Town of Cary , North Carolina

Staff Report to Town Council

August 28, 2008 Town Council Meeting

07-CPA-11 Swift Creek Shopping Center

Note: On Feb. 28, 2008, Town Council sent this case back to the Planning Board for further consideration, based on changes proposed by the applicant subsequent to the Board’s action on January 28, 2008. Following revisions by the applicants, the Planning and Zoning Board acted on this case a second time, at their July 21, 2008, meeting.

Amendment Request

This is a request to amend Map 1, Future Land Use, of the Town’s Southeast Area Plan to change the land use recommendations for four properties located on the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Holly Springs and Jones Franklin Roads. The amendment request has been modified by the applicant subsequent to the January 28, 2008, Planning Board meeting and February 28, 2008, Town Council meeting. The applicants’ current, revised request is to amend Map 1 as follows:

1. Change the future land use designation of the southernmost property in the application (PIN 0772753218) from “Medium Density Residential (MDR) with a maximum of 6 units/acre” to “Mixed Use (MXD)”.

2. Extend the geographic area covered by Note #18 so that it also covers the southernmost property in the application (PIN 0772753218).

3. Amend the text of Note #18 on Map 1 of the Southeast Area Plan as follows (proposed new text is underlined and text proposed for removal is in strikethrough):

Note 18: The area should include a mix of commercial and office/institutional uses. The area 3 lots should be developed in a cohesive manner, designed so as to appear as an extension of the shopping center, drawing patrons towards the center. The area 3 lots should tie directly into the shopping center’s parking lot and internal driveway. No more than about half the net land area or half the total floor space should be used for commercial/retail. Retail uses should be focused north of the access point to the site from Holly Springs Rd., and generally on the west side of the existing shopping center. Uses that are destination-oriented high-traffic generators (e.g., a fast food with a drive-through) should be avoided, in order to keep overall traffic impacts within an acceptable range (as suggested by the traffic model).

Original Request:

The original amendment request submitted by the applicants for the November 8, 2007, Town Council public hearing was to amend Map 1 as follows:

1. Change the future land use designation of the southernmost property in the application (PIN 0772753218) from “Medium Density Residential (MDR) with a maximum of 6 units/acre” to “Mixed Use (MXD) with a maximum of 6 units/acre.”

2. Extend the geographic area covered by Note #18 so that it also covers the southernmost property in the application (PIN 0772753218).

3. Amend the text of Note #18 on Map 1 of the Southeast Area Plan as follows (proposed new text is underlined and text proposed for removal is in strikethrough):

Note 18: The area should include a mix of commercial and office/institutional uses. The area 3 lots should be developed in a cohesive manner, designed so as to appear as an extension of the shopping center, drawing patrons towards the center. The area 3 lots should tie directly into the shopping center’s parking lot and internal driveway. Uses that are destination-oriented high-traffic generators (e.g., a fast food with a drive-through) should be avoided, in order to keep overall traffic impacts within an acceptable range (as suggested by the traffic model).

The purpose of a comprehensive plan amendment is to evaluate the appropriateness of a proposed land use and/or other issue, need, or opportunity for the subject parcel(s) of land. Specific development requirements related to the technical aspects of land development, such as access, stormwater management, road improvements, utility line placement, road connectivity and landscape plantings, are not considered during the comprehensive plan amendment process. However, all of these development issues must be addressed for compliance with existing requirements specified in the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) when the site or subdivision plan is submitted. All such requirements can be found at http://www.amlegal.com/library/nc/cary.shtml

Background Information

Subject Parcels

Applicable Comprehensive or Area Plan Requirements:

A. Land Use Plan:
The governing element of the Comprehensive Plan for the subject area is the Southeast Area Plan, adopted in September 2004. The SE Area Plan designates the northern three parcels in the application (PIN’s 0772752763, 0772752523, and 0772659564) – totaling 4.26 acres – as Mixed Use, but subject to Plan Note #18 on Map 1 %u2013 Future Land Use of the Southeast Area Plan. Note 18 is as follows:

Note 18: The area should include a mix of commercial and office/institutional uses. The 3 lots should be developed in a cohesive manner, designed so as to appear as an extension of the shopping center, drawing patrons towards the center. The 3 lots should tie directly into the shopping center’s parking lot and internal driveway. Uses that are destination-oriented high-traffic generators (e.g., a fast food with a drive-through) should be avoided, in order to keep overall traffic impacts within an acceptable range (as suggested by the traffic model).

