:
Apex Northwest Partnership C/O J. Michael
Edwards
6505 Saddle Path Cir
Raleigh, NC 27606
0 Westhigh St
Approx. 360 Ft. W. of Cary Pky on Westhigh St.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN:
Z-410-87-PUD, Z-515-88-PUD, Z-355-86-PUD
Utilities
Water: 8" DIP line along Westhigh Rd. Sewer:
12" PVC line runs through the Eastern side of
the property.
074316948172 & 074316948752
REALID NUMBER:
0007137 & 0148767
AREA:
10.94
ZONING:
R30PUD
PROPOSED USE:
Office
FIRE DISTRICT:
HIPEX
VOTING DISTRICT:
D
TAX VALUE:
$1,018,782.00
CORPORATE LIMITS:
Contiguous
TOWN COUNCIL DATES:
PUBLIC HEARING:
June 14, 2001
July 12, 2001
August 9, 2001
August 9, 2001
reference.)
_________________________
3. Consideration of a resolution adopting an official flag for the Town of Cary
municipal corporation.
This item was approved at the beginning of this meeting.
_________________________
06/14/01
Page 16
ACTION: Mr. Weinbrecht made a motion to approve consent agenda items 1 and 2 (item 3
was approved at the beginning of the meeting). Ms. Dorrel provided the second, and
Council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS
Operations Committee (June 1, 2001)
(Chairperson Jack Smith called the meeting to order. Committee Members Marla Dorrel and Nels
Roseland were in attendance. The meeting adjourned at 12:13 PM.)
Consent Agenda
1. 2000 Street Improvements Project Phase 2 – Recognition of Revenue (EN01-75)
Committee recommended recognition of $36,500 to the Miscellaneous Reimbursement
account for the 2000 Street Improvement Project.
The Wessex HOA has requested that the stamped brick concrete at the intersection of Menden
Hall Way & Weston Parkway and Menden Hall Way & Bath Gate Lane be removed and replaced
with 6” full depth asphalt at their expense. These improvements have been added to Phase 2 of
the 2000 Street Improvements and are estimated to cost $36,500. On May 4, 2001, the Wessex
HOA submitted a check for $4,000 as a deposit to the Town of Cary to meet this obligation. The
balance of $32,500 will be received before proceeding with construction.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends recognition of revenue to the Miscellaneous
Reimbursement account (#062-0000-391.1001) in the amount of $36,500 to the 2000 Street
Improvement Project. (Project #ST1051, Account #062-0000-514.7510.
_________________________
2. SE Maynard Road Widening Project – Bid Award (EN01-78)
Committee recommended that Triangle Grading & Paving be awarded the construction
contract for the amount of $2,376,631.96 and that $750,000 be transferred from the Walnut
Street Interchange Project (ST1030) to the SE Maynard Road Widening Project (ST1004).
The Town received bids for the SE Maynard Road Widening Project on Tuesday, May 15, 2001.
This project consists of widening approximately 5700 feet on SE Maynard Road from Kildaire
Farm Road to Seabrook Avenue to a five (5) lane undivided curb and gutter section.
The Engineer’s estimate for this project was $2,623,354.80. The bid tabulation is shown below:
CONTRACTOR
Triangle Grading & Paving
C.C. Mangum
Blythe Development
Barnhill Contracting
Allen Grading Co.
S.T. Wooten Corp.
BID
$2,376,631.96*
$2,514,656.00
$2,534,903.62
$2,598,345.89
$2,699,429.50*
$3,016,279.02
* bid modified due to mathematical error. Unit prices were used to verify
bids for Triangle Grading & Paving. The bid price received was
$2,376,630.
06/14/01
Page 17
Based on increase in unit prices since this project was originally funded in 1996, inclusion of a
landscaping plan and costs to relocate power poles along the project, Staff is requesting an
additional $750,000 for construction that will also include five (5) percent contingency.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Triangle Grading & Paving be awarded the
construction contract for the amount of $2,376,631.96 and that $750,000 be transferred from the
Walnut Street Interchange Project (ST1030) to the SE Maynard Road Widening Project (ST1004).
_________________________
3. Maynard Road Loop – Designated Truck Route (EN01-79)
Committee recommended that Maynard Road no longer be a designated truck route.
Residents along Maynard Road between West Chatham Street and Walnut Street at the Town
Council meeting on May 10, 2001, and to staff over the past several months, have requested that
this section of Maynard Road no longer be designated as a truck route.
Maynard Road was designated a truck route back in 1990 to redirect non-local truck traffic away
from the downtown area and away from portions of West Chatham Street, Old Apex Road, East
Chatham Street, Kildaire Farm Road, and North Harrison Avenue that approach into the
downtown area.
To reroute traffic away from the downtown area, Staff has reviewed the possibility of designating
Cary Parkway as the truck route. Cary Parkway, however, is currently not a loop road and would
not redirect truck traffic that would approach from the eastern end of Cary towards Raleigh.
Also, since the truck route was designated in 1990, many major roadways in Cary have been
opened or widened. Examples include Cary Parkway that has been completed and whose
roadway section is mostly a four lane divided median, and US64 that has been widened from two
lanes to four lane undivided. The Maynard Road Loop also has been completed and widened in
most areas.
New alternatives for truck traffic have been established in and around Cary since 1990 to redirect
truck traffic away from Maynard Road and the downtown area.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Maynard Road no longer be a designated truck
route and that all truck route signs along Maynard Road and all approaches be removed.
An Ordinance of the Town of Cary, North Carolina Amending Chapter 12 (Motor Vehicles
and Traffic) of the Cary Code of Ordinance
Delete Article XII. Truck Routes
Delete All the Sections within Article XII, including:
Sec. 12-230. Definitions
Sec. 12-231. Through truck routes designated
Sec. 12-232. Through trucks to use through truck routes
Sec. 12-233. Local trucks to use special truck routes
Sec. 12-234. Visiting trucks to use through truck routes
Sec. 12-235. Provisions mandatory; noncompliance declared unlawful
06/14/01
Page 18
Adopted: 6/14/01
Effective: 6/14/01
(Ordinance 01-011 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)
_________________________
4. 2000 Street Improvements Project, Phase 3 (EN01-82)
Committee recommended that Barnhill Contracting be awarded the construction contract for
the 2000 Street Improvements Project, Phase 3 for $1,389,274.98.
The Town received bids for the 2000 Street Improvements Project (Phase 3) on Monday May 21,
2001. This project consists of upgrading approximately 21 miles of streets. This work is
anticipated to start in July and to be completed in November.
The Engineer’s estimate for this project was $1,600,851.35. The bid tabulation is shown below:
CONTRACTOR
Barnhill Contracting
S.T. Wooten Corporation
Mangum Asphalt Services
Gelder & Associates
Nello Teer Company
$
$
$
$
$
BID
1,389,274.98
1,476,623.66
1,488,384.80
1,524,239.60
1,677,707.17
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Barnhill Contracting be awarded the construction
contract for the amount of $1,389,274.98.
_________________________
5. Purchase of Equipment and Uniform Items (PD01-019)
Committee recommended that $27,920 in funds awarded to the Department as a result of
drug enforcement activity be recognized and authorized for the purchase of police equipment,
the purchase of police uniforms and for facility renovations. The funds shall be placed in the
following accounts:
Supplies Account: $15,130
Uniforms Account: $2,500
M&R of Building Account: $3,240
Capital Outlay of Equipment Account: $7,050
Further, it is recommended that $4,648 in unspent monies be recognized and placed in the
General Fund. These funds will be ledgered over to FY02 for Police expenditure.
The Department has been awarded $32,568 as a result of drug enforcement activity. Specifically,
the funds originate from the Federal Drug Forfeiture Program and the State of North Carolina
Controlled Substance Tax Distribution Program. Both programs are designed to benefit law
enforcement agencies participating in drug enforcement activities. By law, all awarded funds
must be used for law enforcement purposes. The Department proposes to use the awarded
funds to make the following purchases:


Spotlights for Patrol Vehicles: The Department will purchase 39 spotlights for installation on
marked patrol vehicles. The lights will supplement the existing lighting available on the roof
top light bar. Cost of the purchase is $4,300.
Night Vision Binoculars (2): The night vision binoculars will be used for surveillance in drug
and vice operations. Further, members of the department’s Emergency Response Team will
use the binoculars during tactical situations. Cost of the purchase is $3,800.
06/14/01
Page 19








