Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!! Got your shopping done
yet? Ya, me neither.
I had the privilege of attending the Heart of Cary
Association’s Old Time Winter Festival and the Town of Cary’s Christmas Tree
Lighting Ceremony last week. Unfortunately Mother Nature was a Grinch as it was
cold and rainy pretty much all day. This was the first year I can remember that
we had to host the tree lighting festivities inside town hall. It was the most people we ever had inside council chambers that weren't angry. ;-)
The council also participated in the 35th annual Cary JayceesChristmas Parade in downtown Cary. We all rode together on a float (fancy term
for my decorated car trailer) again like we did last year. Not only is it a lot
more fun than riding separately in cars, we also believe it sends a positive
message to the community that we all genuinely like each other and work well
together. I can’t think of any other local governing boards that can really say
that. Thanks to everyone with the Heart of Cary Association, the Cary Jaycees
and Town Staff for all your efforts to make these wonderful events a success.
Please also don’t forget that the Jewish Cultural Festival
will be held on December 22 at the Cary Arts Center from 4:30-9:00.
Wake County Transit Advisory Committee
Council member Lori Bush and I were selected to serve on the
Wake County Transit Advisory Committee. It was the council’s feeling that if we
were going to appoint two council members to serve, that it would be best to
pick two with somewhat opposing views regarding public transportation. Lori is the
ying to my yang….or am I ying and she’s yang? I don’t know. Maybe there’s an
app for that? If so, Lori’s got it. ;-)
Now don’t get me wrong. I support bus service for public
transportation. Rail not so much. Actually, rail not at all. Billion dollar
boondoggle if you ask me. And quite frankly it really bothers me that the
planners behind this are pushing communities to alter their land use plans and
development standards to better accommodate rail. Are they trying to design a
rail system to better serve our communities, or are they trying to redesign our
communities to better serve rail? What is the focus here?
Improved bus service makes sense. It utilizes existing
infrastructure. It is far more cost effective than rail service and unlike
rail, routes can be adjusted or moved based on demand. Once the rail tracks are
down that’s it – you aint moving them.
So you can imagine how pleasantly surprised I was that after
a 3 ½ hour meeting on public transportation, rail was not mentioned once. Now
maybe we just haven’t gotten to that part yet, I don’t know, but so far so good
if you ask me!
A large portion of the meeting was spent designing our own
bus transit system in a fictitious city. Each table was given a map of the city
and different color wax sticks that represented bus routes. The different colors
represented route frequency – red sticks were 15 minute routes, blues 30
minutes and green 1 hour. You were only given a certain number of wax sticks to
represent a budget – once you ran out of sticks you ran out of money. The
fictitious city had a high density downtown, a university, employment centers, suburbs,
and a low income area.
Each table engaged in a priorities discussion about where
their transit system should go and why, and then proceeded to place the wax
sticks on the maps to represent bus routes. It was an interesting exercise as
out of 16 tables with the exact same map and number of wax sticks, no two transit
proposals were the same with some being worlds apart. We then had a group discussion
about the reasoning behind each table’s transit system, and the pros and cons
of each.
Consultants and planners will use the group’s input as they
continue to work on Wake County’s transit plan. This was our first meeting – we
have more to come. I’ll keep you posted.
Worksession
The council held a worksession this past week where we
discussed a number of topics to include whether or not to appoint a replacement
for the soon to be vacant District D seat, tree protection enforcement, land
development topics, mass grading, lot sizes and density, townhome recreation
standards, connectivity and a partridge in a pear tree.
District D Council Seat
The council decided not to fill the vacancy created by Gale
Adcock’s election to the North Carolina House of Representatives. You, the
voters will decide next fall. The majority thinking was that by the time we got
through the holidays, took applications, conducted interviews and ultimately
made a decision we would be into spring. Candidates would be gearing up for
council campaigns in summer. This would not leave much time for a newby to come
up to speed before they had to turn around and run for election…. Assuming they’d
still want the job ;-) The council also expressed concerns about giving someone
a leg up in next year’s elections.
Some council members also felt that with three at-large
council members – one of which lives in District D – that district is still
well represented on the council. And the reality is that all council members
represent every district in town. Heck, 80% of the stuff I vote on isn’t in my
district – same with everyone else. The concern about possible tie votes wasn’t
really an issue either as we rarely ever have 4-3 votes now.
Tree Protection Enforcement
This discussion was to provide staff with better direction
regarding the council’s expectations regarding the responsibility of land
owners to replace damaged or removed vegetation and any associated fines. We
have had a few instances where either a developer or land owner has removed
vegetation or denuded a buffer either accidentally or intentionally. The
general thinking among council members was to clarify the existing ordinance to
remove any ambiguity, revisit the appeals process and better inform property
owners of Cary’s tree protection requirements.
Connectivity
The council’s favorite topic! Staff was seeking further
direction on potential changes to the town’s connectivity ordinance and
presented a potential tiered approach to when the town would require road
connections to adjacent properties or neighborhoods.
The town’s existing connectivity ordinance was created in
1999. Properties developed prior to that weren’t really designed with future
connectivity in mind. This has caused problems when a new development is
proposed next to an older development and the town is requiring street
connections. Connecting a new road to an existing cul-de-sac tends to tick
people off – and rightfully so. Newer developments after 1999 however have had
to plan for future connectivity with many neighborhoods having street stubs where
a future road would one day connect.
Council is looking for flexibility regarding connectivity to
older developments while maintaining public safety and traffic flow. We are
also looking for the connectivity issue to be addressed earlier in the
development process to ease citizen concerns.
Land Use Densities, Lot Sizes and Mass Grading
This is a very complex topic given the number of local and
state development rules and regulations that impact the amount of developable
land of a site. Bottom line however is that the council and our citizens have
concerns regarding lot sizes and mass grading in low density single family
housing development.
Are 8000 square foot lots really what we are looking for in
low density development? And how is it that we are still having problems with
mass grading given our existing ordinances?
What the town has discovered is that smaller lots are more likely
to get mass graded while larger lots are not. Makes sense really. With a tiny
lot you almost need to clear the whole thing to have any room to work. Larger
lots not so much. Existing rules allow a builder to grade after the building
permit is pulled. Well, it turns out that builders are pulling permits for
multiple lots at the same time and then grading them all at the same time. It
saves them, and ultimately the end buyer money. It also totally changes the
character and topography of the land and removes mature trees.
The council has directed staff to first investigate
requiring minimum lot sizes of 12,000 sq. ft. in low density neighborhoods. The
thought is we kill a few birds with one stone - preferably geese. ;-) It would
hopefully eliminate mass grading of multiple lots, reduce densities and put lot
sizes more in line with the intent of low density zoning.
Townhome Recreation Standards
Believe it or not we have discovered that the open space and
recreation requirements we enacted in 2012 regarding townhome communities are
actually working better than expected. I know right? We were shocked too. We
looked at five townhome developments constructed after 2012. They were required
to provide roughly 18,000 sq. ft. of open space/recreation facilities. What
they actually provided was nearly 340,000 sq. ft. The council decided to do
nothing further at this time and then went out to celebrate actually doing something
that worked! Just kidding on that last part….maybe. ;-)
That’s it for now. As always, thanks for reading.
Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah!