The southernmost parcel of 9.99 acres (PIN 0772753218) is currently designated as Medium Density Residential, with a maximum of 6 dwellings per acre. The density cap reflects the density limits for this area recommended by the Swift Creek Land Management Plan and adopted into Cary’s Swift Creek Watershed Overlay Zoning District.

B. Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Road 1: Holly Springs Rd.

Existing Section: 4-5 lane approx. 105’ ROW

Future Section: 4-lane median divided, 100’ ROW

Road Improvements: CIP design/construction 2007/2008

Road 2: Jones Franklin Rd.

Existing Section: 3-lane approx. 65’ ROW

Future Section: 6-lanes 124’ ROW

Road Improvements: N/A

C. Parks & Greenways Facilities Master Plan:

According to the approved Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Facilities Master Plan a north-south greenway trail is proposed on the eastern part of this site, parallel to the north-south stream that bisects the southernmost parcel. A payment in lieu of park land dedication may be required for residential development, in accordance with the Town’s Land Development Ordinance.

D. Open Space and Historic Resources Plan:

According to the Open Space and Historic Resources Plan (OSHRP), the southern parcel of 9.99 acres (PIN 0772753218) was identified as having significant natural and open space resources, due to the riparian areas and mixed hardwood forest that covers the site. At the level of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it is difficult to ascertain whether or not future development will occur in a manner that protects some measure of those resources. Greater clarity may be possible at the time of a rezoning or Mixed Use Sketch Plan submittal.

There are no identified historic resources on the site.

E. Affordable Housing Plan:

The Affordable Housing Plan includes the following goals and objectives, which could bear on the subject amendment request:

1. Provide for a full range of housing choices for all income groups, families of various sizes, seniors, and persons with special challenges.
2. Facilitate the creation of a reasonable proportion of the Town of Cary’s housing as affordable units through additional homeownership opportunities for individuals and families earning 80% of area median income.
3. Encourage the location of high density housing within walking and convenient commuting distance of employment, shopping, and other activities, or within a short walk of a bus or transit stop, through "mixed use" developments, residences created on the upper floors of nonresidential downtown buildings, and other creative strategies.

F. Growth Management Plan:
The Growth Management Plan includes the following four Guiding Principles which are relevant to this case:

1. R1 Guiding Principle: Ensure that adequate infrastructure and services are available concurrently with new development.

Analysis: Water and sewer infrastructure is available, and the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance for Transportation will ensure concurrency for roadway capacity.

2. L1 Guiding Principle: Concentrate growth near existing and planned employment centers and available and planned infrastructure to minimize costly service-area extensions.

Analysis: The subject parcels are located within an area where urban services are readily available, and is located within the Swift Creek Community Activity Center, and about 1 mile from the core of the Crossroads Regional Activity Center and office park.

3. L2 Guiding Principle: Ensure that future growth protects sensitive natural resources and protects open space.

Analysis: As noted above under “D. Open Space and Historic Resources Plan,” the southern parcel of 9.99 acres (PIN 0772753218) was identified as having significant natural and open space resources, due to the riparian areas and mixed hardwood forest that covers the site. At the level of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it is difficult to ascertain whether or not future development will occur in a manner that protects some measure of those resources. Greater clarity may be possible at the time of a rezoning or Mixed Use Sketch Plan submittal.

4. A1 Guiding Principle: Increase permitted densities in preferred growth areas to encourage desired forms of development.

Analysis: The Southeast Area Plan, as adopted in 2004, recommended future land use densities and intensities that conform with and reflect the degree to which the Town has identified this is a preferred growth area.