Stop Sticks: The Department will purchase 17 sets of stop sticks to complete the equipping
of all patrol vehicles with this valuable tool. Stop sticks are used to bring vehicle pursuits to a
quick and safe conclusion. Cost of the purchase is $6,120.
Lighting for Laptops: The Department will purchase 40 small lights to be installed on the
laptop computer consoles that are mounted in police patrol vehicles. The lights will vastly
improve keyboard visibility during nighttime hours. Cost of the purchase is $2,500.
Tactical Vest Covers: The Department will purchase 25 tactical vest covers for issuance to
police administrators, supervisors and investigators. The vest covers are worn similarly to a
jacket and are fitted with ballistic panels to offer the protection of standard body armor. The
tactical vest cover provides non-uniformed personnel with a readily accessible garment that
identifies the wearer as a police officer and offers ballistic protection. Cost of the purchase is
$2,500.
Heavy Duty Chairs: The Department will purchase 10 heavy-duty chairs for use in the police
squad room. The chairs in this area of the facility are used regularly on a 24/7 basis and are
subject to breakage. Cost of the purchase is $1,000.
Simplex Multiplexer: The Department will purchase a simplex multiplexer to provide a means
of capturing video evidence from commercial security cameras. Most typically the equipment
will be used to produce still pictures from bank camera videos. Cost of the purchase is
$1,750.
Surveillance Camera: The Department will purchase a micro surveillance camera that is
installed in a device commonly found in homes and businesses. The camera will generally
be used in drug and vice investigations. Cost of the purchase is $1,500.
Renovations to Police Facility: A recent reorganization has created the need for an additional
office in the Criminal Investigations Unit. The Department proposes to move several walls in
such a manner as to maximize the available space, resulting in the creation of an additional
office. Cost of the renovations is $3,240.
Desk & Desk Chair: The recent reorganization resulted in the assignment of a sergeant to
the Criminal Investigations Division. The Department proposes to purchase a desk and desk
chair for the sergeant. Cost of the purchase is $1,210.
The total cost of all proposed purchases is $27,920. A total of $4,648 in funds remains unspent.
These funds will be moved into the General Fund and then ledgered into the next fiscal year for
Police expenditure during FY02.
In summary, the Department proposes a variety of expenditures with funds accrued as a result of
drug enforcement activities. The expenditures will address a number of departmental needs
without requiring the allocation of Town funds.
Staff Recommendation: It is recommended that $27,920 in funds awarded to the Department as a
result of drug enforcement activity be recognized and authorized for the purchase of police equipment,
the purchase of police uniforms and for facility renovations. The funds shall be placed in the following
accounts:
Supplies Account: $15,130
Uniforms Account: $2,500
M&R of Building Account: $3,240
Capital Outlay of Equipment Account: $7,050
Further, it is recommended that $4,648 in unspent monies be recognized and placed in the General
Fund. These funds will be ledgered over to FY02 for Police expenditure.
_________________________
06/14/01
Page 20
6. Total Life Center Bid Award and Facility Use Agreement (PR01-48)
Committee recommendation:
1) Reject all bids from April 18 bid opening.
2) Award of contract for construction of a Total Life Center to the lowest responsible bidder,
Trout & Riggs Construction Co., with acceptance of Alternate #2 to extend asphalt to current
senior center parking lot.
3) Appropriation of $551,260 for construction from general fund, fund balance.
4) Approval of Facility Use Agreement with Resources for Seniors Inc. to operate the Total
Life Center.
Council previously funded the design and directed staff to pursue construction of a Total Life
Center, sometimes referred to as an Adult Day Care facility, as an add-on to the Cary Senior
Center at Fred G. Bond Metro Park. This facility will provide care during the day for seniors and
adults with disabilities. Potential clients typically live with members of their family, but are not
able to take care of themselves when family members are away during the day at work.
Initially, the space recommended by Matthew Hale, Architect, to house a maximum of 30 clients
was roughly 2,500 square feet. Since then adult day care space requirements per participant
have increased and an additional 700 square feet of programming space was needed to meet the
State of North Carolina regulations. The design was modified to meet these requirements while
taking into account value engineering.
Bids were received and opened April 18 for single prime delivery system. No bona-fide bids were
received under $500,000 which is the limit for single prime bidding without a multiple prime
option. The project was reviewed by the architect to further value engineer the building and a
second round of bids were opened May 16 and produced the following results:
Bidder
Base Bid
Alternate 1 (Add accordion
walls to day room)
Alternate 2 (add asphalt paved
driveway extension from TLC
parking lot to Senior Center)
Alternate 3 (add fence Garden
to south side of TLC)
Poythress
Commercial
Contractors
$498,000
R.P. Construction
Co., Inc.
Trout & Riggs
Construction Co.
$468,100
$458,600
$4,000
$4,735
$4,200
$14,500
$9,370
$9,500
$17,750
$24,210
$18,200
Staff is recommending the acceptance of alternate #2 to pave a driveway extension from the
Total Life Center to the Senior Center. This will accommodate a smoother egress and access
during special events held at the Cary Senior Center as well as Bond Park. The estimated
construction period is five months.
As part of the value engineering completed after the first bid, the architect suggested to change
specifications on the exterior block to painted block from integrated colored veneer. The
estimated cost savings were $22,000. Since then, the architect has determined that the cost
savings would only be $3500. Public Works had a painting company prepare an estimate in
order to make a value judgement on this change. The paint company estimated a cost of $4,500
to paint the block every two-three years. Therefore, the results indicate long term cost would far
exceed the initial cost.
Appropriation of funds needed to move forward with the project are outlined below:
06/14/01
Page 21
General Construction
Furniture and Equipment
Contract Services/testing
Contingency (10%)
Total
$471,600 (includes integrated block and Alt. #2)
$25,000
$7500
$47,160
$551,260
Staff was directed to negotiate an agreement with Resources for Seniors Inc. to operate the adult
day care program. The proposed agreement follows. Highlights of the agreement are as follows:
Resources for Seniors Inc. will be in charge of day-to-day operations of the facility, setting fees,
custodial services, replacement furnishings, and utility services, as described in the agreements.
The Town will be responsible for exterior building and ground maintenance, parking areas,
supplying initial equipment/furnishings, and utility maintenance.
Resources for Seniors Inc. and the Town will share in the cost of major replacement items such
as roof, HVAC, and floor replacement.
Utility costs will be covered by Resources for Seniors Inc., however, not until the facility is full.
The day care may not fill immediately and initially be opened a couple of days per week until a
client-base is developed.
Resources for Seniors Inc. will accept clients outside of Cary as well as within Cary and control
fees and program elements.
Staff Recommendation:
1) Reject all bids from April 18 bid opening.
2) Award of contract for construction of a Total Life Center to the lowest responsible bidder, Trout &
Riggs Construction Co., with acceptance of Alternate #2 to extend asphalt to current senior center
parking lot.
3) Appropriation of $551,260 for construction from general fund, fund balance.
4) Approval of Facility Use Agreement with Resources for Seniors Inc. to operate the Total Life Center.
Facility Use Agreement
Between
Town of Cary
And
Resources for Seniors, Inc.
Operations of adult day care center @ Fred G. Bond Metro Park
The Town of Cary, a North Carolina corporation, hereinafter referred to as “TOC”, and Resources
for Seniors, Inc. a North Carolina corporation, hereinafter referred to “RFS”, hereby agree as
follows:
Section I - Time and Space Use
RFS will operate the facility, as an adult day care center at times deemed necessary for programs
and activities. RFS will have exclusive use of the adult day care.
RFS agrees to provide a schedule to be observed throughout the year.
The TOC must approve use of the building for purposes other than adult day care center.
06/14/01
Page 22
RFS will publicize the program to maximize occupancy and to ensure full opportunity for
participation by Cary residents. RFS will have complete responsibility to set fees and to operate
the facility efficiently and effectively.
Section II - Maintenance
A. Interior/Exterior Routine Maintenance
1. TOC will be responsible for conducting and paying the costs of all routine maintenance of the
building including plumbing, interior and exterior lighting, windows, walls, floors, doors and
hardware, electrical wiring, and other facility routine maintenance inside and outside of the
building with the following exceptions:
A. RFS will be responsible for repainting the interior walls and wall coverings at least once every
three years.
B. RFS will be financially responsible for cost of carpet replacement.
2. RFS staff will communicate with TOC designated liaison in reporting general maintenance
request.
3. RFS will allow time during the day for Town staff to have access to the facility to provide
routine maintenance and repairs as needed.
4. RFS staff will provide all set-up needs for programs and special events.
B. Grounds Maintenance
TOC will be responsible for the general maintenance of the grounds.
C. Parking Area
1. TOC will be responsible for conducting and paying the costs of routine repairs and
maintenance for the parking areas.
2. TOC will be responsible for paying the costs of routine repairs and maintenance for the
parking lot lights.
D. Custodial Services
1. RFS will be responsible for providing daily custodial services that meet the minimum criterion
established by the TOC maintenance standards. RFS will be responsible for purchasing all
cleaning supplies for the adult day care center.
2. RFS will dispose of waste generated from within the adult day care center in dumpsters
provided by the TOC.
3. RFS will be responsible for general clean-up needs during the day such as cleaning up
accidental spills, dust mopping floor and miscellaneous trash and litter collection within the
facility.
4. RFS will be financially responsible for cost of carpet and floor cleaning. RFS will provide all
restroom supplies including but not limited to soap, paper towels, and toilet paper.
Major Replacement Items
RFS and TOC will share equally in the cost of major replacement items such as roof, HVAC, and
floor replacement.
06/14/01
Page 23
Section III - Telephone Service
RFS will install, maintain, and incur all cost associated with telephone system and/or data lines.
Section IV - Storage
The Total Life Center will have exclusive use of storage within the adult day care center building.
Section V - Equipment and Furnishings
A. TOC will incur the cost of providing the initial equipment and furnishings, such as couches,
chairs, etc., in a manner consistent with an adult day care center program as developed by the
designing architect. All equipment will remain the property of TOC.
B. RFS will be responsible for replacement of furnishings, equipment, and kitchen appliances
utilized by the Total Life Center. All equipment and supplies obtained by RFS will be
appropriately labeled and will remain the property of RFS.
C. RFS will see that all equipment is operated in a safe and prudent manner, and that the
equipment and furnishings are maintained and presented in an attractive fashion.
D. All equipment must be UL approved and meet prevailing codes.
Section VI - Signage
A. The adult day care center exterior signage must meet with TOC sign ordinances.
B. RFS may display its corporate logo and indicate its sponsorship of the program. Identification
of RFS as a United Way Agency will be permitted.
C. All signage for the program will be provided by RFS.
Section VII - Insurance
A. TOC will be responsible for fire and general liability insurance coverage for the entire building
and TOC assets with limits it deems appropriate.
B. RFS is responsible for commercial general liability on the adult day care center program with
limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence, up to $2,000,000 per policy term. TOC will be added as an
additional insured on such policy.
C. RFS will be responsible for insuring any RFS assets it places in or around the facility.
Section VIII – Hold Harmless
A. The Contractor shall indemnify and hold the Town harmless from and against any and all
claims, losses, liabilities, costs, expenses, charges, and damages arising from, or relating to, this
contract, including but not limited to attorney’s fees, with respect to any cause arising out of,
resulting form, or in connection with (a) any breach by the Contractor of any clause, condition or
provision of this contract; (b) any breach or violation by the Contractor of any applicable criminal
or civic law; or (c) any other cause resulting from any act or failure to act by the Contractor in
accordance with this contract. The Contractor shall promptly assume the defense of any claim,
suit or action within the scope of this indemnification at its expense, upon being notified hereof.
B. The Town agrees to indemnify and hold the Contractor harmless from and against any and all
claims, losses, liabilities, costs, expenses, charges, and damages arising from, or relating to, this
06/14/01
Page 24
Contract including but not limited to attorney’s fees, with respect to any cause arising out of, or
resulting from, or in connection with (a) any erroneous information provided by the Town; (b) any
breach by the Town of any clause, condition or provision of this Contract; (c) any breach or
violation by the Town of any applicable law; (d) any other cause resulting from any act or failure
to act by the Town in accordance with this contract. The Town shall promptly assume the
defense of any claim, suit or action within the scope of this indemnification at its expense, upon
being notified thereof.
Section IX - Utilities
A. RFS will pay the costs of electrical, gas, water and sewage service usage for the adult day
care center. RFS will pay for any utility repairs inside the building.
B. TOC will be responsible for maintaining and repairing utility lines (including electrical, water,
sewer, and gas) outside the adult day care center.
Section X - Term of Agreement
A. The term of this agreement will be for a minimum of three years, unless terminated earlier by
either party.
B. After three years and for each year thereafter, this agreement may be continued by a letter
from either TOC liaison or RFS.
Section XI - Liaisons
A. The Director of Adult Day Services of RFS will serve as the primary liaison contact with TOC
concerning questions, concerns, or problems. Total Life Center – Team Leader may also serve
as a contact with RFS.
B. Recreation Program Manager or his/her successor as designated by TOC will serve as the
primary contact with RFS for TOC concerning questions, concerns, or problems. The Senior
Center Supervisor may also serve as a contact with TOC.
Section XII - Termination of Agreement
Either party may upon 90-day prior written notification terminate this agreement.
Section XIII – Amendments
This agreement may be amended at any time by written consent of both parties, and all
amendments shall be attached to all original documents and made part of thereof.
________________________
Resources for Seniors, Inc.
________________________
Town of Cary
_________________________
7. Playford Lane Extension (EN01-77)
Committee recommended accelerating the Playford Lane extension in conjunction with the
Davis Drive widening.
Whitebridge Subdivision was designed and approved with one access on Davis Drive and a
proposed second access located at the southern end of Playford Lane. The Town accelerated a
project to construct the second entrance due to Davis Drive widening. This connection could
relieve some congestion on Davis Drive, provide a secondary access point for emergency
06/14/01
Page 25
vehicles, limit construction inconvenience with the Davis Drive widening project as well as provide
greater connectivity.
RD
USEE RD
GH HO
HOUS
HI
HIGH
CCO
ORR
NNEE
RRSS
TTO
ONN
EE DD
RR
(
G
GIIN
NG
GEE
R
RG
GAA
TTEE D
DR
R
UPCHURCH
UPCHURCH FARMS
FARMS
SUBDIVISION
SUBDIVISION
N
D LLN
RD
OR
FFO
PPLLAAYY
RRDD
LINS RD
COL
COLLINS
RD
PLAYFORD
PLAYFORD LANE
LANE
EXTENSION
EXTENSION
D
DAAVV
IS
IS D
DR
R
LL
IILL
MM
RRSS
YYEE
PPLL
RD
CARPENTER RD
JENKS
JENKS CARPENTER
DR
DGE DR
EBRIDGE
WHIT
WHITEBRI
å
LLEEO
ON
NAAR
RD
DC
CH
HR
RIISSTT
IA
IAN
NR
RD
D
On April 27, 2001 staff sent letters to each of the 111 Whitebridge residents to notify them of the
project and request comments regarding the acceleration of Playford Lane extension. The mailing
resulted in 13 responses. Of the 13 responses received, 7 were in favor of and 6 were opposed to
the proposed project acceleration. In addition, Staff held a meeting with the Homeowner’s
Association (HOA) to discuss the project. Acknowledgement of traditionally light response from
this neighborhood was noted by the three-member HOA Board. The Board does not approve of
the second entrance and asked that their recommendation be representative of the neighborhood
as a whole.
The HOA Board and residents opposed to this connection emphasized cut through traffic as the
main concern presented by project, specifically that southbound Davis Drive traffic will use
Whitebridge Subdivision as a cut through to avoid the traffic signal at Waldo Rood Boulevard.
Staff has recently analyzed the traffic patterns and congestion within the subdivision and at the
intersection of Waldo Rood Boulevard/Leonard Christian Road and Davis Drive. Currently, the
signal intersection has an exclusive right turn movement on to Leonard Christian Road. Travel
time along Davis Drive from Whitebridge Drive through the signalized intersection on to Leonard
Christian Road, to the proposed Playford Lane extension, is approximately 42 seconds. Signal
movements will only improve with Davis Drive widening and, therefore, maintain a high level of
service. In comparison, a vehicle attempting to avoid this intersection by travelling Whitebridge
Lane, Plyersmill Road and Playford Lane Extension would experience a travel time of
approximately 78 seconds. The conclusions from this study indicate that the Whitebridge
neighborhood would benefit from the second access, but drivers outside the community would
still only benefit from using Leonard Christian Road and Davis Drive.
Another concern stems from the railroad crossing on Leonard Christian Road that is more than
200 feet away from the proposed extension of Playford Lane. This crossing does not have
crossing gates or flashers. However, this crossing is limited to two trains per day and a maximum
rail speed of 25 mph. Given the frequency and speed of the trains, staff feels that current signage
at the crossing is not a safety issue and will not be magnified by the presence of the extension of
Playford Lane.
06/14/01
Page 26
Concern was also expressed that a second access would encourage crime. In conversation with
police personnel, this point does not appear to be justifiable.
Those in favor of the connection noted the convenience of the second access and safer
ingress/egress to the signalized intersection at Davis Drive and Leonard Christian Road/Waldo
Rood Boulevard. Staff concurs with this favorable response and feels that the concerns
expressed by those in opposition will not be realized. If the concerns should ever occur, there are
more appropriate means to address them than denial of the second access point.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends proceeding with the plans to accelerate Playford Lane
extension in conjunction with Davis Drive widening.
_________________________
8. Request for a Release of Sanitary Sewer Easement (EN01-80)
Committee recommended approval of a request to release a portion of a sanitary sewer
easement at 107 Hunters Crossing.
Staff has received a request by the homeowner at 107 Hunters Crossing to release a portion of
an existing sanitary sewer easement. The deck at this house has been constructed 1.69’ into a
twenty-foot sewer easement. Previously a permit had been applied for and received to build the
deck to extend no more than 10 feet from the house. Since that time, further construction activity
occurred at this residence and it became apparent that the deck had been built extending 12 feet
from the house. This extra width has caused the encroachment into the sewer easement.
The options at this time are to release a portion of the easement so that the deck no longer
encroaches or to remove that portion of the deck from the sanitary sewer easement. Either
option is acceptable to staff although the homeowner would prefer releasing a portion of the
easement and has made that request. Once this has been resolved, a permit can be issued to
the homeowner for their current deck expansion. A map follows showing the area affected.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the request to release a portion of the sanitary
sewer easement at 107 Hunters Crossing.
06/14/01
Page 27
06/14/01
Page 28
_________________________
9. Acreage Fee Credits (IP01-006)
Committee recommended approval of a request to waive the 6-month period allowed for
reimbursement, by Anvil Investments.
On September 14, 2000, the Town Council approved a request to modify the method for giving
acreage fee credits (Staff Report DS01-010A, included herein). Part of that staff recommendation
was to only allow six months for a developer/builder to request a reimbursement.
As one of the Weston development groups, Anvil Investments has approached town staff stating
that while they were aware of the criteria developed within the modified acreage fee credit
procedure, they were unaware of the 6-month limit attached as part of the original staff
recommendation. They have, therefore, requested consideration in the form of a waiver of the 6month limit.
Staff Recommendation: Because of Anvil Investments’ misunderstanding of Staff Report (DS01010A) dated 9/1/00, staff recommends approval of the waiver.
The staff report from September 14, 2000, follows:
TOWN OF CARY
STAFF REPORT
Acreage Fee Credits (DS01-010A)
Consideration of a request to modify the method for giving acreage fee credits
COMMITTEE MEETING
Operations Committee
Planning & Development Committee
TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
FROM:
Prepared by:
VIA:
Speaker
Tim Bailey
DATE
8/31/00
Tim Bailey, Engineering Director
Tim Bailey, Engineering Director
William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager
REVIEW: The developers of Weston, Preston and Northwoods PUD have requested the Town to
modify the way acreage fee credits for water and sanitary sewer are issued. They either prepaid
acreage fees or were exempt from acreage fees because they were annexed prior to July 1,
1967.
A general history summary of acreage fees follows. Acreage fees were originally established at a
rate of $750/acre for water and $750/acre for sanitary sewer. On July 1, 1986 acreage fees were
modified to a tiered fee structure as follows:
Zoning
Residential (less than 3 units per acre)
Residential (from 3 to 9 units per acre)
Residential (greater than 10 units per acre)
O&I, B-1, B-2
I-1, I-2, I-PUD
Fee Per Acreage Each Utility
$ 750
$1,200
$1,500
$1,900
$2,100
Prior to the fee structure increasing, prepayment at the old (lower) rate for more intense land uses
was allowed and even encouraged to generate revenue. Many developments prepaid the
acreage fees to take advantage of the lower fee structure. Town Council made a commitment to
06/14/01
Page 29
allow development and not require any additional acreage fees for that property. On July 1,
1998, fees for water and sanitary sewer were completely restructured based on a study that was
completed by a consultant. The new water and sanitary sewer development fee replaced the
original six fees of water acreage fees, water connection charges, water line assessments,
sanitary sewer acreage fees, sanitary sewer connection charges and sanitary sewer line
assessments. When the fees were modified, policy changed so credits for any payment of a fee
was given based on the amount paid. This works well for all fees except acreage fees because
of the 1986 commitment to exempt prepaid acreage fees from increases.
Staff has considered two ways to deal with this problem. Acreage fee credits could be given at
the tiered rate structure in affect between 1986 and 1998. A second option would be to give a 1/3
credit of new fees since we combined three fees in one.
Option 1
Acreage fee credits based on the tiered 1986 through 1998 rate structure would exactly match
the previous commitment by Town Council. To verify the impact on the Town, we considered
how much interest affected the value over the period. Fees paid in 1986 at $750 would be worth
$1,761.32 today at the interest rate the Town earned. While the developers argue they could
have earned a higher rate, they chose to prepay acreage fees instead of investing the money.
We feel the value of the money earned is near the rate for most of the land use categories of O&I,
B-1, and B-2 of $1,900 per acre. Therefore, continuing the original commitment works well even
though the developers may like a higher credit. To give a magnitude of how this impacts future
revenue, a few examples were checked. The difference in revenue using a $1,900/acre credit
compared to the $750/acre credit we currently give would reduce water and sewer fee revenue by
4.5% percent.
Option 2
A 1/3 discount could be given to the new fee structure. The water and sewer development fees
are a combination of three previous fees. Several examples were checked when fees were
developed and the 1/3 each seemed to work well since the acreage fee was 1/3 of the new fee
structure. Using the same projects as in the first example, this would mean the $750/acre paid
originally would be worth $8,286.23/acre today. This method continues to give a hold the line on
fee inflation approach to the latest fee structure. A commitment was only made toward acreage
fees in 1986; no commitment was made in 1998. While this method is much easier to calculate, it
would reduce revenue for eligible properties by 33% for projects in the developments that have
prepaid acreage fees.
A method to determine which fees were paid needs to be established. Since many old records
are no longer available, only an acreage fee collection map has been maintained. While not
completely accurate, it is the best information we have available. Staff recommends adopting the
map as the official record. The only way to contest the map will be to provide definitive records
and receipts to show amount paid linked to a definite property description.
A method to reimburse anyone who paid fees but who only received a $750/acre credit needs to
be established. Staff suggests a six-month period to allow a request to be submitted. Proof of
fees paid and other supporting data should be provided for those projects that paid water and
sewer development fees between July 1, 1998 and the present. For properties that paid flat rates
based on meter size, we reserve the right to recalculate demand-based fees as a determining
factor of the amount reimbursed.
Finally, a statement that the fee credits do not apply to redevelopment projects is recommended
by Staff. While we may allow fees to be based on difference in demand, this should be
determined on a case-by-case basis considering land use, fees paid and utility demand.
06/14/01
Page 30
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends: 1) Option 1 be used for calculating acreage fee credits,
2) the maps be adopted as the official record, 3) a six-month period be allowed to request
reimbursements, and 4) redevelopment not be given credits.
End staff report from September 14, 2000.
_________________________
Consent agenda items 1 and 6 were pulled for discussion.
ACTION ON THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE CONSENT AGENDA: Mayor Pro Tem Smith
made a motion to approve the consent agenda with the exception of items 1 and 6. Mr.
Ward provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
Mr. Weinbrecht stated he inadvertently pulled item 1.
ACTION: Mr. Weinbrecht made a motion to approve item 1 on the consent agenda. Mayor
Pro Tem Smith provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
Consent agenda item 6, Total Life Center bid award and facility use agreement.
Mrs. Robinson requested clarification on the three alternatives. Ms. Barry outlined the staff report
(contained herein) and described the three alternatives.
ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith made a motion to approve consent agenda item 6; Ms.
Dorrel provided the second; Council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
For Information
1. Parks Recreation & Cultural Resources Advisory Board Teen Program Sub
Committee Update (PR01-51)
In January staff gave Council an extensive update on teen programs and services offered by the
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Resources Department. At that time, a subcommittee of the PRCR
Advisory Board consisting of Liza Weidle, Rose Brown (teen member), Kay Struffolino, and Sean
Cherry was formed to begin reviewing the program plan for teens. At the initial meeting the
subcommittee developed a preliminary list of goals such as developing skills, reducing juvenile
crime, education, community service, physical fitness, wholesome social activities,
fellowship/friendship, and creating a safe environment. A brainstorming session was held to
develop a list of issues and ideas that could be utilized to cultivate new strategies in promoting
teen programs and activities. Also, staff researched other teen service groups in our area to see
when programs are offered in order to avoid conflicts and duplication of programs.
A second subcommittee meeting was held February 13. Staff was asked to develop a
questionnaire on teen programming and utilizing the Cary Teen Council as a focus group for
responses. Staff attended the February Teen Council meeting and distributed questionnaires for
individual and group participation. Some of the results are as follows:
Question
When is the best time to offer
activities?
Middle School
36% weekends
28% afternoons
12% nights
High School
41% afternoons
36% weekends
18% evenings
06/14/01
Page 31
Are you willing to pay a small
fee for these programs?
Where would be the best place
to offer activities?
Do you have access to
transportation for these events?
How do you find out about
events now?
Top 5 most popular activities
92% yes
8% no
31% Community Centers
25% Schools
85% yes
15% no
30% email
13% flyers @ school
Sports (in general)
Basketball
Football
Hockey
Music
77% yes
23% no
39% Community Centers
25% Schools
100% yes
28% friends
19% email
Movies
Outdoor Trips
Music
All Sports
Sporting Events
The full results of this questionnaire are included in Illustration “A” herein.
At the subsequent subcommittees meeting the preliminary goals were reviewed and modified.
Also, the questionnaire results were distributed for general discussion on diversity of suggested
programs.
On March 20, the subcommittee reconvened and reviewed and updated the goals. Staff research
on teen programs determined that the most important aspect of successful teen programs was
allowing the teens to be involved in the development of activities. A recommendation was made
to utilize the Cary Teen Council as a resource to accomplish this suggestion. Eighteen Teen
Council members volunteered to meet with staff to assist in development of teen programs and
activities. Several ideas for marketing programs were also recommended, such as an email
group from the Town’s website, school announcements, utilizing School Resource Officers to
distribute flyers, and a supplemental teen brochure.
At the April 17 meeting the subcommittee concentrated on finalizing the goals and developed
strategies for accomplishing goals. They are as follows:
Goals & Strategies:
Develop and broaden teen programs and activities in existing Town of Cary facilities.
Strategy: Develop one high school event and one middle school event each month utilizing Town
facilities.
Status: Recommendations included in budget request. Staff will begin planning events using the
Teen Council to determine the types of programs in which they would participate.
Develop a Marketing Plan for Teen Programs and Activities.
Strategy: Develop a plan for marketing each type of teen activity.
Status: Staff will develop a marketing plan for implementation in July 2001.
Strategy: Create an icon within the PRCR program brochure that identifies classes that are
structured for teens.
Status: This strategy was implemented with the release of the Summer 2001 Program Brochure.
Staff will continue to improve the use of the icon to assist teens and parents locate classes and
activities.
Strategy: Add teen section to the program brochure to identify programs and services available
to teens.
06/14/01
Page 32
Status: This strategy was implemented with the release of the Summer 2001 Program Brochure.
Contact numbers for teen referral services such as Hopeline, Inc., and Teen Talkline have been
added to the brochure.
Strategy: Research feasibility of creating an email subscriber list for Teen programs through the
Town of Cary web site.
Status: Staff will work with the Public Information Officer to determine feasibility of creating this
service. If feasible, staff will develop and implement the service.
Strategy: Utilize School Resource Officers to promote teen events and programs
Status: Staff will work with Police Youth Service Division to distribute information to students
through School Resource Officers.
Provide a safe environment to conduct a variety of educational, recreational and cultural
programs for Teens.
Strategy: Develop a staffing plan to supervise teen events and programs.
Status: Staff will develop and implement an appropriate staffing plan for each type of event.
Volunteers can be used as chaperones during large events such as teen dances.
Strategy: Develop procedures and guidelines for discipline and emergencies during different
types of teen events.
Status: Staff will develop written guidelines and procedures for handling emergencies.
Develop wholesome social activities and programs that can demonstrate life-long skills
and provide fellowship/friendship.
Strategy: Create a teen programming event committee to develop a program plan that includes a
diverse array of programs and events. The Cary Teen Council, YMCA Youth Leadership Council
and local church groups will serve on the committee. This group will recommend programs to
assist staff in the program planning process.
Status: The first program planning committee meeting is scheduled May 2001.
Strategy: Development a philosophy for fees and charges for Teen programs.
Status: Staff will work with subcommittee to define the philosophy of teen programs and services.
Staff will then review current fee structure and make recommendations for adjustments based on
the established philosophy.
Develop a long term programming plan for teen services.
Strategy: Develop a list of program thresholds that will assist in determining needs for a
dedicated teen center.
Status: Staff will research for criteria that will assist in making decisions on determining the need
for a teen center.
Strategy: Develop target measures such as population growth, program growth, and increase in
participation that will assist in determining additional staff needs.
Status: Staff will look at growth trends that would indicate the need for additional staff.
06/14/01
Page 33
Illustration “A”
High School
1. Name 3 activities that you would enjoy doing outside of school:
Activities
# Responses
Activities
# Responses
Sports
6
School Events Plays
2
Swimming
6
Biking
1
Tennis
5
Craft Classes
1
Dances
5
Drawing
1
Shopping
5
Driving Around
1
Hanging w/ friends
4
Hockey
1
Adventure trips
3
Piano
1
Arcade Games
3
Sand Volleyball
1
Music
3
Singing
1
Skating
3
Walking Around
1
Softball
3
Writing
1
gymnastics
3
Acting
1
Horseback riding
3
Activism
1
Movies
3
Battle of Bands
1
Running
3
Camping
1
Baby sitting
2
Comedy Sports
1
Basketball
2
Discussion Groups
1
Computers
2
Diving
1
Golf
2
Helping Kids
1
Soccer
2
Kickboxing
1
Dance
2
Reading
1
Parties
2
Talent Show
1
2. When is the best time to do these activities (for example..afternoons, nights, weekends, etc.)
Responses
afternoon
16
weekends
14
evening
7
anytime
1
Tues./Thurs
1
3. Are you willing to pay a small amount to do these activities?
Yes=27
No=7
Parents=1
06/14/01
Page 34
4. Is it okay to offer activities with other schools? (For example inviting Cary, Green Hope, Apex
and Athens to the same events?)
Yes=33
No=0
5. Do you have access to transportation to come to these events?
Yes=33
No=0
6. Where would the best place be to offer activities?
# Responses
CCC or BPCC
28
Schools
18
Neighborhood Parks
15
YMCA
11
Other
theatres
gyms
teen center
Ballentine Farms
2
camp sites
7. What is the BEST way to get information to you about FUN events we are going to plan? Check
the one that is the MOST effective.
# Responses
Email
25
Newspaper @ School
3
Flyer @ School
9
Parks Brochure
3
Cary News
5
website
7
Announcement @ School
5
8. How do you find out about fun events NOW?
# Responses
# Responses
friends
15
school
3
email
10
Radio
3
announce @ school
5
CPRCR Brochure
2
newspaper
5
Web
1
flyers @ school
5
Teen Council
1
mail
4
9. Do social sports such as co-ed recreational/intramural sports activities,
interest you? For example, sand volleyball, whiffle ball, gym activities, etc?
Yes=25
No=6
No Answer=2
06/14/01
Page 35
10. If yes, can you suggest more than the ones that are listed above?
Tennis
5
Camping
1
Basketball
3
Canoeing
1
Playground Games
3
Dance
1
football
2
Disc Golf
1
Game Room
2
Hiking
1
Golf
2
Lacrosse
1
Gym Activities
2
Skate board
1
Horseback Riding
2
Softball
1
Roller Hockey
2
Taebo
1
Soccer
2
Water Balloon Football
1
swimming
2
Middle School
1. Name 3 activities that you would enjoy doing outside of school:
Activities
# Responses
Activities
# Responses
Dances
8
Bowling
1
Basketball
7
bullwinkles
1
Soccer
6
Dance - ballet
1
Sports
6
football
1
Cheerleading
4
gymnastics
1
Softball
4
Hanging w/ friends
1
Arcade Games/
Video Games
Lacrosse
2
Movies
1
2
Paintball
1
Piano
2
Putt-Putt
1
Singing
2
Roller skating
1
Skate Boarding
2
Running
1
Sleep Over
2
Sports Events
1
Active Games
1
Strategic Games
1
Adventure trips
1
Swimming
1
Baseball
1
watch TV
1
Board Games
1
2. When is the best time to do these activities (for example..afternoons,
nights, weekends, etc.)
Responses
weekends
9
afternoon
7
nights
3
7pm
2
anytime
2
06/14/01
Page 36
Saturday
1
3. Are you willing to pay a small amount to do these activities?
Yes=23
No=1
No response=1
4. Is it okay to offer activities with other schools? (For example inviting
Cary, Green Hope, Apex and Athens to the same events?)
Yes=23
No=2
5. Do you have access to transportation to come to these events?
Yes=22
No=1
Sometimes=3
6. Where would the best place be to offer activities?
# Responses
CCC or BPCC
18
Schools
15
Neighborhood Parks
13
YMCA
13
Other
Anywhere
7. What is the BEST way to get information to you about FUN events we are going to
plan? Check the one that is the MOST effective.
# Responses
Email
16
Flyer @ School
13
Cary News
9
Announcement @
School
Newspaper @
School
Parks Brochure
7
website
4
6
4
8. How do you find out about fun events NOW?
# Responses
# Responses
email
7
announce @ school
1
flyers @ school
3
flyers @ Comm. Center
1
family
2
mail
1
friends
2
newspaper
1
phone
2
school
1
06/14/01
Page 37
Teen Council
2
9. Do social sports such as co-ed recreational/intramural sports activities, interest you?
For example, sand volleyball, whiffle ball, gym activities, etc?
Yes=17
No=5
No Answer=3
10. If yes, can you suggest more than the ones that are listed above?
Paintball
6
Running
1
Basketball
6
Swimming
1
Soccer
5
Movie
1
Softball
5
Mall
1
Dance
4
Lacrosse
1
Football
2
Hockey
1
Ping Pong
2
_________________________
2. Greenway Access Issues (PR01-52)
An overview of issues related to greenway access
Since 1998, the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Department has been in the process
of implementing the recommendations of the Parks, Greenways and Bikeways Master Plan which
included recommendations for over 50 miles of new greenways. The Department currently has
approximately 15 miles of greenway in planning or development. As these projects move ahead,
there are two aspects to development. The first involves development of the greenway itself.
The second aspect involves linking the greenway to adjacent neighborhoods with pedestrian
access trails. These access points are often located between homes. Staff has been requested
to provide an overview of the process for developing greenways and access points to adjacent
subdivisions.
The development of all greenways is based on the approved Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Resources Master Plan. Based on this plan, easements are obtained and/or dedicated from
developers when Town Council approves subdivision plans. In many cases (Speight Branch,
Batchelor Branch, etc.), easements were obtained over the course of several years. If
easements have been previously obtained, the consulting team for a particular project will
concentrate on locating the greenway trail within the existing easement area. To locate the trail,
consultants conduct a natural areas inventory looking at wetlands, riparian buffers and the
location and extent of the floodplain. Since 1998, it has become more difficult to comply with the
permitting requirements for greenway development. Federal, state and local ordinances mandate
that development be located away from stream areas, wetlands and floodways. When the
inventory has been completed, the result is the proposed greenway is often recommended to be
located outside the existing easement area. As an example, staff initially proposed the Speight
Branch Greenway, Phase I alignment to run adjacent to several homeowner’s backyards. The
presence of the buffers and wetlands pushed the trail out of the woods and adjacent to several
homes within the Coventry Woods Subdivision, in an effort to stay within Town-owned land.
Eventually, staff recommended a new alignment away from these homeowner’s backyards, but
this will require purchasing additional easements.
Complicating this process further is when a greenway project is a recipient of grant funding. The
majority of the grants the Town of Cary has received are NC Department of Transportation (DOT)
06/14/01
Page 38
grants. DOT follows federal guidelines and has strict standards relating to the severity of the
slope and the radii of curves. Often, DOT standards conflict with the buffer and other ordinances
designed to limit impacts to the natural resources.
The second aspect of greenway development is locating and developing pedestrian access from
adjacent subdivisions to the greenway. Many of these access points were previously located
during the subdivision review process. During the review process of a proposed subdivision,
PUD, etc., the Development Review Committee (DRC) works with the developer to insure there is
sufficient pedestrian access within a subdivision to a proposed greenway. The main criteria for
locating pedestrian access points are choosing those locations that provide balanced access for
the largest number of residents within a subdivision. The following is a table of several
greenways and the number of pedestrian access easements within adjacent subdivisions, and as
such represents a portion of the access trails which link with Town-owned greenways:
Greenway
Speight Branch Greenway
Batchelor Branch
Black Creek Greenway











Subdivision
Franklin Chase
Coventry Woods
Reserve
Fieldstone
Landsdowne
IBM
Wessex
Beechtree
Hermitage at Beechtree
Westover Hills Apartments
Harrison Place











#’s of Access Points
1 (Public)
2 (Public)
4 (Private)
0
0
1 (Private)
2 (Public)
1 (Private)
1 (Private)
1 (Private)
1 (Private)
These access points can be either public or private. An example of this is with the Batchelor
Branch Greenway where there are currently four private pedestrian access trails owned and
managed by the Reserve Homeowners Association. All issues related to development of these
trails in terms of timing, surface material, and ongoing management is between the residents and
the homeowners association. These private access pedestrian points could become public if
requested by the homeowner association, but this would only occur if staff determined it to be an
important access point that would provide access to those outside the subdivision.
For public access, easements linking greenways to subdivisions, staff reviews these against the
proposed placement of the trail. Again, as an example, of the three public access easements the
Town currently owns along the Speight Branch Greenway Phase I, only two have been chosen to
be developed based on the proposed current alignment. These two will allow sufficient access to
the greenway. Once a pedestrian access point is chosen, staff will work with adjacent
landowners to limit the impact of the placement of the trail.
_________________________
3. Reclaimed Project 1A Update (PWUT01-35)
Status of contract 1A of the Reclaimed Water Project
I.
Review Project 1A
Project 1A includes the reclaimed water force main connection from the North Cary Water
Reclamation Facility and all piping, valves, service lines and meters. Project 1A includes a
reclaimed water service connection and meter to each residence and business within the project
boundaries.
06/14/01
Page 39
II. Progress Summary
Street Summary
Definitions:
Substantial completion – all piping, services, valves, blowoffs and final street paving have
been completed; repair punch list items and final preparation and inspections for reclaimed water
to follow.
Complete – all piping services valves, blowoffs and final street paving have been completed
and final service meter boxes have been installed, tested and connected; customers on street are
ready for reclaimed water. All project punchlist items are completed.
Listed below is the street by street summary of progress ending May 22, 2001. Attached is a
map depicting the street by street project status.
Wessex S/D (all streets listed)
 Midenhall Way - substantially complete
 Bathgate Ln.- substantially complete
 Sedgemoor Dr.- substantially complete
 Tynemouth Dr.- substantially complete
 Whittshire Ct. - substantially complete
 Redgate Ln. - substantially complete
 Chiselhurst Dr. - substantially complete
 Willesden Dr. – substantially complete
 Cherwell Dr. – substantially complete
 Warley Ct. – substantially complete
 Eyemouth – substantially complete
Harrison Trace S/D (all streets listed)
 Pinehill Way- substantially complete
 Montibello Dr.- substantially complete
 Summey Ct. – substantially complete
 Dilworth Ct. – substantially complete
 Rockpointe Ln – substantially complete
 Belclaire Ct.- substantially complete
Beechtree S/D (all streets listed)
 Beechtree Dr.- substantially complete
 Beechforest Ct.- substantially complete
 Oak Hill Loop – under evaluation
Weston PUD (all streets listed)
 Harrison Oaks – substantially completed
 Old Reedy Creek Rd.- substantially completed
 Weston I – substantially complete
 Weston Parkway- substantially completed
 Norwell Blvd – substantially complete
 Weston Oaks – substantially complete
 MCI – substantially complete
 Evans Rd – substantially complete
Cary Parkway (all streets listed)
 Cary Parkway – substantially complete
 Skipwyth Circle – substantially complete
06/14/01
Page 40
Note: Potable Water retrofit and reclaimed water tie-in has begun – all homes with dedicated
irrigation systems will be connected to the reclaimed system by system startup in May.
Construction Schedule
Summary:
During the May/June reporting period the contractor will focus on the following work:




Finalize work on Evans Road and Harrison Oaks Blvd.
Reclaimed service connections and potable meter modifications to all homes and commercial
property with dedicated irrigation systems
Complete service line to Weston One office building
Punch list items – working towards final completion project milestone
Time of Contract
Extensions
Total Contract Time
Time to Date
Percent of completion
Substantial
298 days
26 days
324 days
324 days
100%
Final
360 days
360 days
344 days
95.5%
Project Cost Summary
Project Construction Amount
$3,424,211.40
Construction Expenditure To-Date
$2,560,806.00
Percentage of Funds Expended
75.5%
V. Outstanding Issues
Narrative: The reclaimed water system is complete. The piping has been disinfected and tested.
As potable water modifications are made the contractor is connecting the reclaimed lines to
residential irrigation systems through the reclaimed meter. Only potable water will be piped
through the reclaimed water system until reclaimed water is available when the reclaimed
pumping system is activated in late May. The contractor will work toward final completion of the
reclaimed system in May.
Approved Change Orders:
One
Change Order Number Two – including:
Miscellaneous piping, potable water meter modifications, field modifications, unanticipated field
utility conflicts and additional service connections.
VI. Customer Service Summary
A key aspect of the Town’s customer service communications for the Reclaimed Water project is
the Reclaimed Water Hotline. The Hotline consists of both a telephone number (678-0010) and
an email address (reclaimedwater@townofcary.org) that are dedicated to receiving inquiries
regarding the project from Town customers. The engineer’s field secretary, who is responsible
for answering the Hotline, logs all customer calls and emails received into a Hotline database.
Detailed information related to the customer and the nature of the call is entered into the
06/14/01
Page 41
database (example call report attached). Calls needing follow-through are referred to the Town’s
Reclaimed Water Coordinator and directly to the contractor, if appropriate.
The status of received calls is tracked within the Hotline database until resolved. Calls remain
active until they have been resolved to the satisfaction of the customer. Active calls are
reviewed with the contractor at least weekly at the regular construction progress meetings, and
more frequently as needed. Weekly summary reports of active calls are generated and
distributed to key project personnel.
Presently, 273 calls have been received at the hot line since the beginning of the project (an
increase of 39 calls since the last reporting period). Of these calls 30 remain active. The
increased number of calls this period is directly related to the contractor’s work in making the final
connections to reclaimed water. We have added an additional temporary inspector/ customer
liaison field person to deal with customer concerns, questions and problems.
06/14/01
Page 42
_________________________
4. Contingency Funds (AD01-014)
Report on use of contingency funding to accomplish council directive to send $17,800 to the
library system to purchase materials to be available to home schoolers and other citizens
At the May 24, 2001, council meeting, the Town Council voted to donate $17,800 to the
downtown Cary library to be used to purchase educational materials. A budget adjustment of
$17,800 from contingency to the Cary Local Development Foundation account is required to
make this donation.
_________________________
These four Operations Committee items were for information only; no Council action was
required.
_________________________
E. OLD/NEW BUSINESS
Town Attorney Henderson stated the Council adopted a campaign funding ordinance last year,
and this ordinance requires that the Council approve the contract. He requested that the Council
approve the contract. He stated staff also identified some technical problems with the way the
ordinance compares to state statutes, and he stated staff has revised the ordinance to make it
compatible with state statutes. He stated this will allow the Town to use reports submitted to the
Board of Elections to determine who is entitled for reimbursement. He stated some of the
definitions in the state statutes for loans and contributions need to be slightly different in the
ordinance. He stated these housekeeping changes have been made to the ordinance, and he
stated he requests that Council approve the revised ordinance and the contact. The ordinance
and contract follows:
VOLUNTARY EXPENDITURE LIMITATION
AND MATCHING PUBLIC FUNDS
Amend Chapter 2, Article II, Div. 3, Voluntary Expenditure Limitation and Matching Public Funds,
as follows:
Sec. 2-55.1. Purpose. The Cary Town Council finds that:
(a) High campaign costs for Town office tend to discourage motivated and qualified individuals
from running for office. The need for large campaign contributions should not be a requirement for
participation in municipal elections; and
(b) Large contributions to a candidate may cause the appearance of corruption in the election
process. Large contributions to a candidate should not give the contributor political access or
influence and should not give the appearance of giving the contributor political access or
influence; and
(c) Voluntary limits on campaign fundraising and expenditures and the public funding of
campaigns that voluntarily agree to such limits is a reasonable method of addressing citizen
concerns about campaign fundraising and costs; and
(d) The partial public funding of campaigns for local office inures to the benefit of the public
generally and not that of special interests or persons; and
(e) The program setting voluntary limits on contributions and expenditures and establishing the
partial public financing of campaigns set forth in this ordinance is intended to provide a means of
06/14/01
Page 43
assuring the public that qualified individuals who do not have access to large sums of money are
afforded the opportunity to run for local office. It should also provide a means of assuring the
appearance of corruption, is not part of the local election process.
To this end, in addition to the requirements imposed on all candidates for municipal office by the
General Statutes of North Carolina, and the rules of the State Board of Elections, the Town of
Cary desires to create a voluntary campaign funding program whereby candidates for municipal
office may voluntarily subject themselves to certain reporting requirements and contribution and
expenditure limits in exchange for eligibility to receive public funds in the event they successfully
emerge from the election as a runoff candidate.
In adopting this ordinance, the Town of Cary does not seek to modify or reiterate state law, but
simply to impose additional requirements on candidates who choose to accept the possibility of
receiving public money for the financing of their campaigns for municipal office. To this end, this
chapter shall be interpreted so as not to conflict with state law, but to impose additional, more
stringent, requirements on those who choose to come within its purview. For example, the
threshold three thousand dollar ($3,000) reporting requirement of N.C.G.S. 163-278.10A would
not apply in interpreting or applying this ordinance, and any candidate who enters into a
campaign contract with the Town must file with the Wake County Board of Elections all reports
required by Chapter 163, Article 22A, Part 2, as amended, and a Final Report.
Sec. 2-55.2. Definitions. The definitions contained in N.C.G.S 163-278.6 apply to this chapter
unless a different definition applies in accordance with G.S. 163-278.40, or the context clearly
indicates otherwise. The pertinent terms defined in N.C.G.S 163-278.6 are:
Candidate provided, however, for the purposes of this ordinance, the definition of candidate
means only candidates for Cary town offices, and includes the candidate’s political committee, as
such term is defined in G.S. 163-278.6.
Media
Contribute or Contribution: In determining compliance with this ordinance’s limits on campaign
contributions, however, the term “contribute” or “contribution” does not include a loan which has
been made to the candidate or the candidate’s political committee and which has been fully
repaid at the time the candidate applies for town matching funds, or which will be repaid from
such funds.
Election
Election cycle
Expenditure
Independent expenditure
Political committee
Treasurer
In addition, the following terms have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates
otherwise.
At-large seat means the two (2) seats on the Cary town council that are elected at large by all of
the qualified voters of the town.
Board means the Wake County Board of Elections.
06/14/01
Page 44
Bona-fide candidate means a person who has filed with the Wake County Board of Elections a
notice of candidacy for a Cary town office.
Campaign contract means the contract between individual candidates for town office and the
Town of Cary, as provided for herein.
Certified when used in reference to reports means that the candidate will provide a fully executed
affidavit attesting to the fact that the copy of the report filed with the campaign finance
administrator is a true copy of the report filed with the Board.
District seat means those four (4) seats on the Cary town council that are elected by the qualified
voters of each of the four (4) single-member electoral districts of the town, designated as districts
A, B, C and D, as such districts may be revised from time to time.
Election campaign account means the account in the general fund into which the Town Council
shall deposit sums to provide campaign matching funds.
Election day means the fourth Tuesday before the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as
provided in G.S. 163-279(a)(4).
Final Report means a Report which details all campaign receipts and disbursements and shows
that all candidate accounts are at “0” balance, all loans repaid and all candidate accounts closed.
The Final Report must be filed with the Board, and a certified copy filed with the Campaign
Finance Administrator, by December 31 of the year in which the election took place.
Mayor means the official head of the Town of Cary, elected in accordance with Sec. 3.2 of the
Charter of the Town of Cary.
Office of campaign finance administrator means the office designated by the Town Manager.
Qualifying funding means the sum of money which a candidate must raise by any means
authorized under state and federal campaign laws, which amount must be deposited into the
candidate’s campaign account not later than ten (10) days after the close of the filing period. In
the case of a district candidate, this amount of money is two thousand dollars ($2,000). In the
case of an at-large candidate, or a candidate for the office of mayor, this amount of money is five
thousand dollars ($5,000). The candidate shall provide written notice to the campaign finance
administrator immediately upon deposit of qualifying funding into the candidate’s campaign
account. This notice shall be a public document copies of which shall be made immediately
available to other candidates and the public upon request. Although qualifying funding may
consist of a contribution in the form of a loan, the candidate’s final report must show that the loan
has been repaid, or that it has been forgiven by the lender, before the candidate may receive
town matching funds.
Report means the statements required to be filed with the Board pursuant to Chapter 163
Subchapter VIII, Article 22A, Part 2. Municipal Campaign Reporting.
Runoff day means the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, as provided in G.S. 163279(a)(4).
Town districts means those electoral districts designated in the town Charter as district A, B, C
and D, as revised from time to time.
Town offices means the office of Mayor and the six (6) council member seats on the Town of
Cary Town Council.
06/14/01
Page 45
Sec. 2-55.3. Campaign funding program.
(a) Participation and Public Funding. Effective for elections for town offices in 2001 and
thereafter, a candidate for town office may elect to participate in the Town campaign funding
program which provides campaign funding for candidates who qualify as a runoff candidate in a
runoff election, as such term is defined in G.S. 163-293. To participate, a candidate must sign a
contract with the town ("campaign contract") agreeing to abide by limitations on contributions to
the candidate and expenditures by the candidate, and must provide evidence that the candidate
has raised the qualifying funding amount. Thereafter, if the candidate qualifies as one of two
runoff candidates for a town office and has observed all of the requirements of this ordinance and
the campaign contract, the candidate will receive an amount of money that, taken together with all
contributions to the candidate during the election period, equals:
(1) in the case of a district seat candidate, the lesser of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or the total
amount of campaign expenditures through the election cycle; or
(2) in the case of an at-large candidate, or a candidate for the office of mayor, the lesser of
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or the total amount of campaign expenditures through the
election cycle.
Sec. 2-55.4. Campaign contract.
(a) A campaign contract in the form adopted by Council must be signed by the candidate within
ten (10) days after the candidate files a notice of candidacy with the Board.
(b) A candidate who signs a campaign contract and withdraws as a candidate before the election
shall be considered to have rescinded that person’s campaign contract upon the withdrawal.
(c) A candidate who signs a campaign contract and remains a candidate may rescind the
campaign contract within fifteen (15) days after the close of filing by filing a written notice of
rescission with the office of campaign finance administrator, provided that no other candidate for
the same office has entered into a campaign contract and made the deposit of qualifying funding
during that time.
(d) A candidate who:
(1) signed a campaign contract and did not rescind it in accordance with (c) above; and
(2) was one of three or more candidates for a particular office, at least one of whom did not enter
into a campaign contract with the town; and
(3) is a runoff candidate competing against a candidate who did not sign a campaign contract
may elect to accept public financing for the time up to the election, and may terminate the
campaign contract following the election such that the candidate is not bound by contribution or
expenditure limits, nor will the candidate receive public financing, during the period between the
election and the runoff election. To make this election, a candidate must:
(1) be a runoff candidate who is running against an opponent who did not enter into a campaign
contract with the town; and
(2) provide written notice to the campaign finance administrator within 10 days after the election
that the candidate intended to exercise the option to accept financing through the date of the
election and terminate the campaign contract for the runoff period; and
(3) file all Reports as required herein.
06/14/01
Page 46
Upon filing the notice, the runoff candidate will no longer be bound by the contribution or
expenditure limits. The candidate may receive public financing for any expenditure that was made
before the election. Such payment will be made only after the candidate has complied with all the
requirements in this ordinance, including the filing of the final report.
Sec. 2-55.5. Qualifying funding.
A candidate who signs a campaign contract shall file with the campaign finance administrator a
certified copy of the "Organizational Report" required by N.C.G.S. 163-278.40A showing a
deposit of qualifying funding amount to the candidate’s official campaign account. If the candidate
filed the “Organizational Report” prior to the deposit of qualifying funding, the candidate may file
(i) a certified copy of the Organizational Report and (ii) sufficient evidence of the timely deposit of
the full qualifying funding amount into the candidate’s campaign account. This certified copy of
the report, and evidence of deposit of qualifying funding, if necessary, must be submitted to the
campaign finance administrator no later than ten (10) days after the close of the filing period.
Sec. 2-55.6. Contribution and expenditure limits for the candidate and the campaign.
(a) A candidate who signs a campaign contract shall not, during the election cycle, accept
contributions or make expenditures or incur liabilities exceeding ten thousand dollars
($10,000.00) for candidates for a district seat, and twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) for
an at-large seat or the office of mayor.
(b) Independent expenditures shall not be included in the computation of a candidate's
contribution or expenditure limits.
Sec. 2-55.7. Eligibility for public matching funds.
(a) To be eligible to receive public matching funds, a candidate must:
(1) be a bona-fide candidate for town office who is one of the runoff candidates as provided in
G.S. 163-293; and
(2) have entered into a campaign contract with the town in a timely manner as provided in Sec. 255.4 ; and
(3) have timely filed with the campaign finance administrator a certified copy of the organizational
report showing the deposit of qualifying funding, and evidence of the deposit of qualifying funding
if not shown on organizational report as provided in Sec. 2-55.5; and
(4) continue to file with the campaign finance administrator certified copies of all reports, through
and including the final report, and all revisions or amendments to those reports. As to the final
report, the candidate may file a proposed final report with the campaign administrator showing all
receipts and distributions other than the receipt of matching funds and the payments to be made
from those funds. The proposed final report shall show how the matching funds will be disbursed
and shall be accompanied by a fully executed statement of the candidate that the disbursements
will be made and the final report filed, without modification, with the Wake County Board of
Elections within three business days of receipt of the Town’s matching public funds. The
campaign administrator may disburse public funds to the candidate upon receipt of such
documents. The candidate shall file with the campaign administrator a certified copy of the final
report within two business days after it is filed with the Board. In the event this filed final report
differs from the proposed final report filed with the campaign administrator, the candidate shall be
in default under this ordinance.
06/14/01
Page 47
(b) The campaign finance administrator shall determine which, if any, candidate(s) are eligible to
receive matching funds, and shall conditionally certify those candidates who are eligible to
receive matching funds. The certification shall be conditioned upon the candidate observing all
the provisions and requirements of this ordinance, including the contribution and expenditure
limitations, and the qualification as a runoff candidate, through the election period, as evidenced
on the final report for the election period, which is filed in accordance with G.S. 163-278.40C.
Sec. 2-55.8. Public matching funds.
(a) Upon a certification of eligibility, and after receipt of a proposed final report with candidate’s
statement required by Section 2-55.7, if it is established that the candidate has not exceeded the
contribution or expenditure limits, the runoff candidate shall receive the following amounts in
public matching funds:
(1) In the case of a candidate for mayor or for an at-large council seat: an amount that, taken
together with all funds (including the qualifying funding) received by the candidate, shall equal the
amount of all expenditures, provided such amount does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars
($25,000);
(2) In the case of a candidate for a district council seat: an amount that, taken together with all
funds (including the qualifying funding) received by the candidate, shall equal the amount of all
expenditures, provided such amount does not exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
For example, if a candidate for the office of mayor qualifies for a runoff election, regardless of
whether that candidate ultimately wins the office, the candidate will be eligible to receive up to
twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) in public matching funds. If the candidate has raised only the
five thousand dollars ($5,000) of qualifying funds, and the candidate’s final report documents
legitimate campaign expenditures of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), then that candidate, upon
filing a proposed final report with the campaign financing administrator, shall receive fifteen
thousand dollars ($15,000) in public matching funds. If the candidate’s proposed final report
documents legitimate campaign expenditures of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), the
candidate shall receive twenty thousand dollars ($20,000).
(b) If the proposed final report or filed final report of a candidate shows campaign contributions or
expenditures in excess of the contribution and expenditure limits in this ordinance (twenty-five
thousand dollars ($25,000) for at-large seats or the office of mayor, and ten thousand dollars
($10,000) for district seats), the candidate shall be in breach of the campaign contract and shall
not be eligible to receive any public matching funds. If public matching funds have been paid to
the candidate, the candidate shall immediately refund such funds. Campaign expenditures and
liabilities shall be considered not in excess of the expenditure limit if the candidate establishes
that the expenditure or liability was incurred inadvertently and unintentionally and if the excess
expenditure or liability does not exceed 10% of the maximum expenditure amount.
Sec. 2-55.9. Amendments to Filed Reports
A certified copy of any amendment to any report shall be filed with the campaign finance
administrator immediately after the amendment is filed with Board.
Sec. 2-55.10. Establishment of an election campaign account.
The mayor and council shall establish an election campaign account in the general fund into
which shall be deposited such sums as may be appropriated in the annual budget. Money in the
account shall be expended to assist the financing of town election campaigns.
Sec. 2-55.11. Permitted use of public matching funds.
06/14/01
Page 48
Public matching funds may be expended only for the receiving candidate's direct campaign
purposes such as, but not limited to, purchasing campaign literature or media space or time,
mailings, renting campaign headquarters, or paying for campaign headquarter telephones. A
candidate who signs a campaign contract may use neither contributions nor public matching
funds for indirect campaign purposes such as, but not limited to, providing a candidate's personal
support, or for donation to another's campaign.
Sec. 2-55.12. Campaign finance administrator; appointment and duties thereof.
(a) The campaign finance administrator shall be appointed by the Town Manager.
(b) The campaign finance administrator shall be responsible for the management of the office,
shall administer the provisions of the subchapter and is authorized to promulgate administrative
rules to carry out the policies and purposes of this subchapter. Prior to becoming effective, such
rules shall be approved by the mayor and council.
Sec. 2-55.13. Penalties.
(a) Civil penalty. Any candidate who has entered into a campaign contract and knowingly makes
an expenditure in excess of the expenditure limits in this ordinance shall be in default and
ineligible to receive public funds and is liable in a civil action initiated by the town, for five hundred
dollars ($500) or an amount equal to three times the amount by which the contribution limit or
expenditure limit is exceeded, whichever is greater. Any candidate who files a misleading,
deceptive, or altered copy of a report with the campaign finance administrator is liable in a civil
action initiated by the town for a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00).
(b) Ineligible for further funds. In addition to other penalties provided in this ordinance or by law,
any candidate who fails to comply with the requirements of this ordinance, or conditions or
provisions of a properly executed campaign contract, shall be ineligible to receive further funds
until in compliance.
(d) Injunction, etc. This ordinance may be enforced by an appropriate equitable remedy issuing
from a court of competent jurisdiction. The town may secure injunctions and abatement orders to
insure compliance with this ordinance.
Sec. 2-55.14. Additional powers of mayor and council.
The mayor and council may enact ordinances as may be necessary or desirable to carry out the
provisions of this chapter. The amount of public matching funds provided in Section 2-55.3
hereof, may be established and shall be set in the annual budget cycle of each even-numbered
year.
This ordinance adopted the 14th day of June, 2001.
Effective: 6/14/01
The contract follows:
NORTH CAROLINA
WAKE COUNTY
CAMPAIGN CONTRACT
TO ABIDE BY VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTION
AND EXPENDITURE LIMITS
IN EXCHANGE FOR POSSIBLE PUBLIC FUNDING
06/14/01
Page 49
This Campaign Contract to Abide by Voluntary Contribution and Expenditure Limits in
Exchange for Possible Public Funding (“Campaign Contract”), made and entered into this the
___ day of ___, 200_ by and between _______________________, whose home address is
___________________________ (“Candidate”) and the Town of Cary, a North Carolina
Municipal corporation whose principal address is 316 N. Academy St. Cary, North Carolina
27513 (“Town”). Candidate is seeking election to the following Town Office:
Office of Mayor
At large seat
District A seat
District B seat
District C seat
District D seat
Notice of Candidacy file with the Wake County Board of Elections on: ____________.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, Town adopted Ordinance 00-028 (“Ordinance”), amended by _______ which
provides that candidates for Town office who voluntarily subject themselves to certain campaign
reporting requirements and fundraising and expenditure limits may be eligible to receive public
funds in the event that candidate emerges from the election as a runoff candidate in a runoff
election (“Program”); and
WHEREAS, Candidate is running for a Town office and desires to participate in Program;
and
WHEREAS, this Campaign Contract form was approved by the Cary Town Council at a
regular meeting on the ____ day of ____, 2001.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and for other good and valuable
consideration the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this Campaign Contract is to memorialize Candidate’s written
acknowledgement of, and agreement to abide by, limitations on contributions to and expenditures
by Candidate and reporting requirements as set forth in Ordinance Number 00-028, Voluntary
Expenditure Limitation and Matching Public Funds and Amendment _________ (hereafter jointly
“Ordinance”) and Procedures for Campaign Finance Funding , as amended from time to time,
and to evidence Candidate’s intention to participate in the Program. Full and complete
compliance with the requirements set forth in the Ordinance, and this Contract will mean that
Candidate is eligible for campaign funding provided by Town in the event Candidate participates
as a runoff candidate in a runoff election for a Town office.
2. Incorporation by reference. A copy of Ordinance is attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference. Ordinance, as may be amended from time to time, controls the implementation and
administration of the Program. All definitions contained in Ordinance, as amended, shall apply in
this Campaign Contract. In the event of any conflict between the terms of this Campaign
Contract and the Ordinance, as amended, Ordinance shall control.
3. Candidate Representations and Obligations. Candidate represents that Candidate has filed a
notice of candidacy for the Town office set forth above with the Wake County Board of Elections
(“Board”). Candidate agrees to abide by limitations on contributions to Candidate and
expenditures by Candidate as set forth in the Ordinance.
4. Notice of Qualifying Funding Amount. Candidate shall provide written notice to Sue Rowland,
Town Clerk, (campaign finance administrator), at 316 N. Academy Street, PO Box 8005, Cary,
North Carolina 27512-8005, immediately upon depositing the qualifying funding into Candidate’s
06/14/01
Page 50
campaign account. In the case of a candidate for a district seat, the qualifying funding amount is
two thousand dollars ($2,000), in the case of a candidate for an at-large seat or for mayor, the
qualifying funding amount is five thousand dollars ($5,000).
5. Reports. Candidate must file with the Wake County Board of Elections all reports required by
law. Candidate shall file with the campaign finance administrator certified copies of all such
reports, including amendments to such reports.
6. Rescission of Campaign Contract.
(a) If no other candidate for the same office has entered into a Campaign Contract and made
the deposit of the qualifying funding amount prior to that date that is fifteen days after the
close of the filing period set by the Board, then Candidate may rescind this Campaign
Contract by filing a written notice of rescission with the campaign finance administrator. Such
notice of rescission shall not be effective until received by the campaign finance
administrator.
(b) In the event Candidate withdraws as a candidate before the election, this Contract shall
be deemed to have been rescinded in accordance with Sec. 4 of Ordinance.
7. Termination of Campaign Contract by Candidate after Election. If Candidate is one of three or
more candidates for a particular town office, and at least one of the candidates does not enter
into a campaign contract with the town, and if Candidate emerges as a runoff candidate
competing against a candidate who did not sign a campaign contract, then Candidate may accept
the benefits of this Contract up until the date of the Election, and terminate this Campaign
Contract for that period between the election and the runoff election by providing written notice to
the campaign finance administrator within ten (10) days after the election. Termination of this
Campaign Contract shall not relieve the Candidate of the obligation to file all Reports as required
by Ordinance.
8. Default. In the event of non-compliance with any provision of this Contract, Candidate shall be
deemed to be in default. The parties agree that the penalties provided in Ordinance shall
constitute the contract default remedies available to the Town. In the event of Candidate’s
default, Town may, at its option take any or all of the following options:
(a) seek the contract remedies;
(b) impose the civil penalties and other penalties provided in Ordinance;
(c) seek criminal enforcement of the Ordinance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have made and executed this Campaign Contract as of
the day and year first written above.
CANDIDATE
_____________________________(SEAL)
____________________________
(print name)
TOWN OF CARY
BY: ____________________________
Campaign Finance Administrator
State of North Carolina
County of Wake
06/14/01
Page 51
I, _________________, a Notary Public for said County and State, do hereby certify that
______________________ personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due
execution of the foregoing Campaign Contract.
Witness my hand and official seal, this the _____ day of _____, 200_.
(Official Seal)
________________________
Notary Public
My commission expires: __________________________
This Instrument has been preaudited
in the manner required by The Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act.
___________________________________
Name: Karen Mills
Finance Officer, Town of Cary, N.C.
Attachments – Ordinance 00-028
Amendment ___
Copy of N.C.G.S. 163-278.6
Approved by Town Council on the 14th day of June, 2001.
ACTION: Mayor Lang made a motion to approve the contract and the ordinance
amendment. Mrs. Robinson provided the second, and Council granted unanimous
approval.
_________________________
1. Update on the involuntary annexation proposal.
Action was taken on this item earlier in the meeting.
_________________________
2. Update on the S.W. Maynard Road widening project.
Mr. Bailey stated staff is working on options that consider some of the issues of the residents who
spoke at the last Council meeting. He stated staff will have this information ready for
consideration at the July 6 Operations Committee. He stated the staff report will be on the
website prior to the committee meeting.
Mrs. Robinson requested that staff include in the staff report the streets that will be impacted with
each option, and if streets will be impacted by a median, then include alternate routes.
_________________________
F. LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
There were no legal/administrative issues on this agenda.
_________________________
06/14/01
Page 52
G. PUBLIC SPEAKS OUT
Ms. Liza Weidle, 106 Marquette Drive, stated at Youth Matter to Cary Day, they had intended to
present a plaque to the Council to recognize key community and business leaders. She stated,
however, that this was postponed due to the rain. She thanked the Council for their continued
support of C.A.R.Y. Miss Brittany O’Neill presented this plaque to Council. Mr. Ron Anderson
stated he chairs the committee “Building Youth Assets” that oversees the Duke Endowment
Funds. He stated they are comparing themselves with the state and nation, and preliminary
results show that they are making a significant difference in the youth.
_________________________
H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Major Special Use 01-MSU-006: Application of Frank Stoltmann for a major special
use and site plan for a teen dance club to be located at 300 East Durham Road. The
property is zoned Industrial-2 District and is inside Cary’s town limits. (The site
plan is on this agenda, Section I, Planning and Zoning Board Report, 01-SP-060.)
The applicant, Frank Stoltmann, has requested approval of a major special use and site plan for a
Teen Dance Club to be located at 300 East Durham Road, southeast of the intersection of
Wilkinson Avenue and East Durham Road. The property is zoned Industrial-2 District (I-2) and is
inside Cary’s town limits. The Teen Dance Club is considered a recreation center. According to
Section 8.13.3 of the Cary zoning code, recreation centers accompanied by a site plan must be
approved as a major special use by the Town Council.
According to Section 5.4.2(b) of the zoning code, the development plan shall be approved by the
Town Council at the same time as the major special use.
Proposal:
The Teen Dance Club would occupy approximately 4,000 square feet in the northern end of the
existing building and would cater to middle school and high school students. The Club would
primarily operate Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. On Fridays and Saturdays, the Club would
operate between the hours of 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. for middle school teens, and between 9:30
p.m. and 1:00 a.m. for high school teens. On Sundays, the Club would operate between the
hours of 5:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m.
During summer months, the Club would extend days of operation to include Mondays, Tuesdays
and Wednesdays. The Club would operate on a private-membership basis primarily to students
attending Cary High and Green Hope High Schools.
The subject property does not meet several of the Town's Unified Development Ordinance
regulations. When receiving a site plan for non-conforming properties, staff looks for ways to
move the site closer into compliance with current regulations. With "fit up" type projects such as
this proposal, it is not reasonable to achieve full compliance with all UDO requirements. In order
to be flexible regarding reuse of the existing building, a complete development plan was not
provided for this proposal. Staff has focused on three areas: lighting; landscaping and
screening; and traffic circulation and parking.
Building Elevations:
The building is one-story, is constructed of red-brown brick, and is currently being used as
warehouse flex space. The applicant proposes to add a canvas awning over the primary
entrance into the building, and advises that the awning would be burgundy and would contain the
Club’s logo/signage.
Staff supports the use of the burgundy awning, since it is consistent with the awnings used by the
remaining tenants.
06/14/01
Page 53
Landscape and Buffers:
The existing site does not comply with the Town's current landscaping and screening standards.
While there is some existing vegetation for the East Durham Road streetscape, additional street
trees could be added to reduce the non-compliance. The existing parking lot does not meet
vehicular screening requirements, since there is no vegetation in this area. The existing
dumpster is not screened from view, as required by Town Ordinance. Finally, no foundation
plantings are provided, with the exception of an evergreen tree or shrub to comply with Town
requirements.
Staff recommends the following landscape improvements:

Since a 15' required streetscape along Wilkinson Avenue cannot be achieved while
providing adequate on-site parking for the club, staff recommends adding 2 street trees
and 2 ornamental trees in the grassed area close to the intersection of Wilkinson Avenue
and East Durham Road;

Staff recommends adding 3 street trees along East Durham Road;

Required foundation plantings and vegetative screening for the vehicular use area should
be provided; and

Vegetative screening for the existing dumpster should be added.
Access Consideration, Traffic, and Off-Site Improvements:
The site would be accessed by one existing drive from East Durham Road and by one existing
drive from Wilkinson Avenue. East Durham Road is currently under contract to be widened.
Therefore, no additional roadway improvements would be required, other than the requirement
that sidewalk be installed along Wilkinson Avenue and East Durham Road for the length of
property frontage.
In a meeting with the applicant on May 8, 2001, staff recommended that the existing drive to East
Durham Road providing access to the rear of the Club be closed off. The applicant is willing to
close the access, if permitted by the railroad.
Parking:
A parking lot striping plan has been provided with this proposal. The minimum parking stall width
and length allowed by the Town’s Engineering Specifications are 9' and 18', respectively. The
minimum travel aisle width allowed is 23’. The plan submittal does not show the dimensions of
the restriped parking spaces or the travel aisle widths. In addition, the parking area parallel to
East Durham Road closest to the building is at an angle and does not provide adequate turning
radius for motorists to exit these spaces.
The site currently contains 14 parking spaces. Because the use is defined as a recreation center,
one parking space is required for every 250 gross square feet in the Club, or 17 parking spaces.
The applicant's plan shows 63 spaces for the club. Some of the spaces, however, will be
eliminated when the parking layout is reconfigured to meet Town Engineering Specifications. The
occupancy limit for the Club would be 500 people, though the applicant does not expect more
than 200 people.
The applicant will need to modify the plan to comply with the Town's parking standards.
Utility:
The plans propose utilizing existing utilities. The applicant would need to show the location of
existing services and demonstrate that the size of existing services are adequate to handle the
utility load generated by the Club.
Appearance Commission:
This plan was not reviewed by the Cary Appearance Commission, since it involves a “fit up” of an
existing facility.
06/14/01
Page 54
Planning and Zoning Board:
The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval of the plan as presented by
staff. The recommendation of approval includes the following conditions:

Add 2 street trees and 2 ornamental trees in the grassed area close to the intersection of
Wilkinson Avenue and East Durham Road;

Add 3 street trees along East Durham Road;

Add required foundation plantings and vegetative screening for the mechanical unit;

Add vegetative screening for the existing dumpster;

Modify the parking lot striping plan to use 90-degree instead of angled parking near the
building;

Add a note on the plan indicating that the parking lot lighting will be a maximum of 30 feet
in height, will use shoebox fixtures, and will utilize a bulb wattage of 250 watts;

Either provide shields for the wall packs or remove them;

Revise the plan to show the required 9' by 18' parking stall dimensions and minimum 23’
travel aisle dimensions;

Work with the railroad to close the rear access to the building; and

Waive the requirement associated with the installation of sidewalk along West Durham
Road and Wilkinson Avenue.
Staff feels the request meets the seven required tests necessary for approval of the major special use.
Staff also recommends approval of the site plan with conditions for the following reasons:
 The club provides an additional resource for teenagers for recreational purpose; and
 The placement of the club in the existing facility necessitates improvements that move the
property closer into compliance with Town Ordinances.
Recommended conditions associated with the approval of the site plan:
 Add 2 street trees and 2 ornamental trees in the grassed area close to the intersection of
Wilkinson Avenue and East Durham Road;
 Add 3 street trees along East Durham Road;
 Add required foundation plantings and vegetative screening for the mechanical unit;
 Add vegetative screening for the existing dumpster;
 Modify the parking lot striping plan to use 90-degree instead of angled parking near the building;
 Add a note on the plan indicating that the parking lot lighting will be a maximum of 30 feet in
height, will use shoebox fixtures, and will utilize a bulb wattage of 250 watts;
 Either provide shields for the wall packs or remove them;
 Revise the plan to show the required 9' by 18' parking stall dimensions and minimum 23’ travel
aisle dimensions; and
 Work with the railroad to close the rear access to the building.
Staff also requests direction regarding the request for a waiver from the sidewalk requirement along
East Durham Road and Wilkinson Avenue.
CASE 01-MSU-006
TEEN DANCE CLUB
CARY TOWN COUNCIL
MAJOR SPECIAL USE
Section 5.4.7 of the Cary Code of Ordinances requires that the following seven tests
must be met in order for the Town Council to grant a Major Special Use:
06/14/01
Page 55
1) That the proposed use or development of the land will not materially endanger the
public health or safety.
TEST SATISFIED? __ YES __ NO
2) That the proposed use is reasonably necessary for the public health or general
welfare, such as by enhancing the successful operation of the surrounding area in its
basic community functions or by providing an essential service to the community or its
region.
3) That the proposed use or development of the land will not substantially injure the value
of adjoining or abutting property.
4) That the proposed use or development of the land will be in harmony with the scale,
bulk, coverage, density, and character of the area or neighborhood in which it is
located.
5) That the proposed use or development of the land will generally conform to the
Comprehensive Plan and other official plans adopted by the Town.
6) That the proposed use is appropriately located with respect to transportation facilities,
water supply, fire and police protection, waste disposal, and similar facilities.
7) That the proposed use will not cause undue traffic congestion or create a traffic
hazard.
The town clerk administered oaths to the following people to allow them to speak during this
public hearing: Dori Staehle, Liza Weidle, and Frank Stoltmann. See Exhibit B attached to and
incorporated in these minutes for these oaths.
Mr. Parajon stated the applicant has agreed with all the conditions requested by staff. He stated
the applicant is requesting a waiver from the sidewalk requirement for E. Durham Road and
Wilkinson. He stated staff recommends that Council approve the major special use and site plan
with the conditions outlined herein.
Mrs. Robinson asked why they are requesting a waiver from the sidewalk requirements. Mr.
Parajon stated the primary way for people to visit this facility will be a pick-up/drop-off situation.
He stated there is not much residential development in this vicinity to necessitate a sidewalk. He
stated as the downtown develops, there may be more of an opportunity for pedestrian traffic. Mrs.
Robinson asked the length of required sidewalk, and Mr. Parajon stated is would be
approximately 600 feet of sidewalk.
Ms. Liza Weidle, 106 Marquette, stated she believes this use will enhance Cary and will provide
an essential service to the youth. She stated the parks, recreation and cultural resources advisory
06/14/01
Page 56
board had a teen sub-committee who studied events for Cary’s youth. She stated many middle
and high school students were involved in this study. She stated dance ranked high among both
middle school and high school students. (Refer to the complete report on the operations
committee report as part of these minutes.) She encouraged the Council to approve this major
special use and to also waive as many fees as possible to bring this viable business quickly to
Cary.
Ms. Dori Staehle stated she works as a teacher with many musically talented children. She stated
this will provide an opportunity for these talented young musicians to play and for other young
people to have an opportunity to hear good music.
Mr. Frank Stoltmann, the applicant, stated he is trying to do this project to benefit the kids in Cary.
He stated he is concerned with the amount of the road impact fees ($12,000). He stated they did
not figure this into their overall budget. He stated this development is being considered a retail
establishment. He stated according to Town code, they cannot be considered a nightclub
because they do not serve alcohol. He asked the Council to consider reducing the costs so they
can get this club open in the near future. Mayor Lang stated the Council should take action on the
major special use and the site plan. He stated he will be happy to meet with Mr. Stoltmann to
discuss the fees.
No one else came forward to speak, and Mayor Lang closed the public hearing.
ACTION: Mr. Ward made a motion that application 01-MSU-006 has successfully met the
requirements of Sections 5.4.7 8.13.3 of the Cary Code of Ordinances and is hereby
granted without conditions. Mrs. Robinson provided the second. Council granted
unanimous approval.
ACTION: Mr. Ward made a motion to approve the site plan per staff’s recommendations
herein (including a waiver of the sidewalk requirement) (01-SP-060). Mr. Weinbrecht
provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
2. Major Special Use 01-MSU-007: Application of Withers & Ravenel, representing Jeff
Fike, for a major special use and site plan to construct five two-story buildings
containing 21 townhome units on 2.53 acres. The site is located approximately 110
feet east of Walker Street, approximately 250 feet north of the intersection of East
Park Street and Waldo Street. (The site plan is on this agenda, Section I, Planning
and Zoning Board Report, 01-SP-037.)
The applicant, Withers & Ravenel, representing Jeff Fike, has requested approval of a major
special use and site plan to construct an affordable housing townhome development on 2.53
acres. The site would be located at 220 Waldo Street and extends into the mid-block area
created by Waldo Street, Walker Street and East Park Street. The property is approximately 110
feet east of Walker Street, and approximately 250 feet northeast of the intersection of East Park
Street and Waldo Street. The proposed density would be 8.3 units per acre. The maximum
density allowed is 8 units per acre. The property is zoned Downtown Residential (DR) and is in
the Core Neighborhood Overlay District. According to Section 10.6.3 of the Cary zoning code,
the maximum density permitted in the DR district (8 units per acre) may be increased to no more
than 16 units per acre; however, major special use approval from the Town Council would be
required.
06/14/01
Page 57
Proposal:
The plans propose five two-story buildings containing 21 townhome units. The applicant's
proposal is consistent with the existing and proposed Land Use Plan for the area. The proposed
Town Center Area Plan identifies the subject property for medium density residential. In addition,
the applicant will be providing 21 units that meet the Town's affordable housing criteria.
Therefore, the project is also consistent with the Cary Affordable Housing Plan.
In order to provide 21 townhome units on the subject property, the applicant is requesting the
following reductions from Town standards:
 To reduce the 18’ rear yard setback for three units to approximately 14’;
 To reduce the 6’ side yard setback to 3.4’ for unit 14;
 To reduce the 24’ front setback to 21.8’ for unit 20;
 To allow parking in the front yards that exceed 25% of the lot width; and
 To promote a more single-family look to townhome projects, the Core Neighborhood Overlay
District encourages some of the main entrances to individual dwellings be placed on the
sides of the proposed buildings. The plans propose dwelling units with main entrances at the
front of each dwelling unit.
The townhome units would be two-story and consist of vinyl siding or brick. All of the units would
have fiberglass shingle roofs. Each proposed elevation would include special detailing, such as
soldier course banding and shutters.
The applicant's landscape plan complies with Town requirements. In fact, the proposed plan
would protect several large mature hardwood trees on the site.
Access Considerations, Traffic, and Off-Site Improvements:
The site would be accessed by one drive extending through the development from Waldo Street
to Walker Street. The 21 townhomes would generate 123 weekday trips. The morning peak hour
would generate 9 trips and the afternoon peak hour 11 trips. Therefore, no traffic study would be
required. Also no roadway improvements would be required as part of this site plan.
Utility:
Water: The plan proposes connection to an existing public waterline within the South Walker
Street right-of-way.
Sanitary Sewer: The plan proposes connection to an existing public sanitary sewer line within the
Waldo Street right-of-way.
Storm Water:
The project meets all the requirements of the Town of Cary stormwater section, with the
exception of the following items:
 Drainage at the front of building 20 needs to be addressed and this drainage needs to be
directed under the proposed sidewalk with a properly sized pipe.
 The encroachment into the riparian buffer would require authorization from the Division of
Water Quality.
 Approved pipe material (Flared-end section or Headwall) needs to be approved at structure
PO-6.
 Recommended that parking area lighting be no higher than 20’ to 25’ high. (Decorative noncut off fixtures are proposed to be mounted at a height of 16 feet.)
 Recommended that a sidewalk connection be provided from this property south to the
existing triplex development. (Sidewalk connection is provided.)
06/14/01
Page 58

