TUESDAY Nov. 14

[Brent]

Remember, folks, this week's council meeting is TUESDAY, not Thursday.

A few interesting agenda items:

From Consent agenda:


Consideration of approval of the use of the council chambers by the Cary Chamber of Commerce for adult leadership Cary on February 6, 2007 and youth leadership Cary on February 20, 2007. (Town Council)

Hyatt, since we now know that council chambers is available for non-profit organization meetings, I suggest that the next CP meeting be held there.


Consideration of designating Julie Robison as the Town's official voting delegate at the National League of Cities Annual Business Meeting on December 9, 2006. (Town Council)

The meeting's in Reno. I guess that we're gambling that the NLC is worth our membership fee in it. :?


Land Development Ordinance (LDO) Text Amendments (Round 8 )
(PL07-010)
Committee unanimously recommended setting a public hearing on December 14, 2006 , to receive input on these proposed amendments.

No proposed LDO amendments, yet, to classify and clarify rules for historic signs, as I suggested and the planning director indicated he'd pursue.


West Cary Pump Station Architecture (EN07-037)
Committee unanimously recommended the exterior appearance as detailed in this report and shown in the attached images.

Seems to me we should be worrying more about the function and utility of a wastewater pump station than about its appearance.


Planning Department Staffing Changes (PL07-015)
Committee unanimously recommended that information regarding the reorganization of the Current Planning Section be entered into the Town Council records.

What's this all about? Oh, wait, it tells us: "With the restructure, the Planning Department will be able to focus on exceeding our customers’ expectations by offering outstanding quality customer service." Great! Set your expectations high, folks! (read more at http://www.townofcary.org/op/pl07-015.htm).

Non-consent items:


RECOGNITIONS, REPORTS, AND PRESENTATIONS

1. Presentation of award from the United States Tennis Association for Outstanding Tennis Facility for 2006 for the Cary Tennis Park. (Ms. Dorrel)

2. Presentation of award from the Racquet Sports Industry for Municipal Facility of the Year for the Cary Tennis Park. (Ms. Dorrel)

More trophies! Nobody beats Cary in tennis!

and this:


Comprehensive Plan Amendment (05-CPA-21), Reedy Creek
Consideration of adoption of an ordinance to amend the comprehensive plan. The property is located at the northwest corner of NE Maynard Road and Reedy Creek Road and contains approximately 17.66 acres. The current comprehensive plan designation is Office and Institutional, Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential; the proposed comprehensive plan designation is Office and Institutional, High Density Residential and Commercial. The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended denial. Council may take action. (Mr. Philip Smith)

When can you remember P&Z unanimously voting to deny a proposal? This one could be interesting.

------------------

Looks like something for everyone! And if that's not enough, don't forget:


PUBLIC SPEAKS OUT (one hour time limit)



The public is invited to speak during “Public Speaks Out” at this time on any topic unless it was a public hearing item on this agenda.

See you there. Line up in a nice, straight line on the stairs, please. Don't try to use the planners' podium. And don't even THINK of applauding.

[Brent]

Consideration of designating Julie Robison as the Town's official voting delegate at the National League of Cities Annual Business Meeting on December 9, 2006. (Town Council)

The meeting's in Reno. I guess that we're gambling that the NLC is worth our membership fee in it. :?

Hey, wait a minute...we're a TOWN...how can we be in the National League of CITIES? :wink:

[Brent]

Comprehensive Plan Amendment (05-CPA-21), Reedy Creek
Consideration of adoption of an ordinance to amend the comprehensive plan. The property is located at the northwest corner of NE Maynard Road and Reedy Creek Road and contains approximately 17.66 acres. The current comprehensive plan designation is Office and Institutional, Medium Density Residential and Low Density Residential; the proposed comprehensive plan designation is Office and Institutional, High Density Residential and Commercial. The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended denial. Council may take action. (Mr. Philip Smith)

This was truly unbelievable to watch. This, along with a case that followed, showed council's apparent belief that they have not yet demonstrated enough hypocrisy, so a demonstration of more was in order. :roll:

Of course, frequent council watchers already know what happened with this case, which was unanimously recommended for denial by P&Z. It was approved, unanimously, by council.

That's right, council sat quivering under the watchful eye of the developer, and made it clear that they really didn't want a 7-story office building, and that they were providing clear and firm guidance that they really wanted to see something more on the order of 4 stories, or at least generally approximately more or less in the vicinity of 4 stories, or its rough equivalent, or thereabouts, which they also made clear REALLY meant 6 stories, wink, wink, let's approve this baby unanimously. (There was a subplot about a staff-initiated "cleanup" change to the land use plan on an adjacent parcel, which was discussed ad nauseum and then approved).

To her credit, Jennifer asked Planning staff to "clarify" a couple of points; both clarifications from staff effectively amounted to "You're right, Jennifer, and you caught us trying to spin this our way".

In a follow-up proposal, which was unanimously recommended for approval by the Town Center Review Commission, "all hypocrisy broke loose". Frequent council watchers probably suspect that this case was denied, but it wasn't -- although it came within a hair's breadth of being denied (instead it was tabled).

After arguing about whether or not the developer had sufficiently met the RECOMMENDED changes from TCRC (it was clearly established that the developer had indeed met all aspects of ordinances and requirements, and might or might not have met the intent of the RECOMMENDATIONS that go ABOVE AND BEYOND the requirements, there was much ranting about how some people didn't like the looks of the townhomes, or had their own preferences for sidewalks and gathering places, or they personally just didn't care for this or that (aside: I verified that no council member, in fact, will be forced to purchase one of these homes, nor will they be required to spend time against their will in a place that doesn't suit their personal tastes). So, of course, having established that the proposal met all the requirements it needed to meet, the vote was to table the proposal until such time as the developer can modify it to meet the personal tastes of certain council members. Apparently I missed this requirement in the LDO. :roll:

To his credit, Ernie stated very clearly that the developer had met all requirements and it was unfair to change the rules at the last minute (especially with no basis upon which to do that), and he (and I think Jack?) voted against the motion.

Council should be thanking the developer and throwing a grand opening party when the development is complete, because this is the kind of development that will improve downtown Cary. But I guess they can't see past the petty politics that got in the way of what should have been approved and applauded.

Thanks, Cary Town Council for demonstrating once again:
- that hypocrisy can be achieved in a span of a just few minutes;
- why council generally does not review site plans;
- that petty politics are the first and foremost consideration in all decisions; and
- that the unanimous recommendations from the citizen advisory boards appointed by council are thoroughly meaningless and of no consideration.

:evil: :P :evil: :P :evil: :P

[d4vendel]

I think you pegged it pretty well, Brent. I was painful to watch.

I still can't get over the fact that the Mayor had to second Nel's motion on Reddy Creek because none of the other councilors would, yet they all voted in favor of it. I guess with all of the homeowners from the area starting at them, no one wanted to be the bad guy and pull the trigger by seconding the motion.

On the downtown development, you are correct that Ernie and Jack opposed the motion to table. The development plan followed every guideline, dotted every "i" and crossed every "t" - and yet it was tabled? Would you try to build something here if the rules are going to be changed on you at the 11th and half hour?

Just like when they opposed the last decision to come out of the Aquatics work session, Ernie and Jack seem to be the only ones on council that get it on these issues.

- David F.