Town Council Public Hearing Of November 8, 2007

A. Public Hearing Comments

No citizens spoke at the public hearing.

B. Town Council Questions and Comments

Mayor Pro Tem Smith expressed concern with changing Note 18. He stated this area is close to a major intersection and there is currently a traffic problem in this vicinity. He stated he likes the idea of the traffic diversion into the shopping center, but he does not want a high traffic use in this location.

Mrs. Robison asked staff to describe the Area Plan history for the subject parcels. Mrs. Robinson also asked whether or not the amount of retail planned for during development of the Southeast Area Plan and its traffic model is already accounted for in this area. Responses to both questions are provided in the “Staff Analysis and Recommendation” section of this report, below.

C. Changes After the Town Council Public Hearing of November 8, 2007

The applicants modified their requested amendment to Note 18 on Map 1, Future Land Use, after the November 8, 2007, Town Council public hearing, and prior to the January 28, 2008, Planning and Zoning Board public hearing.

At the time of the Town Council public hearing, the applicants had requested the following changes to Note 18 (proposed new text is underlined and text proposed for removal is in strikethrough):

Note 18: The area should include a mix of commercial and office/institutional uses. The area 3 lots should be developed in a cohesive manner, designed so as to appear as an extension of the shopping center, drawing patrons towards the center. The area 3 lots should tie directly into the shopping center’s parking lot and internal driveway. Uses that are destination-oriented high-traffic generators (e.g., a fast food with a drive-through) should be avoided, in order to keep overall traffic impacts within an acceptable range (as suggested by the traffic model).

On January 7, 2008, the applicants submitted further revisions to the requested amendment to Note 18, adding the two sentences as underlined below:

Note 18: The area should include a mix of commercial and office/institutional uses. The area 3 lots should be developed in a cohesive manner, designed so as to appear as an extension of the shopping center, drawing patrons towards the center. The area 3 lots should tie directly into the shopping center’s parking lot and internal driveway. There should be minimum of 30,000 sq. ft. and a maximum of 60,000 sq. ft. of commercial space (retail, services, etc.). There should be a minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. and a maximum of 30,000 sq. ft. of office use. Uses that are destination-oriented high-traffic generators (e.g., a fast food with a drive-through) should be avoided, in order to keep overall traffic impacts within an acceptable range (as suggested by the traffic model).

Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Of January 28, 2008

A. Public Hearing Comments

No citizens came forward to speak at the Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing. The applicants’ representative, Mr. Paul Brewer, on behalf of the owners of Swift Creek Shopping Center, stated that the shopping center needs revitalization to remain competitive with newer development in the area. He explained that by adding another anchor on Holly Springs Road it could turn the shopping center to have better frontage and access [along Holly Springs Road].

B. Planning and Zoning Board Actions and Analysis

The Board voted 5-1 to recommend denial of this Plan Amendment request, as it was constituted at the time of their January 28 meeting.

Mr. Keith Fenn expressed concern about the amount of impervious surface that would impact the Swift Creek Watershed Overlay. Mr. Paul Brewer noted that, given the direction in which the meeting was going, he might like to table the project until such time as he could meet with staff and discuss options for revisions to the amendment request. Ms. Joy Wayman stated that she supported the idea for mixed use on the site as proposed by the applicant, and felt it would be good for the area. Mr. Harry Baulch was supportive of the idea of revitalization to avoid vacancies within – and the possible failure of – a shopping center, and cited Waverly Place as an example. However, Mr. Baulch was also concerned that this case might present a situation where approval could allow or set the stage for the “creeping” of commercial and nonresidential uses further down a major roadway (i.e., beyond the limits recommended by the Plan). Mr. Hari Nath hoped to see the applicant work more closely with staff to come to an agreement.