Recommended that a screening hedge be provided along the property line where proposed
dwelling units would be in close proximity to existing dwelling units located off-site.
The plan complies with all Appearance Commission recommendations.
Planning and Zoning Board:
The Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the plan as presented by staff. The
vote of approval was nine yes votes to one no vote. The recommendation of approval includes
the following conditions:
District encourages some of the main entrances to individual dwellings be placed on the
sides of the proposed buildings. The plans propose dwelling units with main entrances at the
front of each dwelling unit.
 A letter from the Department of Water Quality (DWQ) is received by the Town that authorizes
the requested action by the developer.
Staff feels the request meets the five required tests necessary for approval of the major special use.
Staff also recommends approval of the site plan with the following conditions:
District encourages some of the main entrances to individual dwellings be placed on the sides of
the proposed buildings. The plans propose dwelling units with main entrances at the front of each
dwelling unit.
 A letter from the Department of Water Quality (DWQ) is received by the Town that authorizes the
requested action by the developer.
CASE 01-MSU-007
WALDO STREET TOWNHOMES
CARY TOWN COUNCIL
WORKSHEET AND
SUGGESTED MOTIONS
MAJOR SPECIAL USE
The Town Council shall evaluate the design of new structures in terms of the degree to which
they meet the intent of this Part to encourage a diversity of new development which will contribute
to the well-being of the Overlay District while preserving and enhancing the existing built
environmental characteristics, integrity, and attractiveness of downtown Cary. The major
objective shall be the maintenance of the sense of human scale, architectural appropriateness,
and tree-lined streets. New residential development shall be appropriate to the site, taking into
account the safety, convenience, and amenity of the surrounding neighborhood, and shall be
evaluated in relation to existing adjacent or surrounding structures which fit the overall intent of
this Part.
06/14/01
Page 59
Section 10.6.3 of the Cary Code of Ordinances requires that the following five tests must be met
in order for the Town Council to grant a Major Special Use:
1) The existing infrastructure is sufficient to support the proposed project at the time of
application, or it shall be provided as a part of the proposed project. Sufficient infrastructure
includes but is not limited to water distribution, sanitary sewer, storm drainage, fire protection,
streets and transportation, refuse collection, greenway connectors and/or sidewalks;
2) The development has convenient access to public services, public transportation, or major
thoroughfares;
3) The arrangement of buildings will not create long alleyways between the rears of buildings on
the site except where such alleys are approximately at mid-block locations;
4) Housing developments shall be in character with the surrounding neighborhood(s) in terms of
scale, materials, and character of the architectural elements; and,
5) Any yard that abuts another residential zoning district, dwelling unit type or density shall be not
less than the corresponding front, side, or rear yard requirement of the adjacent district, dwelling
unit type or density.
The town clerk administered oaths to the following person to allow her to speak during this public
hearing: Susan Rego. (See Exhibit C attached to and incorporated in these minutes for the
original oath.)
Mr. Parajon of the planning staff stated the proposed site plan saves some very large, mature
trees on the site. He stated to save these trees, it requires some modifications from the Town’s
standards. He stated the townhomes will be two and three bedrooms, and the price will range
from $100,000 to $120,000. He stated an existing home on the site fronts Waldo Street, and this
home will be demolished to provide two additional townhome units, sewer connection and traffic
flow. He stated the Town entered into an agreement with the developer and the County in April
2001 to provide 21 townhome units that met the Town’s adopted affordable housing plan. He
stated the Town contribution per unit was approximately $7,000 per unit. He stated there is a
clause in the contract that stipulates if the townhomes are not affordable, then a substantial
portion of the Town's contribution (almost $5,000) will be reimbursed to the Town as a penalty.
Mr. Parajon stated the applicant has requested some rear setbacks, a side yard setback and a
front setback. He stated most of these reductions are necessitated by the desire to save the large
trees on the site. He stated a setback is also requested to allow parking that will exceed the 25%
limit. He stated the desire is to put the entrance on the public street and the parking in the rear, so
the street frontage does not get cluttered with parking lot. He added that there is an internal loop
to the site.
Mr. Parajon stated staff feels the reductions are warranted because: (1) they will provide
additional affordable housing units; (2) the setback dimensions are likely to be reduced as part of
06/14/01
Page 60
the Town’s ongoing unified development ordinance update; and (3) the site protects several large
hardwood trees that would be difficult to save without the reductions.
Mr. Parajon stated the site plan meets all the conditions proposed by the Appearance
Commission.
Mr. Mike Zaccardo of the planning and zoning board outlined the board’s recommendation (see
recommendation herein).
Mr. Ward asked how the Town’s financial contribution will be protected if the development does
not turn out to be affordable housing. Mr. Shawn McNamara, the Town’s affordable housing
planner, stated the three-party contract was executed between the Town, the developer and
Wake County. He stated up to $100,000 in fees will be deferred and will be offered to the
developer on a performance basis. He stated, for example, in each case that the townhome unit
did not sell to someone with a moderate income at the agreed upon price, then that portion of the
$100,000 would revert back to the Town. He stated Wake County will obtain evidence of the
buyer’s income and the sale price. He stated Wake County will utilize their staff and will report
findings to the Town.
Mr. Parajon stated the Council is being asked to include the major special use and the site plan
with the associated reductions following the receipt of letter from the Department of Water Quality
authorizing the requested action by the developer, because he is crossing the Neuse River buffer.
Ms. Susan Rego, representing the applicant, stated the only issue with which the special use
permit is required is the additional one unit that exceeds the regular zoning district. She stated the
only real reason for this extra unit is that this property had to be acquired to reach public sewer.
She stated the associated variances are not required to make the project affordable, and they are
not required for the site plan. She stated they are required strictly to save the existing trees (two
36” oaks, two 30” oaks, a 69” oak and a 42” oak).
No one else was signed up to speak, and Mayor Lang closed the public hearing.
ACTION: Ms. Dorrel made a motion that the application met the requirements of Section
10.6.3 of the Code of Ordinances and is hereby granted without conditions. Mr. Ward
provided the second. Council granted unanimous approval of the major special use.
ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith made a motion to approve the site plan per the staff’s
recommendations (01-SP-037). Mr. Ward provided the second, and Council granted
unanimous approval.
Mayor Lang urged staff to cut the time in half for these affordable housing approvals. He thanked
the staff and the developer for their work on this request.
_________________________
3. Major Special Use 01-MSU-011: Application of Bobbitt & Associates, representing
the Good Hope Baptist Church, for a major special use and site plan to construct a
new sanctuary/educational building containing approximately 18,340 square feet
and additional parking. The church is located north of Good Hope Church Road,
northwest of the intersection of Good Hope Church Road and Morrisville Carpenter
Road. The property is zoned Planned Employment Center and is inside Cary’s
town limits. (The site plan is on this agenda, Section I, Planning and Zoning Board
Report, 01-SP-005.)
The applicant, Bobbitt & Associates, representing Good Hope Baptist Church, has requested
approval of a major special use and site plan to construct a new sanctuary/educational building
containing approximately 18,340 square feet and additional parking. Good Hope Baptist Church
is located north of Good Hope Church Road and northwest of the intersection of Good Hope
Church Road and Morrisville Carpenter Road. The property contains 22.53 acres and is zoned
06/14/01
Page 61
Planned Employment Center (PEC) and Residential-30 District (R-30). Excluding a northwest
portion of the property containing 0.78 acre, the property is inside Cary’s town limits. According
to Section 8.16.4 of the Cary zoning code, churches are allowed in the PEC district as a major
special use approved by the Town Council.
Proposal:
The plans propose a new sanctuary/educational building containing approximately 18,340 square
feet and additional parking. The plans also propose to widen Good Hope Church Road, to install
sidewalk, and to reduce the 30’ streetscape to 10’ west of the existing parking lot located north of
the existing church building.
The Good Hope Baptist Church was originally approved and constructed while under the
jurisdiction of Wake County. Wake County subsequently granted Cary approval to expand its
Extraterritorial Zoning Jurisdiction boundary to include the area of Good Hope Baptist Church,
and Cary rezoned the area to PEC and R-30. Normally a church would need major special use
approval to develop in the PEC district, but Good Hope Baptist Church was present on the
property at the time Cary established zoning in the area. Therefore, the church is considered a
valid non-conforming use. Any expansion or alteration to the church would require approval of a
major special use by the Town Council. Because the major special use is normally associated
with the development of a church in the PEC district, major special use approval would not be
required for any additional future modifications to the church site, if this major special use is
approved.
Staff has received and is processing an annexation petition for the 0.78 acre portion of the site
that is currently outside Cary’s town limits. The area not annexed is in a non-critical area of the
site and, therefore, will proceed on a different time line for annexation than the site plan process.
The existing church building and parsonage (which would be used as church office space) are
constructed of red-brown brick with off-white trim and dark gray asphalt shingled roofing. Though
the new sanctuary building addition would be two-story in appearance, it would contain only one
occupied floor. The new sanctuary building would use similar materials and colors; but the roof
system would utilize a hunter green standing seam metal.
Excluding the proposed reduction in the streetscape width as mentioned above, the plan
complies with all landscape requirements and would save several large existing trees located on
the site.
Access Considerations, Traffic, and Off-Site Improvements:
The church property is currently accessed by seven drives. The number of existing drives would
be reduced to four. The new church addition would increase the Sunday trips by 672 and the
Sunday church peak hour by 174 trips. Therefore, no traffic impact study is required.
Morrisville Carpenter Road: The Town of Cary Thoroughfare Plan designates Morrisville
Carpenter Road to be realigned through this area. The functional alignment of Morrisville
Carpenter Road as approved by Town Council in April 1998 is shown on the plans. The church
proposes to dedicate right-of-way to allow for future construction of the road. Due to the
realignment, only a small triangular section of the new Morrisville Carpenter Road will be within
the church’s property lines, therefore, the church does not propose to install any of the widening
as part of this plan. Morrisville Carpenter Road realignment/widening has been designated to take
place in FY 2007 according to the latest version of the Towns CIP summary.
06/14/01
Page 62
Good Hope Church Road: Per standard Town requirements, the church is proposing to widen
Good Hope Church Road to allow for three full lanes of traffic (one lane in each direction with a
continuous center turn lane) from their northern property line to their southernmost access. Good
Hope Church Road from the southernmost access to the existing Morrisville Carpenter Road
intersection would be removed with the construction of realigned Morrisville Carpenter Road and
the associated intersection redesign.
Staff feels that the widening and right-of-way dedication as proposed with this site plan is
sufficient, considering the road realignment and intersection reconfiguration that is proposed to
take place in approximately 6-7 years. Any additional widening that the church would do along
their current road frontages would be removed as part of the Morrisville Carpenter
realignment/widening project. In addition, the small portion of realigned Morrisville Carpenter
Road would be a traffic hazard if installed at this point.
Utility:
Water: The church is proposing connection to an existing 8” public water line located within Good
Hope Church Road right-of-way.
Sanitary sewer: The church is proposing to install a private pump station to serve their property.
The force main is proposed to discharge into an existing manhole at the intersection of Morrisville
Carpenter Road and Saunders Grove Lane.
Storm Water:
The project is located in the Jordan Lake watershed and meets the requirements of the Reservoir
Watershed Protection ordinance through the low-density option. The project has riparian buffers
associated with it but stays out of the buffers with the proposed development. This project meets
all the Stormwater requirements of the Town of Cary.
Ensure that the streetscape is planted in a continuous fashion, as required by Chapter 14 of the
zoning code. (Upper story-tree every 40’ and an ornamental every 20’.) The streetscapeplanting scheme was adjusted to address this recommendation.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation:
The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended approval of the plan as presented by
staff. The recommendation includes denial of the request to allow a 20' reduction in the 30'
streetscape along Good Hope Church Road north of the existing church building so that nine
existing parking spaces could be retained in the existing parking area. The Planning and Zoning
Board concurred with staff's finding that based on the amount of existing parking being
reconfigured to support the new sanctuary building and new parking areas, there is no
justification to support allowing existing parking to encroach into the 30’ streetscape.
Staff feels the request meets the seven required tests necessary for approval of the major special use.
Staff also recommends approval of the site plan with no reduction in the 30' streetscape. (The
applicant had requested the 30' streetscape be reduced to a 10' streetscape along Good Hope Church
Road north of the existing church building so that nine existing parking spaces could be retained in the
existing parking area.)
CASE 01-MSU-011
GOOD HOPE BAPTIST CHURCH BUILDING & PARKING ADDITION
CARY TOWN COUNCIL
WORKSHEET AND
SUGGESTED MOTIONS
06/14/01
Page 63
MAJOR SPECIAL USE
Section 5.4.7 of the Cary Code of Ordinances requires that the following seven tests must be met
in order for the Town Council to grant a Major Special Use:
1) That the proposed use or development of the land will not materially endanger the public
health or safety.
2) That the proposed use is reasonably necessary for the public health or general welfare, such
as by enhancing the successful operation of the surrounding area in its basic community
functions or by providing an essential service to the community or its region.
3) That the proposed use or development of the land will not substantially injure the value of
adjoining or abutting property.
4) That the proposed use or development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk,
coverage, density, and character of the area or neighborhood in which it is located.
5) That the proposed use or development of the land will generally conform to the
Comprehensive Plan and other official plans adopted by the Town.
6)
That the proposed use is appropriately located with respect to transportation facilities,
water supply, fire and police protection, waste disposal, and similar facilities.
7) That the proposed use will not cause undue traffic congestion or create a traffic hazard.
The town clerk administered oaths to the following individuals to allow them to speak during this
public hearing: Mr. Brian Van Horn and Mr. Mitchell Petway. See Exhibit D attached to and
incorporated in these minutes for the oaths.
Mr. Parajon stated the applicant is requesting a variance to reduce the streetscape from 30 feet
to 10 feet in an existing parking lot area. He stated in the northern portion of the site (see Exhibit
E attached to and incorporated in these minutes for a depiction of the area) there are nine
existing parking spaces within the 30 foot streetscape, and the applicant is requesting to maintain
these parking spaces in the streetscape. See Exhibit F attached to and incorporated in these
minutes for a depiction of what the church will look like based on the site plan.
Mr. Parajon stated the Morrisville-Carpenter Road realignment is part of the thoroughfare plan
recently adopted, and it runs through this site. He stated the applicant has agreed to dedicate the
right-of-way to facilitate the realignment as well as the connection of Good Hope Church Road
into the realignment. He stated the applicant will also do widening along Good Hope Church
Road.
06/14/01
Page 64
Mr. Parajon stated the applicant has agreed to all of the Appearance Commission’s
recommendations. He stated the Planning & Zoning Board supported staff’s recommendation to
maintain the 30 foot streetscape along Good Hope Baptist Church (recommended denial of the
applicant’s request to encroach into the streetscape).
Mr. Parajon stated staff recommends that Council approve the major special use and approve the
site plan with the elimination of the nine existing parking spaces that encroach into the 30 foot
streetscape.
Mayor Lang asked if the parking lot is paved. The applicant responded affirmatively.
Mr. Weinbrecht asked if the nine parking spaces are required to meet the parking requirements.
Mr. Parajon responded negatively. He added the church has excess parking spaces throughout
the facility. He stated staff’s recommendation to remove the nine parking spaces from the
streetscape is because when sites undergo a significant expansion, staff tries to bring them into
conformance with the current codes. He stated staff felt there were other opportunities to
compensate for these nine parking spaces in close proximity to the existing location.
Mr. Mitch Petway, Chairman of the building committee, stated the nine parking spaces are
necessary for the elderly. He stated if they lose the nine spaces, the elderly will be required to
park in the new parking area, and this is some distance away. He stated there is very little traffic
in this area on Wednesday night and Sunday morning. He requested that Council allow them to
maintain the nine parking spaces.
Mr. Brian Van Horn, Bobbitt and Associates, stated he is able to respond to any additional
questions.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked if the design includes senior and handicap parking so the nine
parking spaces can be eliminated. He stated churches often create parking problems, because as
they grow, attendees park in areas where they should not park.
Mr. Van Horn stated the parking associated with the new site plan is located behind the new
family life center building, which is approximately 200 or 300 feet from the existing church
building. He stated Sunday morning services will be held in the existing building. He stated the
nine parking spaces are much closer to the existing building; however, the new plan does provide
handicap parking spaces.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith suggested that the church reserve parking spaces for seniors or allow
seniors to allow others to park their cars.
Mayor Lang closed the public hearing.
ACTION: Mr. Roseland made a motion to approve the special use recommendation as
proposed by staff, since it met the seven-test requirement. Mr. Ward provided the second,
and Council granted unanimous approval.
ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith made a motion to approve the site plan per staff’s
recommendation (01-SP-005) (including the elimination of the nine parking spaces). Mr.
Weinbrecht provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
4. Public hearing on the proposed Fiscal Year 2002 operating and capital
improvements budgets.
Mr. Coleman stated N.C. general statutes requires that Council conduct a public hearing on the
proposed fiscal year budget. He stated the proposed budget for fiscal year 2002 was given to
Council on May 24, 2001, has been on file with the town clerk since that time, and has been
06/14/01
Page 65
available through other means as well for public inspection. He stated Council will be asked to
vote on the final budget on June 28, 2001.
Mr. Don Hyatt, 101 Parkrise Court, questioned Cary’s debt margin. He stated Cary is using
approximately 14% of the utility revenues to service this portion of the debt. He stated the debt is
almost doubling in FY 2002, and there are many projects in the capital improvement budget (i.e.,
potential wastewater treatment plant, etc.). He stated if Cary attempts to fund all the road projects
in the CIP, then he wants to know the short-term and long-term tax impacts. He asked how much
additional debt margin Cary can afford to use before it has a substantial tax impact. He stated the
impact fees have increased from $3,500 to $11,000, but this still does not reflect full cost.
Ms. Christina Morris, 101 Larkspur Lane, Cary, spoke in support of Cary funding a library. She
presented a petition. Ms. Morris’ comments are attached to and incorporated in these minutes as
Exhibit G. She presented a petition that is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as
Exhibit H.
Mr. Charles Braunhardt, 100 Excalibur Court, Cary, requested that Cary fund The Carying Place.
He explained the mission of The Carying Place and explained that they are a non-profit
organization that provides transitional housing services in Cary.
Ms. Tracy Beckford stated she is a participant in The Carying Place program. She gave a
personal testimony of how this program has helped her and her family. She encouraged the
Council to support this organization.
Mr. Joe Rapple, Executive Director of The Carying Place, stated the real issue is whether the
Town should or should not support non-profits. He stated community-wide support allows them to
get a foot in the door with grantors, the people who will donate services, and it is important to say
that the Town of Cary supports this organization.
Mr. Tom McCuiston, a Cary resident, stated he is a certified public accountant and has
experience with budgets. He stated he feels the budget represents excessive spending. He
encouraged the Council to be mindful of the spending priorities. He stated revenues are slowing
due to the slowed growth. He stated if the expenses do not also decrease along with the
decreasing revenues, then it will impact the operating margin (deduct expenditures from revenue
to determine percentage of revenues). He stated this budget increases spending, although
revenues are decreasing. Mr. McCuiston asked how the Town can pay for its debt service, based
on the decreasing revenues and the increasing expenses. He stated the most obvious solution is
a tax increase. He stated he finds it interesting that the Council is proposing a $0.01 tax
decrease, but there is a projected deficit over 10 years of approximately $360,000,000.
Mr. McCuiston stated from 1999 through 2002, there was an $8.3 million increase in other
revenues, and during this time period, there was an $8.7 million increase in taxes. He stated from
1997 through 2002, the revenues increased by 57.7%, and during that same time period, the
expenses increased from $31.8 million to $63.2 million – a 98.7% increase.
Mr. McCuiston stated if the $360 million deficit is projected over 10 years and divided by 40,000
families in Cary, then it represents $9,000 per family. He challenged the Council not to raise taxes
and to keep expenditures low. He suggested that the Council lower the spending and lower taxes.
Mr. Greg Sandreuter, with the National Association of Industrial Office Properties (NAIOP), stated
they seek to be part of the solution to the cost of Cary infrastructure. He stated they want to be a
resource to the Town in balancing growth with the cost of growth. He stated they think the impact
fees are too high and they seem to change annually. He stated it appears that the fees are being
increased rather than remaining revenue-neutral. He stated the current impact fee using office
space is $3,410 per 1,000 square feet. He stated the revised impact fees vary depending on
zone. He stated in the central zone, the revised fee is $2,152 (37% decrease); in the north zone,
the revised fee is $3,731 (9% increase); in the northwest zone, the revised fee is $4,600 (35%
increase); and in the southeast zone, the revised fee is $3,900 (17% increase). He stated the
06/14/01
Page 66
active Cary office markets are not located in the central zone, and no one wants to build an office
building in this location. He stated the active markets are in Regency, Weston and Crossroads,
and the fees are increasing in these areas. He stated they feel the fee schedule is not net-net
revenue-neutral.
Mr. Sandreuter stated they feel that Cary’s policies, regulations and fees have been in flux and
difficult to predict. He stated this increases the risk and uncertainty for developers. He stated it
takes two to three years to site, rezone, finance, construct and deliver an office building, and the
way things are now, it is difficult to project out a reasonable level of profitability. He stated they
believe that Cary can achieve its long-term goals of raising money from impact fees by helping
them to foster a stable and predictable business environment. He requested that the Council
meet with members of this organization prior to June 28 to go over their concerns in detail and to
propose solutions.
Mr. Frank Baird, Capital Associates, stated the office market in Cary is no longer competitive. He
stated these decisions are being made by corporate real estate decision-makers who only care
about dollars per square foot. He stated the concern that the Council should have is not what is
currently happening in this market, but what will happen over the next five to 10 years. He
predicted that when adding the loss of the fee revenue generated from impact fees to the loss of
ad valorem tax, it will be difficult for the Town to meet its budget (similar to the 1980’s). He stated
office space in Cary should be a cost effective proposition that the Town would not want to lose.
Ms. Tonya Mills, a civil engineer with Tri-Properties and the associate director of development,
stated she represents The Principle Financial Group in Des Moines, Iowa. She stated they
manage the Imperial Business Park, a 450-acre campus located in Durham. She stated the
annual taxes are over $2.6 million, and the majority of the tax base is from the Class A office
buildings. She stated they recently decided to look at other venues outside of the Imperial Center.
She stated the owners expressed interest in a 40-acre tract of land near Weston Parkway;
however, the investors decided to look elsewhere because of the fees and setbacks. She stated
Cary’s climate is too unpredictable, and the fees are higher than neighboring municipalities.
Mr. Andrew Kelton, Duke Weeks Realty and a Cary resident, stated they have $350 million worth
of property in the Cary-Morrisville-Raleigh area. He stated he recently worked with a business
who wanted to expand, but Cary’s fee’s were cost prohibitive. He encouraged the Town to work
with NAIOP to discuss fees as a group to come up with a solution that works for both parties.
Mr. Tom Huff, Capital Associates, a resident of 104 Lochside Drive in Cary, stated he is
concerned that the medical office fees are too high in comparison to Raleigh’s fees. He stated the
proposed medical fees in the base area are $7.35 per square foot; he stated Raleigh’s fees are
$0.54 per square foot. He stated Cary could lose doctors, and this would result in an
inconvenience to Cary citizens. He stated the general office fees are only $3.74 as compared to
the $7.35 fee for medical. He stated this reflects a 96% difference. He stated the parking space
requirement only supports a 12.5% difference. He requested that the medical fees be decreased.
Mr. Toby Kennedy, 105 Jesnick Lane, concurred with Mr. Roseland’s proposed projects for the
downtown area that were discussed at the May 31 budget work session. He asked that the Town
study the issue of the library and that the Town enter into a partnership but not confirm a specific
location for that facility at this time.
No one else came forward to speak, and Mayor Lang closed the public hearing.
Mr. Roseland stated there are four council members on the Economic Policy Commission, and
this commission had previously scheduled two meetings with NAIOP, but NAIOP had to cancel
these meetings. He stated he understands that the fees will not be effective until October 2001,
and there is an opportunity in July or August for NAIOP to make a presentation to this
commission and talk more in depth about these issues.
06/14/01
Page 67
Mayor Lang stated NAIOP needs to consider how much Raleigh is investing in their infrastructure
vs. how much Cary is investing in its infrastructure. He stated fees in Cary may be higher
because the quality is higher (i.e., road capacity).
Mayor Lang stated he will be happy to meet with NAIOP officials to discuss this issue in more
detail.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated the entire region is only months away from federal mandates
because of the smog and pollution. He stated all the areas around Cary are grid-locked, but they
are not addressing how to fix infrastructure. He stated Cary’s fees are very competitive compared
to the national market. He stated the issue is the subsidization of one self-serving special interest
group that commands so much. He stated everyone in the region should raise their standards to
maintain the economic vitality. He asked why NAIOP does not bring the other communities to the
table to address the $20 billion road problem, the smog and pollution issue, the inadequate
schools, etc. He stated the public should be outraged that development is going to other cities,
because these other cities are subsidizing development that will exacerbate existing infrastructure
problems.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith requested that Mr. Coleman provide the Council with a copy of The
Carying Place budget request. He stated The Carying Place should be allowed to improve their
application prior to Mr. Coleman distributing it to the Council.
_________________________
5. Public hearing on the open space and historic resources plan.
Staff began work on the proposed Open Space and Historic Resources Plan (OSHRP) in January
2000. On May 11, 2000, Town Council approved a workplan and timetable for the OSHRP.
Resource assessments and analyses were conducted during the period June 2000 – February
2001.
On March 1, 2001, the Planning Department presented the proposed Open Space and Historic
Resources Plan to the Town Council at a work session. The Council directed staff members to
consider all areas of town for open space preservation and find continuing sources of money.
The Council also considered a draft definition of open space and discussed proposed goals for
the OSHRP.
A ‘public input phase’ was conducted during April and May, and four Community Information
Meetings were held during this period. Citizens responded to the draft Plan and provided
comments and suggestions about open space preservation priorities. The Edwards Farm
property, located near High House Road and Davis Road in west Cary, and the NC State
University agricultural lands, located in the northeast part of town, were cited most frequently as
preservation preferences.
Community Information Meetings
Town of Cary Planning Staff held a series of four Community Information Meetings during the months
of April and May 2001 to gather public input on the proposed Open Space and Historic Resources
Plan (OSHRP). Following is a summary of meetings held.
Date
April 10, 2001
April 24, 2001
May 3, 2001
May 15, 2001
1
Location
Fairview Baptist Church, Middle Creek vicinity
Good Hope Baptist Church, Carpenter Vicinity
Herbert Young Community Center, downtown Cary
Green Level Baptist Church, Green Level vicinity
Attendance1
10
15
20
35
Not including Town of Cary staff present
06/14/01
Page 68
In addition to the above meetings, staff presented the OSHRP at the request of a neighborhood
group. The meeting was held in a private residence on Arrington Road, in the northeast section of
the OSHRP study area. About 15 persons attended.
Staff gave a brief Powerpoint presentation on the proposed Plan and fielded questions from citizens.
Participants were encouraged to submit Comment Forms to the Town of Cary.
Citizen Comment Forms
A total of 23 Comment Forms were returned either in person, e-mail, or postal mail. In addition to
name and address, respondents were asked to check the following boxes on the form:
Citizen Category
(1) Resident within the OSHRP study area
(2) Landowner within or near designated open space area
(3) Interested citizen living outside OSHRP area
No. Responses
6
12
5
Question 1 asked the respondent to cite a specific location or parcel that contained an open
space or historic resource that they were interested in seeing preserved. The Edwards Farm
property, located on the west side of Davis Drive between Rigsbee Farm and Preston Village,
and the NC State agricultural lands south of I-40 and Umstead Park, were to two most-cited open
spaces.
Question 2 asked citizens to state their opinion on the category of open space that should be the
initial emphasis for acquisition and preservation efforts. The choices were (1) within the developed
parts of Town, (2) within rural, outlying areas, or (3) no opinion. The responses were evenly divided:
Preservation Emphasis
(1) Developed areas of Cary
(2) Rural, outlying areas
(3) No Opinion
No. Responses
8
6
5
Three citizens marked both (1) and (2). One (1) form was not marked.
Question 3 asked for additional comments on the OSHRP, based on the presentation and
discussions with staff.
See the “comments compilation” that is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit I.
During each Community Information Meeting, aerial maps of the general vicinity were provided for
citizens to view. Attendees were encouraged to write directly on the maps to make comments or
identify areas of preservation interest.
Staff fielded many questions during the Community Meetings, and also received dozens of phone
calls and several e-mail inquires during April and May. The most frequently asked question was “how
does the Open Space and Historic Resources Plan fit in with other Town Plans, such as the
Transportation Plan, the Land Use Plan, etc.?
Conclusion
The volume of responses was less than anticipated; however, citizens have responded favorably to
the proposed OSHRP. Many of the attendees at the Community Information Meetings came out of
curiosity about the Plan, and to see how the proposed open space system might affect their property.
06/14/01
Page 69
The Public Input Phase represents an ongoing effort by the Town to promote open space and
environmental stewardship. Staff anticipates the opportunity to present the OSHRP to groups of
landowners and citizen associations on an ongoing basis, especially after the Plan is adopted and the
Plan implementation phase begins.
A joint work session of the Planning and Zoning Board and the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural
Resources Advisory Board is scheduled for June 18, 2001, prior to the June P&Z Board meeting.
Key Features of the OSHRP
This draft Plan describes a ‘Green Infrastructure’ for Cary - an interconnected system of open
spaces, natural areas, historic landscapes, greenways, and parks. The Plan identifies 9,500
acres of potential open space – parcels that contain significant natural and historic resources and
are located within 400’ of an existing or proposed greenway corridor.
The OSHRP also provides a definition of Open Space, describes the benefits of open space
preservation, lists preservation goals, and contains technical reports documenting the ecological
and historic landscape assessments.
The OSHRP contains a section entitled ‘The Preservation Toolbox’, that details the array of land
preservation, acquisition, and funding mechanisms that can be employed to preserve open
space.
Along with the resource assessments, the OSHRP describes the vulnerability of Cary’s remaining
open space. Entitled ‘Threat of Loss Analysis’, the report analyzes growth trends and
development potential of land within the OSHRP study area, and identifies those parcels facing
the highest probability of loss from anticipated urbanization.
Purpose of the OSHRP
The purpose of the Open Space and Historic Resources Plan is to identify, evaluate, and
prioritize important natural and historic resources and to establish goals for their preservation.
The Plan identifies parcels with significant resource value and open space potential, such as
connectivity to a park, greenway, or other preserved open space. These parcels will be ranked
according to the quantity of resources present, the threat of loss of the open space or resource to
development, and other factors. The Preservation Toolbox will be used to help determine the
appropriate acquisition and financing strategy for each priority parcel. The Plan will serve as a
guide to the Town Council and staff for implementing the preservation of open space and historic
resources – detailing how open space will be funded, acquired, and managed. The Open Space
and Historic Resources Plan will also serve as a resource for citizens and landowners interested
in preservation.
Implementing the Open Space and Historic Resources Plan
Element of the Comprehensive Plan. As an element of the Comprehensive Plan, the OSHRP will
guide the Town of Cary’s policies and programs for preserving natural and cultural resources. It
will be used as the basis for reviewing other Town plans and policies. In the context of preserving
a green infrastructure for Cary, the OSHRP will guide the Town’s vision of the urban form it
desires for the future, with resource preservation as the foundation. For example, by limiting the
expansion of water and sewer infrastructure, the Town can impede the loss of open space,
particularly in western and southern areas of Cary, where large areas of resources exist. This
policy, in turn, could affect the need for new roads as recommended in the Transportation Plan.
Guide for Planning and Land Development Policies. The OSHRP will also guide planning and
land development by providing the standard of reference for evaluating the configuration of open
06/14/01
Page 70
space in new site/subdivision plans and Planned Unit Developments. The Plan also recommends
the establishment of Conservation Overlay Districts in areas where ecologically and historically
significant resources are concentrated. A conservation overlay zone would establish stricter
development standards to protect historic landscape features, scenic views, wildlife habitat,
agricultural areas, or watersheds. An ‘overlay’ would keep existing zoning in place, but additional
requirements would be applied for resource protection. Conservation Overlay Districts can be
considered during the rewrite of the Unified Development Ordinance.
The Preservation Process. The preservation of open space priority parcels will be accomplished
through a combination of acquisition, regulatory measures, other cooperative agreements with
government agencies or non-profit land conservation organizations, and voluntary landowner
initiative. In FY2002, funding from the initial $12.5 million Utility Fund appropriation (now at $10
million) will be used to preserve as much open space as possible. Town of Cary staff will focus
its efforts on several ‘signature’ parcels that have high resource value, are threatened with loss in
the short-term, and have been identified by Cary residents during the citizen input phase. It is
estimated that current funds could protect 300-500 acres. Preservation costs will depend upon
land values, the specific preservation technique used, and other factors.
Funding and Acquisition Measures. Long-term preservation costs are more difficult to estimate.
The outright acquisition of the entire proposed Open Space System would cost hundreds of
millions of dollars. After evaluating several scenarios, staff recommends an approach that will
seek to preserve somewhere between 3,400 and 4,250 acres at an estimated cost range of $30
million to $81.25 million. Twenty-five percent of this open space would be protected by
acquisition, 25% by the purchase of development rights (conservation easements), another 25%
through mandatory conservation design, buffer set-asides and other dedications, and the
remaining 25% through donations, cooperative agreements, and other funding sources.
The Preservation Toolbox section of the OSHRP details a variety of regulatory mechanisms that
can be employed for protecting open space. Establishing Conservation Overlay Districts will help
preserve open space through the development process.
Voluntary landowner initiative will be another key element in the success of the Open Space and
Historic Resources Plan. The Plan provides an array of information sources for citizens and
landowners interested in preservation. By encouraging landowners within the Open Space
System to create a long-range plan for their property, the Town could achieve a significant share
of its preservation objectives at little or no cost to the public, while enabling resource property
owners to protect their land and land values.
Staff Recommendation: After the public hearing, staff recommends that Town Council forward the
proposed Open Space and Historic Resources Plan to the Planning and Zoning Board for
consideration at its June 18, 2001 meeting.
Mr. Don Belk’s power point presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as
Exhibit J.
Mayor Lang stated at the last Council/Staff retreat, he understood that developable land was
7,500 acres. He questioned 3,000 to 4,000 acres being preserved for open space. Mr. Ulma of
the planning department stated when the analysis was done prior to the retreat, staff considered
the impact that occurred with the new buffer requirements. He stated there is some overlap, and
staff will resolve the numbers.
Ms. Terra Lightner, representing the 3,600 members of the Raleigh Regional Association of
Realtors, requested that the Council and Planning & Zoning Board (P&Z) consider and explore
the proposal that the Town will acquire 25% designated open space parcels through transfer of
development rights. She stated this is an unproven method, and will probably require enabling
legislation. She stated there has been no state-wide legislation passed enabling transfer of
06/14/01
Page 71
development rights. She asked if the Town is prepared to lobby the state legislature to do this,
and she asked the alternatives in the event the Town cannot get enabling legislation.
Ms. Lightner stated an additional 25% of the land is supposed to be purchased outright with funds
collected through an increase in the utility fee (11% this year, equating to $1 million). She stated
considering the failure of the legislation intending to have new construction pay for open space in
the legislature, she asked if the utility fee option is commonly used to fund this type of program
without legal challenges.
Ms. Lightner asked if an analysis has been performed and made public as to the negative tax
impact that removing the thousands of acres will have on current property owners. She stated
realtors understand that homeowners like to see green around them and enjoy high water quality.
She stated the property owners need to know the cost of the acquisition in future tax increases
when growth stops in Cary and open space does not produce revenues.
Mr. Chris Sinclair, president and executive director of the Triangle Community Coalition, a
Raleigh resident, stated they have 350 members across the Triangle, and they represent
businesses in the building and real estate community and individual citizens. He stated he is
disappointed that the Town did not get input from a broad cross-section of the public on the plan.
He stated fewer than 100 residents provided input about the plan. He stated he did not see any
evidence that businesses or the development community participated on the open space
committee. He stated the desire for open space should be balanced with the future need for
residential and commercial growth, and land that is best suited for this type of development
should not be included in the open space plan. He stated growth and open space plans that
balance the needs of the environment, community and property use and affordability are critical to
keeping Cary moving in the right direction. He suggested that the Town’s open space planning
occur far enough in advance to anticipate the needs of the community without jeopardizing
private lands. He stated the building and development community should have the opportunity to
provide input into this process.
Mr. Sinclair asked if the Town will have the money to acquire the open space properties in the
future. He questioned whether the use of the utility fees is possible from a legal standpoint. He
encouraged the Town to consider broad-based methods of revenue generations to buy open
space. He stated he hopes the Town will consider the impact that this plan will have on property
values and the delicate balance of common good and the rights of individual land owners. He
offered his group as a resource as the Town moves forward with the open space plan.
Charles Bachman, 6202 Arrington Road, commended the Town for this plan. He stated he
attended the meetings, and all the meetings were open to the public. He stated the farms near
Trenton and Trinity are important to him, and there may have been a technical error in
determining the composition of the land. He stated it was marked as unconsolidated aggregate
(gravel pit), and the weighting was not as high as it might have been. He stated this land was not
classified as a working farm. He urged staff to reevaluate this property. He stated this land is
already public land, and there is an opportunity to protect this land without much cost to Cary.
Mr. Don Hyatt, 101 Parkrise Court, stated the draft plan mentions providing preservation
incentives to resource land owners. He stated in the 1960’s, Bethesda, Maryland instituted a
conservation easement plan, but their conservation easements lasted only 20 years. He stated in
some instances, people sat on their land for 20 years, paid virtually no taxes, and after the time
period expired, they sold to the highest builder and there was a building explosion. He stated the
Council should be totally honest with the public about the total cost of the plan. He stated he finds
it a little disturbing that the Town is funding some of the open space money from increases in the
utility fees. He suggestion a referendum for the voters to decide if they want a tax set aside for
the purchase of open space.
Mr. Charles Rowe, a Medfield resident, former director of the State of North Carolina’s National
Heritage Program and the current director of the North Carolina Conservation Trust, thanked the
06/14/01
Page 72
Council for the innovative plan. He stated the conservation easement tool is very popular with
private North Carolina land owners. He stated Maryland has corrected the mistakes it made 20
years ago, and it is now a role model state for the nation. He suggested that the N.C. State
University land would be a good site for a future “Bond Park” – a blend of active and passive
recreation.
Ms. Marcia Moss, Old White Oak Church Road, thanked the Council for having the foresight to
develop an open space proposal. She stated this action guarantees water and water quality for
generations.
Ms. Melissa Griffin, 7001 Orchard Knoll Drive, Apex (Middle Creek area), stated she supports this
plan. She stated there is a need for open space preservation and additional recreational
opportunities in the area. She asked that the Town consider the privacy and safety of existing
residents with its greenway plan. She stated she supports greenway connectivity to promote
pedestrian and bicycle modes of transportation, and she stated that trails need to link
destinations. She urged the Council to protect land owner rights by implementing voluntary
measures coupled with financial and tax incentives for preservation of open space and historic
resources.
Mayor Lang closed the public hearing.
ACTION: Referred to the Planning and Zoning Board on June 18, 2001
_________________________
6. Public hearings on the following annexation petitions:
a. 01-A-18, Robert and Diann Nelson
The property is located located at 515 High House Road; zoned R-30 and is contiguous with the
Town’s Corporate Limits. The proposed use is for Low-Density Residential, 4.25 Acres. Staff
recommends annexation effective June 14, 2001.
reference.)
b. 01-A-21, Hailey Family, LLC
The property is located at 1510 Old Apex Road; zoned R-12 and is non-contiguous with the
Town’s Corporate Limits. The proposed use is for Low-Density Residential, 1.51 Acres. Staff
reference.)
c. 01-A-24, Glenn D. Ward
The property is located approximately 800 Ft. North of the intersection Road; zoned O & I and is
contiguous with the Town’s Corporate Limits. The proposed use is vacant land, 1 Acre. Staff
reference.)
d. 01-A-25, K&M, LLC
The property is located at 109 Woodwinds Industrial Court; zoned R-30 and is contiguous with
the Town’s Corporate Limits. The proposed use is for Industrial, 1 Acre. Former owners were
Pete and Reba Seagroves, but the new owners have signed the paperwork also requesting the
annexation. Staff recommends annexation effective June 14, 2001.
06/14/01
Page 73
reference.)
e. 01-A-26, Thomas and Linda Stribling
The property is located at 112 Dublin Woods Dr.; Zoned R-30 and is non-contiguous with the
Town’s Corporate Limits. The proposed use is for Residential, 2.17 Acres. Staff recommends
annexation effective June 14, 2001.
reference.)
f.
01-A-27, Town of Cary
The property is located approximately 1900 ft North of the intersection of SE Cary Pky and US 1;
zoned R-12 and is contiguous with the Town’s Corporate Limits, 0.32 Acres. Staff recommends
annexation effective June 14, 2001.
reference.)
Mayor Lang opened the public hearings for all of the above annexation petitions, but no one
came forward to speak; therefore, Mayor Lang closed the public hearings.
ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith made a motion to approve all of the annexation petitions (a
through f). Mr. Ward provided the second, and Council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
I.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REPORT
Consent Agenda
1. Consideration of a request to forward the following rezoning request back to the
Planning and Zoning Board for additional deliberation:
01-REZ-02 / 01-LPA-01: Application by George Fortunes, representing the owner,
Jefferson Sugg, to rezone property from Residential-12 zoning district to Office
and Institutional Conditional Use zoning district. This rezoning request involves
0.30 acres of a 3.63-acre parcel and is located southwest of the intersection of
Kilmayne Drive and S.W. Maynard Road. This request also includes consideration
of amending the Land Use Plan from its current designation of Low Density
Residential to Office and Institutional.
_________________________
2. 00-REZ-37 / 00-LPA-20: Consideration of a request by the applicant, Salem Castles,
Inc., on behalf of the property owners, Carroll and Sheila Ogle, to rezone 7.77 acres
of property from Residential Multi-Family-12 Conditional Use District to Business-2
Conditional Use District. The property is located south of E. Chatham Street, east
of Madsen Motor Company and west of the proposed Capital Area Soccer League
soccer park. This request also includes consideration of amending the Land Use
Plan from its current designation of High Density Residential to Commercial.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS
TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING:
April 12, 2001
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD:
May 21, 2001
TOWN COUNCIL:
June 14, 2001
06/14/01
Page 74
Parcel #
0774.17-22-4407 (portion)
0774.14-22-6619
0774.18-22-6498
0774.18-22-8440
PARCEL INFORMATION
Realid #
0200897 (portion)
0027677
0220592
0087278
Total
Area
2.55 acres
.49 acres
3.40 acres
1.33 acres
7.77 acres
REZONING DATA
Zoning:
Overlay District:
Land Use:
CURRENT
Residential Multi-Family-12
Conditional Use
None
Vacant
PROPOSED
Business-2 Conditional Use
None
Restaurants, retail, hotel and amusement
establishments
REZONING CONDITIONS
CURRENT
RMF 12 CU:
1. All permitted uses identified in this district
shall be allowed except for the following:
Churches, Schools, Cemetery, Golf Course,
Library, Museum, Public Safety Stations,
Transportation facility, and utility substation.
PROPOSED
B-2CU
Note: Conditions indicated in bold were added
since the public hearing.
1. Use of the property shall be limited to
restaurants, retail, amusement establishments
and a hotel.
2. A uniform sign plan governing the entire
rezoned property shall be submitted
concurrent with the first site plan for the
property. A master concept plan shall also
be submitted for the entire property with
the first site plan submitted. The master
plan shall include a circulation plan, which
interconnects the entire rezoned property,
approximate building locations, access
points, buffers, and architectural features
such as building materials and colors.
REZONING HISTORY
Case: Z-551-89-1
From: B-2 and R-30 Zoning To: O&I CU Zoning
Denied by Town Council on: July 27, 1989
REZONING HISTORY
Case: 97-REZ-09
From: B-2 and R-30 Zoning To: RMF-12CU Zoning
Withdrawn on February 13, 1996
06/14/01
Page 75
REZONING HISTORY
Case: 97-REZ-33
From: B-2 and R-30 Zoning To: RMF-12 CU
Approved by Town Council: November 13, 1997
SITE DATA
WATER/SEWER SERVICE
Based on Town of Cary MapInfo:
Water is currently available to serve all of the properties via a 12” waterline within E. Chatham Street
right-of-way.
A public sanitary sewer main extension would be required to serve property 0774.14-22-6619 (910 E
Chatham Street). The other three properties currently have access to a public 8” sanitary sewer main.
Traffic Impact Analysis Required:
TRANSPORTATION
Yes [ x ] No [ ]
Traffic Study Results: The results of the traffic impact analysis are presented in the “Traffic Impact and
Access Study” prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates March 2001.
The project proposal is to construct a unique type of entertainment complex to be known as Medieval
Castle, which will provide a 71-room hotel, three restaurants (one quality, and two high turn-over with a
total seating capacity of 677 seats), 22,000 sq.ft. of specialty retail, and a small administrative office
building. Access to/from the site will be provided via E. Chatham Street, just west of Trinity Road.
The study area included the following four intersections:
E. Chatham Street at NE Maynard Road
E. Chatham Street at Trinity Road
NC 54 at NE Maynard Road
NC 54 at Trinity Road
Weekday PM (4:00-6:00pm) peak period traffic volume data was used in this analysis. The buildout of
the site is expected in 2002.
NC 54 at its intersection with Maynard Road is expected to be improved to a four-lane divided crosssection by 2002. The traffic signal operation will also be improved.
Review of the intersection analysis indicates that the proposed project has a minor impact at study area
intersections. Project traffic does not result in the degradation of service levels at any of the study area
intersections. Based on this, no off-site roadway improvements are necessary to meet the Town’s APF
Ordinance. See Table 6 below.
Thoroughfare Plan: Thoroughfare improvements will be required with the development of this property.
Along the property frontage, E. Chatham Street is designated on the Town’s Thoroughfare Plan to have
an ultimate cross section consisting of a 65’ back to back roadway (5 lanes) centered within a 90’ right of
way. The applicant will be required to ensure that one half of a 65’ back to back street section, including
curb and gutter, sidewalk, and right of way dedication, will be provided in conjunction with site
development. The draft Cary Comprehensive Transportation Plan recommends the E. Chatham Street
cross section to be a 4-lane road with paved median.
06/14/01
Page 76
Table 6
LEVEL-OF-SERVICE SUMMARY
Signalized
Intersections
Time
Period
Existing
2002 No-Build
2002 Build
Delay 1
V/C 2
LOS 3
Delay
V/C
LOS
Delay
V/C
LOS
0.89
D
48.9
0.99
D
D
41.4
0.89
D
E. Chatham
Street at
N. E. Maynard
Road
PM
33.5
0.86
C
39.9
NC 54 at N.
E. Maynard
Road
PM
49.8
1.01
D
35.9
NC 54 at
Trinity Road
PM
14.2
0.58
B
13.6
0.60
B
13.8
0.61
B
PM
14.4
-
B
15.1
-
C
18.2
-
C
0.83
Unsignalized
Intersection
E. Chatham
Street at
Trinity Road
1.
2.
3.
Delay in Seconds per Vehicle
Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
Level-of-Service.
GENERAL NOTES:
1.
2.
For signalized intersections, Delay is representative of overall intersection.
For unsignalized intersections, Delay is representative of critical movement/approach.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
According to the information available to the Town, this project has riparian buffers and these buffers will
have to be addressed during development. The project is not in a protected watershed but will have to
meet the new Nitrogen Removal Ordinance of the Town of Cary which could include Best Management
Practices.
North:
South:
East:
West:
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES
Zoning:
Land Use:
Industrial-2
Public Service Gas
Resource Conservation
Vacant
Office & Institutional
Proposed soccer park
Business-2 & Residential-30
Madsen Motor Company and a single family
dwelling
TOWN OF CARY FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DATA
Plan Designation:
Alternate Designation:
Activity Center:
CURRENT
High Density Residential
None
None
PROPOSED
Commercial
No Change
No Change
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT HISTORY
None.
06/14/01
Page 77
STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
CHANGES SINCE PUBLIC HEARING: *Yes [ X ] No [ ]
* See changes in bold in the above table labeled “Rezoning Conditions”.
PROTEST PETITION FILED:
Valid [ ]
Invalid [ ]
None Filed [ x ]
REZONING REQUEST
Analysis: The rezoning request is to change the existing zoning of RMF-12CU to the proposed
zoning of B-2CU. This request also includes consideration of amending the Land Use Plan from
its current designation of high density multi-family to commercial. The following is an evaluation
of pros and cons of this request:
Pros




