October 11, 2001 Page 1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN OF

Transcription

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

October 11, 2001 Page 1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN OF

Transcription

Similar documents

Postcard - Where Entrepreneurship and Business Opportunties

17th CAPE TOWN Jazz-fest-2016-JHB

The W o rld`s Largest Fo od Fig ht

Trails and Town / State Owned Lands

Reston Town Center Milestones of the Development

KIDZTOWN NEWS_AUGUST 14th

Density Syndicate Cape Town, South Africa

Fanano - The City of Stone Sculpture

Cedar Park_Press release 05_14

Town Center at Sterling