C. Changes After the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of Jan. 28, 2008

At their request, staff met with the applicants on February 7, 2008, to discuss options and modifications to their amendment request. The applicants indicated that they’d be willing to work with staff to make several changes to the amendment request, in order to fashion an amendment that would be acceptable to staff, the Planning Board, and Town Council. Accordingly, the applicants asked that Council refer the case back to the Planning Board, for consideration of a revised application. Staff supported this request, since the applicants indicated they were willing to make several changes to their amendment request, including:

• Retaining the recommendation against having “destination-oriented high-traffic generators (e.g., a fast food with a drive-through)” within the text of Note 18;
• Limiting the extension of the mixed use area to the northern half of the subject area, north of the site’s future access point on Holly Springs Road, rather than over the entire 10-acre parcel south of the existing mixed-use area;
• Working with Engineering staff and NCDOT to better define the location of the access point on Holly Springs Road. This would help to better define the location of the site’s internal road or drive, which could in turn serve as the dividing line between use types within the overall site.

Town council Meeting Of february 28, 2008

A. Council Action

Council approved the request to refer the case back to the Planning and Zoning Board. The case was referred to the April 28, 2008 meeting of the Planning Board, in order to allow time for the applicants to work with staff to fashion an acceptable amendment request. In early April, 2008, the applicants requested that the case be tabled, in order to allow additional time for discussions with NCDOT and Town staff.

B. Changes After the Town Council Meeting of February 28, 2008

On June 25, 2008, subsequent to discussions with staff, the applicants submitted revisions to their requested amendments to Note 18 on Map 1, Future Land Use, of the Southeast Area Plan. The revisions reflect discussions and consensus reached between Town staff and the applicants.

At the time of the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing on January 28, 2008, the applicants’ requested amendment to Note 18 was (proposed new text is underlined and text proposed for removal is in strikethrough):

Note 18: The area should include a mix of commercial and office/institutional uses. The area 3 lots should be developed in a cohesive manner, designed so as to appear as an extension of the shopping center, drawing patrons towards the center. The area 3 lots should tie directly into the shopping center’s parking lot and internal driveway. There should be minimum of 30,000 sq. ft. and a maximum of 60,000 sq. ft. of commercial space (retail, services, etc.). There should be a minimum of 15,000 sq. ft. and a maximum of 30,000 sq. ft. of office use. Uses that are destination-oriented high-traffic generators (e.g., a fast food with a drive-through) should be avoided, in order to keep overall traffic impacts within an acceptable range (as suggested by the traffic model).

The June 25, 2008, revised amendment request for Note 18 is:

Note 18: The area should include a mix of commercial and office/institutional uses. The area 3 lots should be developed in a cohesive manner, designed so as to appear as an extension of the shopping center, drawing patrons towards the center. The area 3 lots should tie directly into the shopping center’s parking lot and internal driveway. No more than about half the net land area or half the total floor space should be used for commercial/retail. Retail uses should be focused north of the access point to the site from Holly Springs Rd., and generally on the west side of the existing shopping center. Uses that are destination-oriented high-traffic generators (e.g., a fast food with a drive-through) should be avoided, in order to keep overall traffic impacts within an acceptable range (as suggested by the traffic model).

The new, revised text now retains the Note’s original sentence that high-volume traffic generators should be avoided, and replaces numerical floorspace limits with text that calls for a rough balance between office and retail uses, and that specifies the acceptable location for commercial/retail uses.

In addition to the revisions to Note 18, staff requested, and the applicants agreed to, a change regarding the labeling of the 9.99-acre southernmost property in the application (PIN 0772753218). At the time of the Town Council public hearing, it was requested that this parcel be changed on Map 1, Future Land Use, from “Medium Density Residential (MDR) with a maximum of 6 units/acre” to “Mixed Use (MXD) with a maximum of 6 units/acre.” In the new, revised amendment request, it is requested that this parcel be re-designated simply as “Mixed Use”, just as the three existing mixed use parcels are currently designated. Staff and the applicant both felt it was unnecessary to specify “with a maximum of 6 units/acre”, because (a) the Swift Creek Watershed Overlay District enforces this density cap anyway, and (b) the inclusion of the label could unintentionally imply that mixed uses on the parcel would include a residential component, which the revision to Note 18 makes clear is not required.