The proposed commercial development is a more appropriate use in this location than multifamily development. According to the Town’s Land Use Plan, multi-family development is
best suited within Activity Centers (which this location is not).
The surrounding properties are either zoned or developed as industrial and commercial uses.
For example, there is a large gas tank on the north side of E Chatham Street, along with
several flex-space buildings and a considerable portion of land zoned for light and heavy
industrial uses. The property to the west contains a car dealership and a furniture store. The
property to the east is zoned office & institutional and will be the home of a large soccer park.
Thus, staff feels the proposed zoning will be more compatible with other properties in the
area than would residential.
Prior to the property being rezoned to RMF-12CU, the property was zoned B-2. At that time,
staff recommended that the request for RMF-12CU be denied due to the site being far
removed from existing services. This request would return the property to its original
designation of B-2 but with the added benefit of having zoning conditions.
There is adequate road capacity to handle the anticipated traffic increases.
Cons

Will permit commercial development outside of Activity Centers, which is discouraged by the
Land Use Plan.
In conclusion, staff is supportive of the Land Use Plan amendment and zoning change. This area
is undergoing significant changes with the extension of Trinity Road over the railroad tracks and
the construction of the soccer park. There may also be a fitness center and aquatics facility built
in the vicinity of the soccer park. Continuing from NE Maynard Road to I-40, all the property
along E Chatham Street is zoned for commercial, office and industrial uses, and staff feels that
the proposed zoning would be more appropriate than the existing residential zoning.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Land Use Plan amendment and the
rezoning request.
06/14/01
Page 78
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
At the May 21, 2001, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the requests to amend
the Land Use Plan and rezone this property. The Board unanimously recommended approval of
00-REZ-37 to change the zoning to B-2CU and 00-LPA-20 to change the Land Use Plan
designation to commercial.
_________________________
3. 01-REZ-03 / 01-LPA-03: Consideration of a request by the applicant, Duke-Weeks
Realty, Inc., on behalf of the property owner, Citigroup Investment, Inc., to rezone
property from Business-2 District to Planned Employment Center District. The
property is located along the north side of Gateway Centre Boulevard and contains
33.32 acres. This request also includes consideration of amending the Land Use
Plan from its current designation of Office and Institutional to Office and Industrial.
PROPOSED SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS
TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING:
April 12, 2001
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD:
May 21, 2001
TOWN COUNCIL:
June 14, 2001
PARCEL INFORMATION
Parcel #
Realid #
Area in B-2
zoning
0756.04-93-0835 (part)
0756.04-84-8107 (part)
0756.04-84-6594 (part)
0756.04-84-5886 (part)
0756.02-85-2099 (part)
0756.02-75-9279 (part)
0756.02-75-5785 (part)
0239820 (part)
0239821 (part)
0239822 (part)
0239823 (part)
0239824 (part)
0239825 (part)
0239826 (part)
1.97
0.73
0.34
0.06
0.63
2.14
0.01
Area in
PEC
zoning
3.85
2.96
3.35
3.05
3.44
3.08
7.71
Total Area
5.82
3.69
3.69
3.11
4.07
5.22
7.72
33.32
REZONING DATA
Zoning:
Overlay District:
Land Use:
CURRENT
Planned Employment Center &
Business-2
Airport Overlay District & 100 Foot
Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer
District
Office & Institutional
PROPOSED
This rezoning request includes 7 parcels.
Each parcel is split-zoned, with a portion
of each parcel being zoned Planned
Employment Center and a portion being
zoned Business-2. The purpose of this
rezoning request is eliminate the
Business-2 zoning and make each parcel
uniformly zoned Planned Employment
Center.
No Change
Office/Industrial
06/14/01
Page 79
REZONING CONDITIONS
CURRENT
None
PROPOSED
None
REZONING HISTORY
Case # Z-285-85-1
From R-30 To B-2 Zoning
Approved by Town Council on: 2/28/1985
SITE DATA
WATER/SEWER SERVICE
Base on Town of Cary MapInfo:
Water is currently available to serve all of the properties via a 12” waterline within Gateway Centre Blvd.
right-of-way or an 8” waterline in Northgate Court right-of-way.
A public sanitary sewer main extension will be required to serve Lots 8 and 9 (parcels 0756.02 75 9279
and 0756.02 75 5785). The remaining parcels have access to existing 8” public sanitary sewer mains.
Traffic Impact Analysis Required:
TRANSPORTATION
Yes [ ] No [ x ]
This rezoning does not increase trips to the site; therefore, a traffic impact study is not required.
The southeastern property boundary of Lot 3 (parcel 0756.04 93 0853) is Aviation Parkway. Aviation
Parkway is designated on the Town’s Thoroughfare Plan to have an ultimate cross section consisting of
a 65’ back-to-back street section (5 lane roadway) centered within a 90’ right-of-way. The applicant will
be required to ensure that one half of a 65’ back-to-back street section, including curb and gutter,
sidewalk, and right of way dedication, will be provided in conjunction with site development. The draft
Cary Comprehensive Transportation Plan recommends that Aviation Parkway have an ultimate cross
section consisting of an 8 lane road with a landscaped median.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
According to the information available to the Town, this project has riparian buffers and these buffers will
have to be addressed during development. The project is not in a protected watershed but will have to
meet the new Nitrogen Removal Ordinance of the Town of Cary which could include Best Management
Practices. According to the information available to the Town, this project has Wetland issues that will
have to be addressed during development.
North:
South:
East:
West:
ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USES
Zoning:
Land Use:
Planned Employment Center
Interstate-40
Planned Employment Center
Existing and proposed office buildings
Airport District-II (Wake County)
Property of Raleigh Durham International
Airport
Planned Employment Center & Business-2
Office buildings & flex space
06/14/01
Page 80
TOWN OF CARY FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DATA
CURRENT
Part Office Industrial, part Office
Institutional
None
None
Plan Designation:
Alternate Designation:
Activity Center:
PROPOSED
Office Industrial
No Change
No Change
LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT HISTORY
None.
STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION
CHANGES SINCE PUBLIC HEARING: Yes [ ]
PROTEST PETITION FILED:
Valid [ ]
No [ X ]
Invalid [ ]
None Filed [ x ]
REZONING REQUEST
Analysis: The rezoning request is to change the existing zoning of B-2 to PEC. This request
also includes consideration of amending the Land Use Plan from its current designation of
office/institutional to office/industrial. This purpose of the request is simply to clean up the
existing zoning boundary lines. The 7 parcels are currently split-zoned, with the majority of each
parcel being zoned PEC. This request is to eliminate the B-2 zoning and make each parcel
wholly zoned PEC.
Pros


Will eliminate confusion by ensuring that each parcel has a single zoning designation.
Will eliminate B-2 zoning, which is most appropriate within Activity Centers (which this site is
not).
Cons

None
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Land Use Plan amendment and the
rezoning request.
PLANNING & ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION
At the May 21, 2001, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the requests to rezone
this property and amend the Land Use Plan designation. The Board unanimously recommended
approval of 01-REZ-03 to change the existing B-2 zoning to PEC and 01-LPA-03 to change the
Land Use Plan to an office/industrial designation.
_________________________
06/14/01
Page 81
4. The applicant has requested that Council table the following request until the
July 12, 2001, Cary Town Council meeting:
01-REZ-06 / 01-LPA-06: Consideration of a request by the property owner, J.
Gregory Poole, Jr., to rezone 13.40 acres of property in the northeast quadrant of
the intersection of Edinburgh Drive and Highway 64 from Office and Institutional
District to Residential-Multi-Family-8 Conditional Use District. This request also
includes consideration of amending the Land Use Plan from its current
designation of Office and Institutional to Medium Density Residential.
_________________________
5. 01-SP-060, site plan for a recreation center to be used as a teen dance club in the
existing building located at 300 E. Durham Road
This item was approved immediately following the major special use public hearing.
_________________________
6. 01-SP-005, Good Hope Baptist Church, site plan
_________________________
Mr. Weinbrecht pulled item 1 from the consent agenda.
ACTION: Mayor Pro Tem Smith made a motion to approve consent agenda items 2, 3 and 4
(items 5 and 6 were previously approved). Mr. Ward provided the second, and Council
granted unanimous approval of these items.
_________________________
Mr. Weinbrecht stated he is confused by the staff report for consent agenda item 1, 01-REZ-02.
Mr. Zaccardo confirmed that this item is on the consent agenda to send it back to the Planning
and Zoning Board.
ACTION: Mr. Weinbrecht made a motion to approve consent agenda item 1 (01-REZ-02,
sending it back to the Planning and Zoning Board). Mr. Ward provided the second, and
Council granted unanimous approval.
_________________________
For Discussion
1. 01-SP-037, Waldo Street Townhomes, site plan
_________________________
2. Consideration of adoption of an ordinance amendment related to transportation
impacts and fees (transportation adequate public facilities ordinance).
The P&Z Board unanimously recommended approval of this ordinance amendment with a change
of Section 16.1.12 to replace fifteen years with six years so it reads as follows:
16.1.12. Refunds.
(a) Any transportation development fee or portion thereof collected pursuant to this Chapter
which has not been expended within six years from the last day of the fiscal year in which it
06/14/01
Page 82
was paid, shall be refunded to the record owner of the property for which the development
fee was paid, upon written application by the record owner, with accrued interest at the rate
of return on investments earned by the Town on such amount.
The Board felt that fifteen years was too long to hold the money without spending it. Staff
supported the change.
The Board spent considerable time discussing whether to allow more flexibility on giving credit for
transportation projects that were within the capital improvement program. The Board decided to
not change the ordinance relating to this matter. The Board felt that credit should only be given if
there was a “reasonable expectation” that the improvement will be constructed in time to benefit
the development. The development community had requested this be changed to encourage
high-density mixed-use projects and to provide more assurance that these types of projects can
be built out based on transportation improvements listed within the capital improvement program.
Staff Changes:
Staff has made the following modifications to the ordinance after the P&Z Board’s action:



The effective date for these ordinance amendments is July 1, 2001. Any transportation
impact study application submitted after July 1, 2001 must follow the new ordinance.
Minor changes were made to Section 16.1.15 (f) to improve its clarity regarding certificates of
offsets.
The Level of Service for the North Zone has been changed based on a recommendation from
the Transportation Plan approval. Council made a decision to waive certain intersections
along North Harrison from the APF ordinance requirements. Staff has revised the ordinance
to not waive the requirements but change the level of service at these intersections to "F" with
a 1.5 volume to capacity ratio. Staff feels this would be better than waiving these
intersections entirely from the APF ordinance.
BACKGROUND:
At its April meeting, the P&Z Board brought up several concerns regarding this ordinance. A
response to these concerns are listed below:





Credit for Trip Reduction – The Board wanted to give credit for trip reduction for development
adjacent to a mixed-use project. A revision has been made to allow this provided that the
adjacent development is integrated so that the trip reductions can be achieved (e.g.
interconnections).
Special Events – The Board wanted the language clarified on what constitutes a special
event. A revision has been made to clearly state that traffic studies are not required for
special events if they occur at a non-peak traffic time. This should cover a majority of these
events since most do occur off-peak.
Level-of-Service – The Board wanted information on how other more urbanized cities deal
with level of service. Most urbanizing cities that have traffic impact related ordinances have
changed the way they measure the level of service over the years. Because there is a limit
on how wide roads can be, these urban cities have either reduced their standard or changed
their standard. For example, localities adjacent to the Washington D.C. area have just
increase the acceptable delay time at intersections. Others have gone to a critical lane
capacity that can not be exceeded. In other words, cities reach a point that unless standards
are reduced, development is halted and issues arise with the ability of property owners to
make reasonable use of their land.
90-Minute Peak – The Board wanted to understand how this is measured. Staff will present
this at the May 21st meeting.
Response to the Homebuilders Association’s Letter – Staff has included herein the response
by our consultant to the Homebuilders Association.
06/14/01
Page 83
At the public hearing held on March 22, only one person spoke on this matter. Chuck Nichols,
representing Highwoods Properties, supported the proposed amendments with suggestions on:
increasing the expiration date for certificates of adequate traffic analysis for Planned Unit
Development; and allowing credit for roadway improvements within the Capital Improvement
Program.
The following is a list of significant changes found in these amendments.