Planning and Zoning Board Meeting Of July 21, 2008

A. Public Hearing Comments

No citizens came forward to speak on this case.

B. Planning and Zoning Board Actions and Analysis

The Board voted 8-1 to recommend adoption of the CPA request as presented at the meeting.

Board discussion:

Mr. Hari Nath supported the need for the change, referencing concern for the economic viability of the shopping center. Mr. Nath also voiced the need for stronger language to ensure connectivity is provided between the subject lots and the shopping center.

Ms. Kelly Commiskey and Mr. Brent Miller were supportive of the proposed amendment. Both recognized the problems and economic hardship caused to the shopping center by the realignment of Holly Springs Road and Walnut Street in 2003-04. Ms. Commiskey felt that the amendment would help to maintain the economic viability of the shopping center. Mr. Miller commented positively on how well the applicants had worked with staff to fashion an acceptable amendment revision. However, Mr. Miller did express concern with the southward expansion of commercial.

Ms. Julia Rudy felt that there had indeed been a change in assumptions and circumstances since the plan was adopted in 2004, and noted that the completion of the thoroughfare realignment was so close in time to plan adoption that it would have made it difficult to anticipate the actual economic impacts. She hoped that approval of this plan would help alleviate some of the hardship caused by the road realignment.

Mr. Joe Cuilla opposed the plan amendment, stating he felt that the existing Medium Density Residential designation is still viable, and that bringing office to the site would not necessarily help to revitalize the shopping center. He also expressed a desire to treat this case in a manner consistent with the Board’s recommendation against commercial expansion for case 08-CPA-01 Walnut Place, acted on earlier at the meeting.

C. Changes After the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting of July 21, 2008

None.

Staff Analysis

A. Planning History for the Site

At the time of the first public hearing for the Southeast Area Plan (June 10, 2004), the recommended future land use for the northern 3 parcels of this case was “Office/Institutional or Medium Density Residential” (without any Note 18), and the recommended land use for the southernmost 9.99-acre parcel was Medium Density Residential (3-6 units/acre). (See Figure 1.) At that initial public hearing, a request was filed by Jerry Turner on behalf of the three northernmost properties that the Town consider changing the proposed plan recommendation for those parcels to Commercial (see Figure 2). Following review by the Planning Board, staff and the applicants proposed as a compromise a Mixed Use designation, coupled with the addition of Note 18 to the map in order to provide some assurance to the Council, the Board, and the public that drive-throughs and/or high traffic generators would be avoided on those parcels. Council agreed to this compromise when the final plan was adopted on September 9, 2004. (See Figure 3.)

B. Policy Direction Regarding Limits to Retail Along Walnut Street/Holly Springs Road (2003-04)

The 2004 Southeast Area Plan was developed consistent with a policy mandate that the total amount of commercial/retail within the plan area should not be increased beyond the amount already planned for in the prior 1998 Southeast Gateway Area Plan (the prior Area Plan for this district), and that commercial development along Walnut Street/Holly Springs Road should be strictly limited, in order to avoid continuous nonresidential strip development along that corridor.

Analysis: Staff has not received any indication that the direction given to staff in 2003-2004 has been modified. However, the requested amendment is unlikely to exacerbate the extent to which commercial uses might extend along Holly Springs Road. This is due to the proposed amendment to Note 18 that limits commercial/retail uses to the area north of the future access point to the site from Holly Springs Road. Since such an access point is likely to be aligned with the access point to Colonial Baptist Church on the opposite side of Holly Springs Road, it is unlikely that commercial uses would extend further south to any noticeable extent than currently allowed in the Plan. Further, in order to enhance the viability of Swift Creek Shopping Center, staff feels it reasonable to allow commercial/retail uses on the northern side of the future access point, in order to help draw patrons into an expanded shopping center.

C. Southern Extent of Nonresidential Uses Along Holly Springs Road

The southern boundary of the Colonial Baptist Church campus currently marks the Plan’s southern limits for nonresidential uses along both sides of Holly Springs Road. The amendment request may extend nonresidential uses further southward along the east side of Holly Springs Road, but by no more than about 240 feet.

Analysis: Staff is comfortable with this limited extension of nonresidential uses southward along Holly Springs Road for two reasons:

1. Colonial Baptist Church owns additional property adjacent to the southern edge of the church campus. This additional church property extends a further 340 feet south of the current church campus along Holly Springs Road. If this property is someday used for campus expansion – as already allowed by current zoning – then the southerly extent of nonresidential uses along Holly Springs Road would be extended by 200-300 feet, regardless of what occurs on the applicants’ properties.
2. The future access point to the applicants’ site from Holly Springs Road is expected to someday provide direct access to Swift Creek Shopping Center. Given the likely level of traffic activity at that access point, it is probably unreasonable to expect that residential uses would be brought up close to the southern corner of the access point. A transition to office uses on the south side of the access point – as proposed by the applicants – would form a more reasonable transition to future residential uses south of the subject parcels.

D. Commercial Viability of Swift Creek Shopping Center

Up until about 2003, Walnut Street continued directly into Jones Franklin Road, and thence to the major intersection of Tryon Road with Jones Franklin and Holly Springs Roads, providing Swift Creek Shopping Center with direct exposure at that thoroughfare intersection. With the Walnut Street Realignment, constructed during 2001-2003, Walnut Street was diverted due south, and Holly Springs Road was re-routed due north, with both roads tying in at the new Tryon Road intersection. Consequently, Swift Creek Shopping Center lost its direct exposure and access to Holly Springs Road and to the primary flow of traffic.

The applicants contend that their amendment request is needed in order to maintain the economic viability of Swift Creek Shopping Center by allowing the 18-year old shopping center to extend westward to a new future access point onto today’s Holly Springs Road.

Analysis: Staff agrees that the long-term viability of Swift Creek Shopping Center would be enhanced by having retail exposure/frontage along the new section of Holly Springs Road. In order to provide such retail exposure, staff feels it would be reasonable to use as commercial/retail most of the 4.2 acres that are currently designated as mixed-use. In order to provide a balanced amount of supporting office uses, staff feels it is also reasonable to extend the mixed-use area further south, as requested by the applicants, in order to allow land for a complementary amount of office space.

Staff’s initial concerns – expressed at the January 2008 Planning Board meeting – about the extent to which commercial/retail uses might extend over the entire 14-acre area have been addressed by the applicants’ most recent modifications to their requested amendment to Note 18. Specifically, the applicants addressed this concern by modifying Note 18 to state that commercial/retail uses be limited to the northern portion of the site, west of the existing shopping center, and north of the future access drive onto Holly Springs Road.

E. Traffic Considerations

The pattern, mix, and intensity of land uses proposed by the adopted Southeast Area Plan were based on – and balanced against – the anticipated traffic capacity of the future roadway network, projected out to 2020, and based on traffic modeling performed in 2003. Most of the major arterial intersections in the southeast were projected to become highly congested, and every effort was made to balance land uses across the southeast plan area in such a manner as not to overwhelm the local road network. In some cases this was done by encouraging mixed use development in order to take advantage of internal trip capture, and by placing limits on the amount of planned commercial/retail uses.

Analysis: Given the Town’s investment and effort in developing land use recommendations matched to the projected 20-year roadway capacity, staff has generally been hesitant to support plan amendments that increase land use intensities above those modeled in 2003, since such changes might compromise the traffic modeling assumptions. This has been especially so for additional commercial uses, since the 2003 traffic model indicated that retail uses were the largest contributors to peak hour loading in this corridor.

F. Comparison Of Existing And Requested Land Use Plan Designations

The table below provides a rough comparison between the range of development that might occur on the subject parcels under both the existing plan and the proposed amendment. The analysis uses the net acreage of the 9.99-acre southernmost parcel, since over a third of that parcel lies in riparian buffers. The nonresidential analysis is based on floor-to-area ratios (FAR) ranging from 0.12 to 0.18, which is typical for similarly-situated parcels of this size. In both scenarios, the nonresidential analysis assumes equal amounts of commercial/retail and office acreage.