Reorganized for user-friendliness
Prohibits phasing to avoid requirements
Requires non-signalized intersections improvements to be warranted
Establishes Transportation Development Zones
Sets different LOS and Measurement in Zones
Requires the study of intersections outside of Planning Area but does not require
improvements
Provides credits for mixed-use and pass-by uses
Requires improvements only in the study area
Clarifies the timing of improvements
Establishes expiration of APF certificate (PUD - 5 yrs; Rezoning - 3 yrs; and Plans - 2 yrs)
Includes methodology for establishing transportation development fees and credits for road
improvements made by applicants
Provides for consistent application of credits for road improvements made by applicants
Addresses "last person in" syndrome through providing greater credits for road improvements
made by applicants
The staff response to comments made by development community representatives on March 15th
is listed below:




Flexibility needed on giving credit for transportation improvements included in the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP). Staff Response: The current ordinance only allows credit for
these improvements when there is a reasonable expectation for completion. Often during the
CIP annual review, transportation improvement projects are shifted or extended based on
funding and current priorities. However, by allowing credit for CIP projects it encourages
larger mixed-use projects like Planned Unit Developments. PUD developers are attracted to
planning large and higher risk projects provided that there is some assurance that their
project will not be stopped at year four (4) for a needed road improvement that was
postponed in the town’s CIP. Staff needs direction on whether or not CIP projects should be
credited toward the Certificate for Adequate Public Facilities for Roads. The ordinance will
need to be revised to incorporate this change.
Ordinance is complex with zones. Staff Response: The Council directed staff to use a zoneapproach to achieve the objectives of focusing growth in certain areas of town. For example
by using zones, the Council can provide financial incentives for development in downtown
area. The Council can also ensure that the development that occurs in another zone pays for
the necessary improvements to support the new growth in a zone (e.g. new interchange at
Crossroads). Achieving these desired objectives produces a more complex process. Staff
has simplified this process by combining the east and west zones into one (new name-Base
Benefit Zone).
Flexibility needed on timing of required improvements for developer agreements. Staff
response: Staff feels that the agreement should provide for the improvements needed in a
reasonable time to benefit the project. Council should determine the degree of flexibility on a
case-by-case basis for each new developer agreement.
Lessen the requirement for “7% intersections”. Staff response: Staff feels that these
intersections should be studied; however, the ordinance has been changed so there would be
06/14/01
Page 84


no recommendation on improvements for these intersections if the approach volume traffic
from the proposed development is less than 1.0 % of the total peak hour volume. This would
prevent requirements to improve these intersections if the proposed project contributes an
insignificant amount of traffic (e.g. 2 or 3 cars in a left turn approach during a peak hour).
Increase the validity of APF certificates for planned unit developments longer than 5 years.
Staff response: The ordinance has been changed to allow the certificate to be longer than 5
years provided that it is tied to the proposed phasing schedule and it is approved by Council.
This should encourage more large, mixed-use projects.
Concerned about the wording on the phasing. Staff response: Staff has changed the wording
to allow the applicant the opportunity to present information showing that the project is not
being phased or subdivided to avoid the need for a certificate.
Based on Council direction the ordinance has been changed to provide for:


Additional Transportation Development Fee credits for previous developer road
improvements; and
A fee reduction opportunity for mixed-use projects.
Staff Recommendation: Approve ordinance amendments with an effective date of July 1, 2001.
Clancy Mullen, Senior Associate
13276 Research Blvd., Suite 208, Austin TX 78750
512-258-7347x204; 512-258-9994 (fax); clancy@duncanplan.com
Memorandum
TO:
Ricky Barker
Associate Director
Town of Cary Planning Department
DATE:
May 4, 2001
RE:
Response to HBA comments on APF philosophy and TDF ordinance
APF Ordinance Philosophy. Jim Wahlbrink, Executive Officer of the Home Builders Association
of Raleigh-Wake County, challenges the premise of the Adequate Public Facility (APF)
ordinance. In an April memo to the Cary Planning and Zoning Board, he cites a report by the
Florida Growth Management Study Commission that recommends repealing that State’s
concurrency regulations and replacing them with an incentive-based system.2 That report did
contain the undocumented assertion that concurrency in Florida contributed to sprawl. However,
there are several points to keep in mind here.
A major problem in Florida’s concurrency system has been a lack of capital funding. For
example, the State’s investments in infrastructure fell from 3% of revenues in 1960 to 1%
in 1985.3 In contrast, Cary has demonstrated a willingness to fund road improvements.
From a regional perspective, APF regulations in Cary could hardly be a major contributor
to urban sprawl, even if they resulted in shutting down development in the town.
The APF ordinance amendments do not implement a new regulatory scheme, since the
major elements have already been in place in Cary for several years.
2
Florida Growth Management Study Commission, A Livable Florida for Today and Tomorrow–Final
Report, February 2001
Ronald Weaver, “Concurrency, Concurrency Alternatives, Infrastructure Planning and Regional Solution
Issues,” Nelson Symposium, University of Florida, October 13, 2000
3
06/14/01
Page 85
TDF Ordinance Comments. Below are our responses to points raised by the Home Builders
Association about the proposed amendments to the Transportation Development Fee (TDF)
ordinance. These issues were raised in a memo from Jim Wahlbrink, Executive Officer, to the
Cary Planning and Zoning Board, received by Town Planning staff on April 16, 2001.
1.
Comment: “The builder or developer does not pay impact fees; the new homeowner
pays them.”
Response: There is no consensus on this point among economists who have looked at
the incidence of impact fees. It is possible that some or even all of the fee is passed on
to the buyer, but some of the cost may also be absorbed by the land owner in the form of
lower land prices or by the developer in the form of lower profit margins. The price of
homes is set by the market, and that market is regional, so it may not be possible for
developers to pass on the fees. The land cannot move to another jurisdiction, so if
developers in Cary must compete with homebuilders in other jurisdictions not subject to
impact fees, landowners may have to accept lower prices for their land.
2.
Comment: “Over 50% of new home sales are to families already living in Cary,
consequently it is Cary residents that are paying the majority of these impact fees.”
Response: That may be true, but impact fees are not charged based on who will occupy
the new units, they are charged on the new development itself. Also, it is not clear that
end users actually end up paying the fees, as discussed in #1 above.
3.
Comment: “What was the reasoning to change to a improvement driven approach...?
The change in methodology ... is not as legally defensible in court, according to our own
consultants.”
Response: The Town Council directed us to pursue the improvements-driven approach,
in order to ensure that growth pays for itself, both on a Town-wide basis and in specific
areas where significant improvements are required (e.g., the Crossroads area
interchange). It is true that, in general, the more conservative the methodology, and the
lower the fee imposed, the easier it is to defend in court. The improvements-driven
approach is more aggressive in its ability to recoup the full cost of growth, and this alone
may make it more likely to be the subject of litigation. This does not mean that it cannot
be defended, only that it is more dependent on good transportation planning and analysis
to back it up. We feel that the Town has a firm foundation for these fees in the
transportation plan prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates and the analysis that we have
prepared based on the plan and additional transportation modeling done by Wilbur Smith
to allocate project costs based on the location of trip origins and destinations.
4.
Comment: “In the improvement driven approach you figure the cost of two lanes,
because you cannot build a quarter of lane. Consequently, new development is paying
for excess capacity over what they are impacting and that can lead to excessive fees.”
The HBA memo goes on to cite a passage from a report we prepared for Colorado
Springs, where we state, in part: “If many of the planned improvements will provide
excess capacity over the planning horizon that will be available to serve additional
development beyond the planning horizon on which the fees are based, the fees may be
too high.”
Response: We raised this issue ourselves in Cary’s Transportation Development Fee
Update,4 and addressed it by performing an analysis to confirm that the transportation
“An improvements-driven approach ... does not charge new development for the excess capacity in the
existing roadway that it consumes. On the other hand, it does charge new development over the planning
horizon for all of the new capacity that is created by the improvements needed to serve it, even if these
4
06/14/01
Page 86
plan was not going to expand the capacity of the major roadway system faster than
projected growth in traffic. That analysis, presented in Table 7 of the report, shows that,
in fact, peak hour trips from Cary’s planning area are projected to almost double (93%
increase), while the improvements would only expand vehicle-miles of capacity by about
one-half (49% increase). While individual projects may create some excess capacity, in
the aggregate capacity is planned to be added at a slower rate than it is projected to be
consumed.
5.
Comment: “Credits in the impact fee formula should be at full value, not present market
[sic] value. They are using full value on the cost and present value on the credits. They
should be using the same methodology for both.”
Response: The cost estimates for the projects in the transportation plan are not inflated
for the year in which they are anticipated to be built, but are in current dollars. Nor have
interest costs been included, although in all likelihood bonding will be necessary in most
cases. The net present value calculations are used to provide comparability between the
current cost of improvements and the future stream of annual tax and fee payments from
new development. Thus, although a payment of $10 a year for 20 years adds up to
$200, it is worth somewhat less than a payment of $200 today.
6.
Comment: “Credits in the impact fee formula should be transferred from the general
fund to the impact fee fund. This will insure that there are sufficient funds in the impact
fee fund to build the needed improvements of the Cary Road plan.”
Response: There is no legal requirement that full funding of the capital improvements
plan needs to be guaranteed in the way suggested by the HBA. We would consider,
however, adding to the ordinance a provision that zonal or town-wide impact fee funding
for any project would not exceed the percentages identified as attributable to zonal or
town-wide development in the study.
The proposed ordinance follows:
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES FOR ROADS AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT
FEES
Amend Appendix A Chapter 5 Part 15, Adequate Public Facilities Planning and Development for
Roads and Chapter 16, Part 1 Transportation Development Fees as follows:
PART 15
ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR ROADS
5.15.1 Purpose
(a) The purpose of this Part is to insure that, to the maximum extent practical, new developments
will be approved only when it can reasonably be expected that public facilities for roads will
be available to accommodate such new developments. This adequate public facilities
ordinance for roads (APFR) is only one part of the solution to address transportation issues.
The focus of this Part is on addressing transportation impacts from new development. This
improvements create more capacity than will actually be needed on that roadway within the planning
horizon. The implicit assumption is that these will in some rough way balance out, since there will always
be some excess capacity needed in the system. However, analysis will be conducted to verify that the
transportation plan does not envision a disproportionate expansion of roadway capacity when compared to
growth in traffic demand.” (page 11 of March 1, 2001 draft)
06/14/01
Page 87
Part should not be completely relied upon to address existing transportation system
deficiencies. Other parts of this solution include a comprehensive multi-model transportation
plan, a strong and well-funded Capital Improvement Program, a supportive transit system,
mixed use projects, well designed development that limits impacts or enhances the
transportation system and support of car pooling, flexible work schedules and other similar
concepts.
(b) Relationship to Vested Rights. No portion of this ordinance shall be interpreted or deemed to
affect any rights which have vested prior to the enactment hereof.
Principle of Interpretation:
Overview: The following is a general overview of components of this Part. The specific
requirements are located within the various sections in this Part and Chapter 16 Transportation
Development Fees:
1. All applicants for rezonings and development plans that meet the trip generation threshold
are required to complete a traffic analysis and receive a Certificate of Adequate Public
Facilities for Roads.
2. All traffic impact analyses are completed by the town either through consultants or staff.
3. The Study Area for the traffic analysis is based on the size of and/or the location of the
project. Higher auto trip uses generate a larger study area. All controlled access roadways
are not included in the analysis; however, the intersections of the ramps with roadways are
included.
4. Primarily, the level of service of intersections is used to evaluate transportation impacts within
the study area.
5. The Town has been divided into five (5) transportation development zones. The required
level of service and standards for its measurement are established within each zone. Within
each zone, the transportation development fees are established based on future
transportation system improvements established by the Town’s Transportation Plan and
Transportation Capital Improvement Programs. A town wide transportation development fee
has also been established.
6. As the result of the analysis, the applicant is required to make site related improvements that
can be contributed to the proposed development (for example, turn lanes in and out of the
site and other related improvement). Council must grant exceptions to this. Off-site
improvements needed because the roadway/intersection is currently failing and/or the
development does not contribute greater than seven percent of the traffic to the failure are to
be completed by the town or jointly with the applicant.
7. A Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities for Roads may be issued provided that guarantees
are made on who will be responsible for the improvements required by the traffic analysis and
when these improvements will be completed.
8. Applicant may receive credits/reimbursements for their qualifying transportation system
improvements.
9. Certificates of Adequate Public Facilities for Roads are valid for two years with development
plans, three years for rezonings and five years or longer for planned unit developments.
5.15.2 Requirements for Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities for Roads
(a) Applicability.
1. New or Amended Projects: No subdivision plan, site plan, master land use plan for a
planned unit development, or rezoning that meets requirements for a traffic analysis may
be approved unless on the date of such approval there exists a valid and current
Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities for Roads (CAPFR) applicable to the project for
which such approval is sought. A CAPFR issued in connection with a rezoning or planned
unit development approval shall constitute a CAPFR for any subdivision or site plan that is
consistent with and encompassed within such rezoning or master plan approval so long as
06/14/01
Page 88
the CAPFR for the rezoning or master plan approval remains valid (see Section 5.15.6
Expiration of Certificates of Adequacy of Public Facilities for Roads).
2. Automatic Certification for Small and Low Density Developments. A determination as to
the adequacy of public facilities need not be made with respect to roads if the nature of the
proposed development is such that the number of estimated trips generated does not
exceed the trip generation established in 5.15.4 Evaluation of Adequacy of Transportation:
Traffic Impact Analysis.
3. Previously Approved Projects and Projects Pending Approval. Previously Approved
Projects and projects pending action by the Town shall follow the APFR requirements
existing at the time they were approved or submitted. Applicants may choose to have
their projects meet current APFR requirements. Except as otherwise provided herein, the
provisions of this Part shall apply to applications for approval of subdivision plans, site
plans, rezoning, and planned unit developments that were submitted for approval by the
Town after June 14, 2001.
4. The provisions of this Part shall not apply to amendments to subdivision plans, site plans,
or rezonings approved prior to the effective date of this Part so long as the approvals have
not expired and the proposed amendment does not increase the demand generated by
that development on any of the public facilities covered under this Part by more than five
percent.
5. Special exemptions for Planned Unit Developments that were granted under the interim
ordinance by the Town Council prior to May 25, 2000, shall become invalid with the
adoption of the permanent ordinance.
(b) Timing for Certificate. Generally, a certificate is obtained prior to approval of development
plans, planned unit development, or rezoning. However, an applicant may obtain a CAPFR
for a proposed development before an application for approval of a subdivision plan, site
plan, rezoning, or planned unit development is submitted. The CAPFR, if issued, shall expire
based on type of project it is based upon as provided in Section 5.15.6 Expiration of
Certificates of Adequacy of Public Facilities for Roads.
(c) Transferring of Certificate. CAPFR's attach to the land in the same way that development
permission attaches to the land. CAPFR's may be transferred along with other interests in the
property with respect to which they are issued, but may not be severed or transferred
separately.
(d) Prohibiting Phasing to Avoid Requirements: It is the Town’s intent to ensure that larger
developments are not phased or subdivided in piecemeal fashion in order to qualify for
automatic certification under this Part. Two or more developments, represented by their
owners or developers to be separate developments, shall be aggregated and treated as a
single development under this Part when they are determined to be part of a unified plan of
development and are physically proximate to one other. The following factors will be
considered to determine whether there is a unified plan of development:
1. There is unified ownership, indicated by the fact that
a. the same person has retained or shared control of the developments;
b. the same person has ownership or a significant legal or equitable interest in
the developments; or
06/14/01
Page 89
c. there is common management of the developments controlling the form of
physical development or disposition of parcels of the development.
2. There is a reasonable closeness in time between the completion of 80 percent or less
of one development and the submission to the town of a master plan or series of plans
or drawings for the other development which is indicative of a common development
effort.
3. The voluntary sharing of infrastructure that is indicative of a common development
effort or is designated specifically to accommodate the developments.
4. There is a common advertising scheme or promotional plan in effect for the
developments.
5. Any information provided by the applicant that the project is not being phased or
subdivided to avoid the need for a certificate.
5.15.3 Level of Service and Establishment of Transportation Zones
(a) Level of Service as a Measurement of Adequacy. Although other measurements may be
considered, the primary measurement of adequate public facilities for roads is the level of
service as defined by the most current edition of the Highway Capacity Manual. The required
level of service and how it is measured is set forth for each zone under Section 5.15.3.(c)
below. Level of service is measured at peak hours within the study area. Modifications to
how level of service is measured is provided for in certain zones (see below). Should the
existing level of service fail to meet the requirements of the peak hour level of service as
defined within each zone, there cannot be an increase in average delay for the affected
intersection (measured in its entirety). No increase in delay time will be allowed for signalized
intersections with a level of service below the requirement within each zone.
(b) Measuring Non-signalized Intersections. Additional traffic generated from a proposed project
may result in a non-signalized public road intersection within the study area to fall below the
desired level of service. The primary solution for improving these intersections is to install a
signal; however, it is not the intent of this Part to require signals to be automatically installed
at all non-signalized intersections that fail (e.g. some intersections may have low volumes or
located too close to existing signals). Staff may use additional analysis to determine if a
signal is required (e.g. gap analysis). Installation of new signals shall only be required when
the following conditions exist:
1. The intersection meets required warrants for a signal; and
2. The signal does not cause an undesirable delay in the surrounding road system.
(c) Establishments of Transportation Zones. Five (5) Transportation Zones have been
established for the purpose of evaluating transportation impacts and assessment of
transportation development fees. (See Section 16.1.6 Transportation Zones). The official
map of Transportation Zones is on display and is available in the Engineering Department
1. Central. This zone encompasses all land 400 feet or more away from the innermost
right-of-way boundary of Maynard Loop. This includes all the downtown area. This
zone’s primary focus is to encourage redevelopment and infill. The Level of Service
standard is “F” with a traffic analysis based upon a 90-minute average peak and a
roadway volume to capacity ratio not to exceed 1.25.
2. North. This zone contains the northern employment centers (SAS and Weston). This
zone’s primary focus is new employment. The Level of Service standard is “D” with a
06/14/01
Page 90
traffic analysis based upon a 90-minute average peak; however, the Level of Service
standard for the following intersections with North Harrison Avenue will be “F” with a
volume to capacity ratio of 1.5: Weston Parkway, Harrison Oaks Boulevard, SAS
Campus Drive, I-40 interchange ramps, the signalized intersection of Harrison Park
Shopping Center, and Richard Drive.
3. Northwest. This zone contains a targeted multi-use growth area. This zone’s primary
focus is the creation of new jobs and housing that reduces the travel distance from
work to home. The Level of Service standard is “D” with a traffic analysis based upon
a 90-minute average peak.
4. Southeast. This zone contains a regional retail activity centers. This zone’s primary
focus is on minimizing the amount of development until major transportation
improvements have been made. The Level of Service standard is “D” with a traffic
analysis based upon the standard Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) average
peak hour.
5. Base Benefit Zone. This zone contain the remainder of the area not within the other
four zones provides transportation system benefits to them. The Level of Service
standard is “D” with a traffic analysis based upon the standard ITE average peak hour.
06/14/01
Page 91
06/14/01
Page 92
5.15.4. Evaluation of Adequacy of Transportation: Traffic Impact Analysis
(a) Overview. The adequacy of service levels for roads and intersections that serve or are
affected by a proposed project shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of this
section as well as the remaining provisions of this Part.
06/14/01
Page 93
(b) Threshold for Traffic Analysis. A determination as to the adequacy of public facilities (traffic
impact analysis) is required if the nature of the proposed development is such that the
number of trips it can be expected to generate equals to or exceed (1) 100 peak hour trips or
(2) 1,000 total trips within a twenty-four hour period. Daily trips are those occurring on peak
days on the adjacent roadway (e.g. daily trips on a Sunday may not be applicable). Trip
generation shall be measured based on the current edition of the ITE Trip Generation
Manual. The following shall also be used in determining if and/or when a study is required:
1. Redevelopment. For the purpose of redevelopment, trip generation will be defined as
the net new trips generated by the proposed use over the trips generated by any previous
use of the site.
2. Downzoning. Whenever a property is being rezoned to a less intensive trip generation
zoning district, a traffic study is not required at the time of the rezoning application. A
traffic study may be required with the development plan application if it meets the
thresholds above.
3. Special Events. It is not the intent of this Part to require a traffic analysis for a use that
generates trips that meet or exceed the threshold but do not occur during the adjacent
roadway system’s peak hour. For example, facilities designed for sporting events,
concerts or other similar uses may not require a traffic analysis because the events
occurs during a non-peak hour or non-peak day. If a traffic study is required for a use,
then the analysis shall be based upon the normal trip generation for the proposed use
and not that associated with special event(s).
(c) Preparing the Study. The town shall prepare or have prepared (using town staff or a retained
consultant) a written Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for every development for which an
application for a CAPFR is submitted. The purpose of the TIA is to analyze and document for
the benefit of the relevant town boards and staff, as well as the property owner and
developer, whether and under what circumstances a CAPFR can be issued, insofar as the
public road system is concerned, for the proposed development.
(d) Study Area Boundaries. The extent of the study area for the TIA depends upon the location
and size of the proposed project and the prevailing conditions of the surrounding area. The
study area is defined in the following table. Controlled access roadways are not included in
the study area or analysis; the controlled access ramp intersections with non-controlled
access roadways are subject to analysis.
Trip Generation
Study Area
100-150 peak hour trips or 1,000-1,500
daily trips
½ mile plus any intersection on which at least 7%
of any traffic movement approach volume is
generated by the proposed project.
More than 150 peak hour trips or 1,500
daily trips
1 mile plus any intersection on which at least 7% of
any traffic movement approach volume is
generated by the proposed project
More than 100 peak hour trips or 1,000
1/4 mile plus any intersections on which at least
daily trips within the Central Transportation 7% of any traffic movement approach volume are
Zone
generated by or as a result of the proposed project.
(e) Intersections/roadways outside of the town’s planning area. These intersections/roadways as
defined by the Land Use Plan shall be studied if they fall within the defined study area
boundary. Any improvements to these intersections/roadways recommended by the study
06/14/01
Page 94
shall not be required to obtain a Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities for Roads. However,
Council may consider this information in determining whether the associated development
plan or rezoning meets the criteria and standards for approval.
(f) Trip Generation Standards. Trip generation data for each project shall be based upon the
Institute of Traffic Engineers' Trip Generation Manual, supplemented by any other data
deemed reliable by the Town. The following other standards also apply to projects:
1. Credit for Mixed Use, Pass-by Trips. The determination of the number of trips
generated shall also take into account pass-by trips, internal trip capture for
integrated mixed-use projects (e.g. roadway and/or pedestrian connectivity) and any
proposed transportation demand management system, provided that adequate
guarantees can be provided to the Town to ensure that such demand management
system will function as claimed for the life of the project. In addition, if the proposed
development is designed and integrated with an adjacent mixed-use project (e.g.
roadways), then a credit for trips may be permitted.
2. Estimated Trips for Rezonings/PUDs. In evaluating the impact of a proposed
rezoning or planned unit development where the specific uses or exact number of
dwelling units have not been specified, estimates shall be based upon the highest
level of density or intensity of use that would be authorized by the requested
approvals.
(g) Submission Requirements: At the time of the initial submission, the applicant is required to
submit the following information:
1. Traffic Analysis Base Information, Site location map, Site layout, if applicable;
Data on the existing/proposed land use
Projected timing of construction and build-out year
Description of the project
2. Additional Information: Since most applications for a CAPFR will be submitted in
conjunction with a request for approval of a subdivision plan, site plan, rezoning, or
planned unit development, the staff will generally have all the information necessary
from the applicant to make a determination as to whether the CAPFR can be issued.
However, if an application for a CAPFR is submitted prior to an application for a
development plan, rezoning and/or PUD, or if the staff otherwise has a reasonable
need for additional information, such information shall be furnished by the applicant
upon request.
3. Study Fee: After preliminary review of the data submitted under item (1) above, the
town shall prepare an estimate of consulting fees for the analysis of traffic impact for
the project. Upon receipt of payment of fees from the applicant in the amount of the
projected cost estimate, the town shall release the work to a consultant for analysis.
After completion of the analysis, the town shall evaluate the actual costs incurred for
the study and will reimburse to the applicant any remaining balance of the fee paid
less an administrative fee of 10% of the total actual costs incurred.
(h) Required Factors to Include in Study. In each case, the issue as to whether adequate service
levels will be maintained will be resolved by evaluating the projected impact of the proposed
development on the public facilities in question at the time occupancy is expected to occur.
This analysis will take into account, not only the status of existing facilities and the impact of
the proposed development, but also the projected impact of the following on the capacity of
those facilities.
06/14/01
Page 95
1. Projected capital improvements that will increase the capacity of the facilities in
question. If the completion of such improvements is necessary for a CAPFR to be
issued for a particular project, then there must be a reasonable expectation that such
improvements will be completed in time to be of benefit to such project. A "reasonable
expectation" of a proposed completion date requires, at the very least, that
construction of the improvements has received all necessary governmental approvals
and that funding is in place, or that such approvals and funding appear reasonably
certain.
2. All single-family residential building lots that have received final plat approval but that
do not contain a completed dwelling.
3. All single-family residential building lots for which subdivision plan approval has been
granted and all non-residential and multi-family residential developments for which a
site plan has been approved, so long as such approvals have not expired.
4. All rezonings and approvals of master land use plans for planned unit developments
which have a valid CAPFR, if and to the extent that subdivision or site plan approvals
for portions of such developments have been granted.
5. All developments for which subdivision or site plan approval applications have been
submitted but not yet granted, so long as CAPFR's for such projects have been issued
and remain unexpired.
6. Growth outside the town's planning jurisdiction that will likely impact the public
facilities in question as reflected by appropriate increases in background traffic.
(i) Tracking of Required Factors. The staff shall develop a system of keeping track of the factors
described in subsection (h) above in order to facilitate the determination in each case of
whether a CAPFR can be issued.
(j) Final Results of Study. The analysis must set forth the required transportation system
improvements needed to meet the requirements of this Part. The analysis shall also, to the
extent practicable, identify the improvements to the road system within the study area that
would allow the CAPFR to be issued. The required improvements based upon the issuance of
the CAPFR are limited to those within the study area. No recommendation on improvements
are required on those “7 % intersections” studied if the approach volume traffic from the
proposed development is less than 1.0 of the total peak hour volume.
5.15.5 Issuance of Certificate for Adequate Public Facilities:
(a) The Engineering Director shall issue a CAPFR if he concludes that adequate service levels
for roads as described in Section 5.15.3 (Level of Service and Establishment of
Transportation Zones) will be maintained. For purposes of this section, service levels will be
"maintained" by the proposed development if, at the time the CAPFR is sought, it reasonably
appears that, considering the results of traffic analysis, service levels will not drop below the
standards set forth in Section 15.5.3.
(b) Timing of Required Improvements. In concluding whether a CAPFR may be issued, the Town
Manager shall ensure that the following is met:
1. If the required improvements are to be made by the town or the North Carolina
Department of Transportation, no certificate of occupancy will be issued for the project
until final plans or 90 % plans as defined by NCDOT for the projects have been approved
unless otherwise approved by Council.
06/14/01
Page 96
2. If the improvements are to be constructed by the developer, no certificate of
occupancy will be issued for the project until the improvements have been completed. If
there is a reasonable expectation for completion, required improvements may occur after
certificate of occupancy if plans have received approval by the town and the
improvements have been secured by a bond or other method meeting the town
requirements.
3. Notwithstanding the above, if a portion of a development project can be
accommodated at the specified level of service for the zone prior to the need for the
improvement based upon the traffic analysis, certificates of occupancy may be issued for
that portion of the development project prior to the requirements set forth in (a) and (b)
above.
(c) Alternatives for Addressing Required Improvements: If the TIA concludes that a CAPFR
cannot be issued in accordance with the provisions of this Part because of inadequate road
facilities within the study area, then the developer may then choose to: (i) delay the
development until the necessary improvements are constructed by the town or the State, (ii)
construct the necessary improvements himself, (iii) enter into an agreement with the town to
participate financially in the cost of the improvements in order to accelerate their construction,
(iv) scale the project down so that it meets the standards of this Part or is entitled to an
automatic certification under the provisions of Section 5.15.2 Requirements for Certificate of
Adequate Public Facilities for Roads. If the agreement alternative is chosen, the applicant
must secure the participation of the town in the required improvements prior to development
plan approval.
5.15.6 Expiration of Certificates of Adequacy of Public Facilities for Roads
A CAPFR that has been obtained shall expire according to the following based on the related
type of project:
Planned Unit Developments – 5 years or longer provided that the certificate is base upon the
build-out plan submitted with the PUD and used with the traffic analysis. Council must approve
certificates longer than 5 years.
Rezoning – 3 years
Development Plan – 2 years or upon the expiration of the development plan.
Council may extend the certificate beyond the timeframes above if it is determined that a new
study will not identify any substantial changes in the required transportation improvements.
CHAPTER 16. TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEES
16.1.1. Purpose.
The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a procedure to assist in the funding of road
improvements required by new growth in the Town's jurisdiction. It is not the intent of this Chapter
to require the developer to pay for all new road construction. The Town of Cary provides a fee
schedule in this Chapter so that a procedure is in place for new development to pay a prorated
share of road costs required to provide adequate road improvements to serve new construction
before the new development is completed.
16.1.2. Authority.
This Chapter is adopted pursuant to the powers conferred by the General Assembly of North
Carolina and set forth in House Bill 684 of the 1987 Session.
06/14/01
Page 97
16.1.3. Findings.
(a) The Town is experiencing rapid population and employment growth, in part, because of its
proximity to regional employment facilities such as the Research Triangle Park and Raleigh
Durham International Airport.
(b) The anticipated population and employment growth in the Town creates demand for
additional capital improvement funds for roadway facilities, which include but are not limited
to, streets, intersection improvements, culverts and road-related drainage improvements, turn
lanes, and signalization.
(c) The Town and the North Carolina Department of Transportation are responsible for and
committed to the provision of such road-related improvements at a level of service necessary
to support anticipated residential and employment growth.
(d) The Town has adopted and the North Carolina Department of Transportation has approved,
the Town of Cary Official Map of Thoroughfare Plan, which identifies additional road capital
improvements necessary to serve new construction. The Town has also developed the Cary
Comprehensive Transportation Plan, which addresses long-term road improvement needs to
the year 2015 and beyond.
(e) The General Assembly of North Carolina has authorized the Town to impose a transportation
development fee on new construction.
(f) The transportation development fee herein established is directly proportional to the need for
new road improvements generated by new construction and reasonably benefits the
construction which pays the fee.
16.1.4. Applicability.
This Chapter shall apply to all new construction within the Town's planning jurisdiction, and shall
apply within each transportation zone.
16.1.5. Condition of Approval.
No certificate of compliance under the North Carolina State Building Code shall be issued for new
construction within the jurisdiction of this Ordinance unless and until the transportation
development fee herein established has been paid in full. No building permit shall be issued for
residential construction within the Town unless and until such fee has been paid in full.
16.1.6. Transportation Zones.
There shall be five transportation zones, which together encompass the entire planning
jurisdiction of the town. The purposes of the transportation zones are to help ensure that
adequate funding is available in different areas of the town's planning jurisdiction to pay for road
improvements needed to maintain adequate levels of service appropriate to each area. The
transportation fees paid by new development in each zone are partially based on the cost of
improvements within that zone and are partially based on the cost of town-wide improvements.
The total transportation impact fee paid represents two fees—a fee for the zone the property is
located and a town wide fee. The transportation zones are defined in Section 5.15.3 Level of
Service and Establishment of Transportation Zones.
16.1.7. Fees.
06/14/01
Page 98
(a) Every person seeking a building permit, certificate of compliance, or business privilege
license for construction for which a transportation development fee is due but has not been
paid shall pay such transportation development fee prior to the issuance of the building
permit, certificate of compliance, or business privilege license, as the case may be.
(b) The fee shall be computed by proposed building use and based on the construction plans
submitted for approval, according to the schedule set forth in the annual Town of Cary
operating budget, except for fees computed by an individual assessment in accordance with
Section 16.1.8 (Individual Assessments) below.
(c) If the proposed new construction contains a mix of building uses, the development fee shall
be calculated separately for each use according to the fee schedule.
(d) The fee shall be collected for additions and remodeling to existing structures for that portion
of the structure which represents an increase above the number of dwelling units or the floor
area of the building as it exists on the date of adoption of this Ordinance.
(e) The following shall be exempt from the terms of this Ordinance.
(1) Alteration or expansion of an existing building where no additional dwelling units are
created, the use is not changed, and where no additional vehicle trips will be
produced over and above that produced by the existing use.
(2) The construction of accessory buildings or structures that will not produce additional
vehicle trips over and above that produced by the principal building or use of the
land.
(3) The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed building or structure with a new
building or structure of the same size and use, provided that no additional trips will be
produced over and above that produced by the original use of the land.
(4) Private recreational facilities provided that such facilities are restricted for use by
residents and their guests without charge and no additional vehicle trips will be
produced over and above that produced by the principal residential use.
16.1.8. Individual Assessments.
(a) If any person believes that his or her proposed construction is unique in the traffic impacts
which it will generate, such person may request that the Town perform an individual
assessment of the traffic impacts of the proposed construction. Such person shall pay to the
Town, in escrow, a sufficient fee to pay the cost of obtaining such assessment from a
professional engineer selected and hired by the Town. The Town shall then obtain the
services of the professional engineer to perform the assessment, paying the engineer from
the escrow account and remitting the balance to the person requesting the assessment. The
Town Council shall, at a public hearing, consider the request of the applicant to pay the fee
based on the individual assessment. The Town shall assess the fee based on the individual
assessment if the Town Council finds that:
(1) The proposed construction is in fact so unique that the application of the fee
schedule adopted by the Town would result in the collection of a fee that is not
proportionate to the traffic impact of the proposed construction;
(2) There is a difference between the fees computed under the fee schedule and the
fees computed in accordance with the individual assessment of at least 5,000 dollars
($5,000.00) or five percent of the total fees computed under this Chapter, whichever
amount is greater.
06/14/01
Page 99
(b) The professional engineer to perform each individual assessment shall be selected by the
Town Manager or his or her designee from a list of qualified engineers maintained by the
Town. The list shall contain the names of at least three engineers or engineering firms, and
shall be updated annually by a committee appointed by the Mayor and Town Council and
including representatives of the Town and the development community. The Town Council
reserves the right to dispute the assumptions, methodology, or conclusions of individual
assessments. An individual assessment may take into consideration such factors as internal
capture of trips in mixed-use projects and higher rates of passby trips than indicated by ITE if
supported by reliable local data.
(c) Fees computed under this Section shall be computed in dollars per dwelling unit (for
residential uses) or dollars per 1,000 square feet of non-residential floor area (for nonresidential uses), using the following formula:
ZONE FEE + TOWN FEE
TOTAL FEE
=
ZONE FEE
=
PK HR VMT x ZONE NET COST/VMT x ZONE%
TOWN FEE
=
PK HR VMT x TOWN NET COST/VMT x TOWN%
Where:
PK HR VMT
=
PK HR TRIPS x % NEW x LENGTH
PK HR TRIPS
=
Trip ends during PM peak hour of adjacent street traffic
% NEW
=
Percent of trips that are primary, as opposed to passby or diverted-link
trips
LENGTH
=
Average length of a trip on the major road system, expressed in miles
per trip end
ZONE NET COST/VMT
=
ZONE COST/VMT - ZONE CREDIT/VMT
TOWN NET COST/VMT
=
TOWN COST/VMT - TOWN CREDIT/VMT
ZONE COST/VMT
=
ZONE COST ÷ ZONE VMT
TOWN COST/VMT
=
TOWN COST ÷ TOWN VMT
ZONE COST
=
Portion of the cost of improvements needed in the zone over the
planning horizon that is attributable to new development within the
zone
TOWN COST
=
Portion of the cost of improvements over the planning horizon that is
attributable to new development in the Town’s jurisdiction but outside
the zone in which the improvement is located
ZONE VMT
=
New peak hour vehicle-miles of travel generated by anticipated
development in the zone over the planning horizon
TOWN VMT
=
Total new peak hour vehicle-miles of travel generated by anticipated
development in the Town’s jurisdiction over the planning horizon
ZONE CREDIT/VMT
=
TOTAL CREDIT/VMT - TOWN CREDIT/VMT
06/14/01
Page 100
TOWN CREDIT/VMT
=
TOTAL CREDIT/VMT x %CREDIT
TOTAL CREDIT/VMT
=
Net present value of future revenue per peak hour VMT that will go
toward remedying existing deficiencies, providing capacity for passthrough traffic and repaying old debt
%CREDIT
=
Average of TOTAL CREDIT/VMT ÷ (ZONE COST/VMT + TOWN
COST/VMT) for all zones
ZONE%
=
Percent of the full net cost at which the zonal fees are assessed based
on policy decision of the Town Council, may range from 0% to 100%
and may vary by transportation zone
TOWN%
=
Percent of the full net cost at which the town-wide fees are assessed
based on policy decision of the Town Council, may range from 0% to
100%
16.1.9. Collection of Fees.
(a) The transportation development fee for proposed new residential construction shall be
computed in conjunction with the application for a building permit, and shall be collected prior
to or simultaneously with the issuance of the building permit, unless otherwise provided
herein.
(b) The transportation development fee for proposed new office, commercial, or industrial
construction that is not speculative construction shall be computed in conjunction with the
application for a building permit and shall be collected prior to or simultaneously with the
issuance of the building permit, unless otherwise provided herein.
(c) The transportation development fee for proposed new commercial or industrial construction
that is speculative construction shall be computed in conjunction with the application for a
building permit and shall be collected prior to or simultaneously with the issuance of the
building permit for the first fit-up to be constructed within the shell.
(d) When any person applies for a business license for a use in a structure for which a building
permit or a certificate of occupancy is not required, the transportation development fee shall
be collected at the time the application for the business license is made.
16.1.10. Fund Accounting.
(a) The Town shall establish an account for each transportation zone into which the zonal portion
of the development fees collected within the zone shall be credited. The town-wide portion of
the fee shall be credited to a separate, town-wide account. Interest at the actual rate of
return on invested funds of the Town shall be credited periodically, but not less often than
quarterly, in accordance with the accounting policies of the Town.
(b) Interest earned on the account into which the development fees are deposited shall accrue to
the account and shall be used for the purposes specified for such account.
(c) The Town shall maintain and keep financial records for each account showing the revenues
to the account and the disbursements from the account, in accordance with normal Town
accounting practices. The records of the account shall be open to public inspection in the
same manner as other financial records of the Town.
16.1.11. Use of Funds.
06/14/01
Page 101
(a) The revenues from the zonal portion of development fees collected within a transportation
zone, and accrued interest on such revenues, shall be spent on qualifying road
improvements located within the same zone.
(b) The revenues from the town-wide portion development fees, and accrued interest on such
revenues, may be used to finance all or portions of qualifying road improvements located
anywhere within the Town's planning jurisdiction.
(c) Qualifying road improvements include improvements to thoroughfares shown on the
Thoroughfare Plan within the Cary Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
(d) Transportation development fees may be used to finance direct project costs of qualifying
road improvements, including:
(1) Direct project-engineering costs;
(2) The acquisition cost of rights-of-way;
(3) The construction cost of improvements, including related pedestrian and drainage
improvements;
(4) Signalization and intersection improvements; and
(5) The principal sum and interest and other financing costs on bonds, notes, or other
obligations issued by or on behalf of the Town to finance qualified road
improvements.
(e) Development fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall not be used to pay for any of the
following:
(1) Construction, acquisition, or expansion of public facilities other than road
improvements;
(2) Repair, operation, or maintenance of existing or new road improvements.
(f) Up to 25 percent of all fees collected shall be reserved for cash reimbursement to developers
for qualifying road improvements. The amount of such reimbursements shall not exceed the
value of such improvements in excess of the amount of transportation development fees that
would otherwise be payable for the proposed development, unless the substitution of cash
reimbursements for development fee offsets is specifically approved by the Town Council. At
the end of each fiscal year, the amount of collected fees eligible for cash reimbursements shall
be calculated, and if the total amount of reimbursements owed exceeds the amount of eligible
fees available, the fees shall be remitted to developers in proportion to the amount of cash
reimbursements owed.
16.1.12. Refunds.
(a) Any transportation development fee or portion thereof collected pursuant to this Chapter
which has not been expended within ten years from the last day of the fiscal year in which it
was paid, shall be refunded to the record owner of the property for which the development
fee was paid, upon written application by the record owner, with accrued interest at the rate
of return on investments earned by the Town on such amount.
(b) The Town may charge a reasonable administrative fee, not to exceed five percent of the
refund due, for verifying and computing the refund.
06/14/01
Page 102
16.1.13. Updates and Revisions.
Following a public hearing, the Town shall recalculate the schedule of development fees as part
of the annual budget process, at least once every three years. The Town may do so more
frequently based upon growth in residential and non-residential construction, road improvements
actually constructed, changing levels of service, inflation, revised cost estimates for road
improvements, changes in the availability of other funding sources, and such other factors as may
be relevant. Each time the schedule of development fees is recalculated, there shall be a public
hearing prior to the adoption of the new fee schedule (This may be done through the normal
budget public hearing). No increase to the fee schedule shall be made unless there is a written
analysis made available to the public showing that the amended fees are based on reliable data
and the formula set forth in Section 16.1.8(c).
16.1.14. Offsets.
The Town shall grant offsets to transportation development fees in accordance with this Section
or Section 16.1.16 Developer Agreements. There shall be no other offsets to transportation
development fees.
(a) Proposed Thoroughfare Improvements.
(1) The Town shall grant an offset for development:
(i) Which was approved prior to the adoption of this Ordinance; and
(ii) For which the approval and permits have not expired;
(iii) Which has not been fully completed, subject to the additional terms of this
Section.
(2) Offsets will be discounted by the value of the amount which would have been added
to any building permits within the development which were issued prior to the
effective date of this Ordinance.
(3) Offset value calculations shall depend on the following factors:
(i) The value of the road right-of-way dedicated by the developer to the Town for
a qualifying road improvement. The value of the road right-of-way to be used
in this calculation shall be the actual sale value of the land, if the land has
been sold within the last three years before dedication; if the land has not sold
within the last three years before the dedication, the applicable value shall be
determined by professional appraisal. The appraisal shall be performed in
accordance with the Town's Standard Procedures.
(ii) The construction costs paid at the time of construction by the developer for
qualifying road improvements. Offsets will not be paid for any road
construction which exceeds the standards of the Town's Standard
Specifications and Details Manual.
(4) If a developer of a development approved prior to the effective date of this
Ordinance, and under construction on such effective date, was required to provide
thoroughfare improvements but has not initiated construction of such improvements
before the date of adoption, the developer may request that the Town approve a
developer agreement, in accordance with Section 16.1.16 Developer Agreements,
allowing payment of transportation development fees in lieu of construction of the
06/14/01
Page 103
required road improvements. If such a developer agreement is executed by the Town
and the developer, then the developer shall pay to the Town, within six months after
the effective date of this Ordinance, transportation development fees equal to the
amount of fees that would have been due under this Ordinance if its effective date
had coincided with the issuance of the first building permit for the developer's project.
(5) If a developer was required to provide thoroughfare improvements within a project
which was approved prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, and offsets are issued,
the developer shall only be required to make a fee payment in the amount by which
the total fee assessed due to construction within the development exceeds the value
of the offset. In no case shall the total sum of the offsets and the amount of the fees
paid exceed the total of the fees which would otherwise be assessed under this
Chapter as a result of the development.
(6) These offsets shall only be available if the Town Council has approved the
construction of the improvements in advance, by approval of a preliminary
subdivision plat, developer agreement, or site plan, specifically including such
improvements.
(7) In order to obtain these offsets, the developer shall submit an estimate of costs to the
Engineering Department within six months of the effective date of this Ordinance.
The estimates shall be revised when final road construction costs are tabulated.
Offsets provided for road construction projects meeting the requirements of
Subsection (a)(1) above shall be valid as set forth in Section 16.1.15(c) below.
(b) Prior Improvements in the Same Land Development. If a developer has, as a result of the
approval of a planned unit development, subdivision, or other land development, constructed
prior to May 1, 1989, road improvements shown on the Thoroughfare Plan and meeting the
other tests of this Section, the developer shall be given an offset for the previous
improvements which may be applied against the development fee within such land
development. The value of the offset shall be computed as follows:
(1) The total amount eligible for consideration shall be the costs determined by using the
values described in Subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) above;
(2) The potential offset amount of Subsection (b)(1) above shall be reduced by that
proportion of the approved development which has actually been completed prior to
the adoption of this Ordinance;
(3) This offset shall be allowed only if the person making the improvements or his or her
direct successor in interest applies to the Town for such offset on or before
November 1, 1989.
16.1.15. Certificate of Offset.
(a) Upon computation by the Town Manager, or his or her designee, of the offset allowed to a
developer, the Town shall issue to the developer a numbered Certificate of Offset expressed
in dollar value of the offset and designating the land development project for which such
Certificate was approved.
(b) Upon request, a Certificate of Offset may be changed in denomination by the Town as long as
the total offset for a designated parcel remains the same. Such Certificate of Offset shall be
freely transferable between any subsequent owners of the designated land. Any attempt to
transfer such a Certificate to any person who is not an owner, purchaser, or mortgagee of land
within the designated land development project shall make such Certificate voidable at the
06/14/01
Page 104
option of the Town. Each Certificate shall be registered in the name of the owner of the land in
the office of the Construction Management Department or the Finance Department.
(c) Any Certificate of Offset may be used by the registered owner of such Certificate as an offset
against a transportation development fee imposed on construction of a building in the
designated land development project. Certificates may not be used for payment of any other
fees, taxes, or amounts due the Town, and shall not have any intrinsic value. The Town shall
have no obligation to the holder of any Certificate who, for any reason, owes no development
fees during the life of the Certificate and thus has no use for the Certificate.
(d) Each Certificate of Offset shall be valid from the date of issuance until ten years after its
issuance or the last date of construction within the project, whichever occurs first, unless an
extension is granted by the Town Council prior to the termination of the earlier of these
periods.
(e) A Certificate of Offset shall be credited in dollars against the applicable development fees in
effect on the date when such fees become due under this Chapter.
(f) Holders of active Certificates of Offset that are eligible for recalculation shall apply to the Town
Manager or designee for recalculation within one year of July 1, 2001. The recalculated value
of unused Certificates of Offset shall be the face value of the certificate times the ratio of the
total value of the improvement or dedication made by the developer to the amount of offset
originally provided. The amount eligible for offset will be determined under the revised offset
provisions in effect after July 1, 2001. The applicant requesting recalculation shall be
responsible for providing the information needed to recalculate the offset.
16.1.16. Developer Agreements.
Where a development includes a qualifying road improvement, the Town and the developer, by
mutual consent, may enter into an agreement regarding the terms of the participation of the
developer in the construction or financing of such road. Such agreement may provide for cash
reimbursements, offsets, or other appropriate compensation to the developer for his or her
participation in the financing and/or construction of the road. The agreement shall be on a form
approved by the Town Council, after review and recommendation by the Town Engineer, and
shall identify:
(a) The estimated cost of the road improvement, based on the approved bidding process and
using the lowest bid approved by the Town Engineer;
(b) A schedule for initiation and completion of the improvement;
(c) A requirement that the improvement be designed and completed to Town standards;
(d) Such other terms and conditions as deemed necessary by the Town Council.
16.1.17. Other Financing Methods.
The Town may finance road improvements through the issuance of bonds, through the formation
of assessment districts, or through any other authorized mechanism, in such manner and subject
to such limitations as may be provided by law, in addition to the use of transportation
development fees. Except as otherwise provided herein, the collection of a transportation
development fee shall be additional and supplemental to, and not in substitution of, any other tax,
fee, charge, or assessment which is imposed on and due against the property under the authority
granted by the State of North Carolina.
06/14/01
Page 105
16.1.18. Fee as Supplemental Regulation.
The transportation development fee established by this Chapter is additional and supplemental
to, and not in substitution of, any other requirements imposed by the Town on the development of
land or the issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy. Such fee is intended to be
consistent with and to further the policies of the Town's comprehensive plan, capital
improvements plan, other chapters of this Ordinance, and other policies, ordinances, and
resolutions by which the Town seeks to ensure the provision of road facilities in conjunction with
the development of land.
16.1.19. Reserved
16.1.20. Relief Procedures.
(a) The developer or owner of property for which a development fee is owed may appeal the
assessment of a fee under this Chapter to the Town Council. After a hearing, of which the
Town Council shall give public notice in accordance with Section 16.1.21 Hearings below, the
Town Council shall take one of the following actions:
(1) If the Town Council finds that there has been an error by the Town in assessing the
fee, then the Town Council shall correct the error;
(2) The Town Council may grant a variance or waiver from the requirements of this
Chapter, but only upon finding that a strict application of such requirement would
result in confiscation of the property, taken as a whole;
(3) Unless the Town Council makes one of the findings set forth in Subsection (1) or (2)
above, the Town Council shall confirm the fee assessed.
(b) The Town Council may, upon recommendation of the Town Manager, waive the fee for a
project of public interest, where the Town Council finds that such waiver is in the best interest
of the Town.
(c) If the Town Council grants such a variance or waiver to the amount of the development fee
due for new construction, it shall cause to be appropriated from other Town funds the amount
of the reduction in the development fee to the benefit district account in which the property is
located.
16.1.21. Hearings.
(a) All hearings relating to transportation development fees shall be governed by the procedure of
this Section.
(b) The date of the hearing may be set by the Town Manager or his or her designee without prior
action by Council.
(c) The hearing shall not take place without prior notice, given in the following manner:
(1) Notice shall be published at least ten days prior to the hearing date, in the same
manner as legal notices are published for the Town;
(2) Notice shall be mailed at least ten days prior to the hearing date, by the Town
Manager, to all persons listed on a mailing list containing the names of persons
interested in transportation development fees.
06/14/01
Page 106
This ordinance shall become effective on July 1, 2001 and apply to all new applications for a
traffic impact analysis received after this date.
Adopted: 6/14/01
Mr. Weinbrecht stated instead of going to 6 years from 15 as suggested by the P&Z Board, he
would prefer to see 10 years to be consistent with the capital improvement plan.
Mr. Bailey stated one reason for the methodology is that the road improvement plan used a 15
year methodology; however, he stated the Town used the 10 year capital improvements plan for
the basis of this plan. He stated 10 years would give staff more flexibility than the six years
proposed by P&Z.
Mr. Barker stated the development community was concerned about how capital improvement
projects were figured into the impact study. He stated presently, if there is a capital improvement
project, staff determines if it is reasonable that this project will be completed in time to benefit the
project. He stated the development community has requested that the Council consider more
flexibility if the project is in the CIP. Specifically, he stated they would like the development to get
credit to move forward, even though the Town may be behind in its completion of the project. Mr.
Barker stated staff still recommends and P&Z concurs to maintain the existing process. He stated
the Council reviews the CIP every year, and it is not unusual for projects to be reprioritized.
Mayor Lang stated this should not be an issue, because with any large mixed-use development,
staff will negotiate a developer’s agreement to address these issues on a per-project basis.
ACTION: Mr. Weinbrecht made a motion to approve the adoption of the ordinance
amendment related to transportation impact fees as presented by staff and P&Z with the
exception of the six year limit which will be changed to a 10 year limit. Mrs. Robinson
provided the second. Council granted unanimous approval. (The ordinance is effective
July 1, 2001.)
_________________________
J. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Lang adjourned the meeting at 9:43 p.m.
06/14/01
Page 107

06/14/01 Page 1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CARY

Transcription

Similar documents

Official Zoning Map - Town of Carlton Landing

71 The Essex County seat, Tappahannock, is finally coming into its

Building Section

[Published in McAlester News-Capital on ` 2016] ORDINANCE NO

Parthenay, the Digital Town nay, the Digital Town : myth or reality

Communauté d`Agglomération Roissy Porte de France, Fosses

Click to

un vagón hermoso - Un Vagon Hermoso

pPRINCIPALES CURIOSITES EN LANGUEDOC ROUSSILON

here