	Under Existing SE Area Plan	Under Applicant’s Plan Amendment
Mixed Use Acreage	4.26 acres	10.6 acres
Medium Density Residential Acreage	6.34 acres	0 acres
Commercial/Retail floor space	11,000 to 17,000 sq. ft.	28,000 to 42,000 sq. ft.
Office floor space	11,000 to 17,000 sq. ft.	28,000 to 42,000 sq. ft.
Total Nonresidential floor space	22,000 – 34,000 sq. ft.	56,000 to 84,000 sq. ft.
Residential Dwellings	19 - 50	0

Analysis: Under the proposed amendment, the total increase in commercial/retail floorspace is likely to be limited to somewhere in the range of 28,000 to 42,000 sq. ft., as is the increase in office floor space. There would be a loss of between 19 and 50 supporting residential units. However, the exact amount of floor space will not be determined until a Mixed Use Sketch Plan (MUSP) for the site is submitted and approved by Town Council. Town Council and the Planning Board will have considerable discretion in determining the mix and intensity of uses they are willing to approve for the site as part of the MUSP process. (No MUSP has been submitted at this point.)

G. Criteria For Consideration In Reviewing Comprehensive Plan Amendments:

Section 3.2.2(B) of the Land Development Ordinance states that “Proposals to amend the Comprehensive Plan shall be evaluated based upon whether the amendment is necessary in order to address conditions including, but not limited to, the following:”

• A change in projections or assumptions from those on which the Comprehensive Plan is based;

Staff Analysis: No changes have been identified.

• Identification of new issues, needs, or opportunities that are not adequately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan;

Staff Analysis: The applicants provided new information about where a NCDOT-approved access point to the subject parcels might be located on Holly Springs Road, and how the location of that access point affects site planning of the subject parcels. This information enabled staff to reconsider the most appropriate mix and location of uses for the subject parcels. Also, the impact of the 2001-2003 realignment of Holly Springs Road and Walnut Street on Swift Creek Shopping Center has become more clear since the time of original plan development in 2003-2004.

• A change in the policies, objectives, principles, or standards governing the physical development of the Town or any other geographic areas addressed by the Comprehensive Plan; or

Staff Analysis: None have been identified.

• Identification of errors or omissions in the Comprehensive Plan.

Staff Analysis: None have been identified.

Staff Recommendation and summary analysis

Recommendation: On balance, staff recommends in favor of the amendment request.

Summary: In general, staff is hesitant to recommend amendments to the Southeast Area Plan that either increase land use intensities – due to the affect that may have on the 2003 traffic modeling assumptions – or that have the potential to increase the extent of nonresidential frontage along the Walnut Street / Holly Springs Road corridor. However, in this case staff is supportive of the request for the following reasons:

1. Staff feels that there is a larger community interest at stake in terms of taking steps to help ensure the long-term viability of Swift Creek Shopping Center;
2. The amendment request does not appreciably extend commercial/retail frontage further southward along Holly Springs Road than is already possible under the current plan;
3. The amendment request is unlikely to extend nonresidential uses further south along Holly Springs Road than is already possible on the western side of Holly Springs Road;
4. The amendment request calls for having at least as much supporting office space as commercial space;
5. The magnitude of the potential increase in commercial and office space is limited, and will ultimately be controlled by Council through the Mixed Use Sketch Plan process;
6. The amendment request supports a gradual transition from commercial uses to office uses to residential uses, moving south along the east side of the Holly Springs Road corridor from Swift Creek Shopping Center, in keeping with the Town’s goals for providing gradual transitions.

Town council Motion Options

Approval Motion:

I move that we amend Map 1, Future Land Use, of the Southeast Area Plan, as currently proposed by the applicant.

Approval with Modifications Motion:

I move that we amend Map 1, Future Land Use, of the Southeast Area Plan, as currently proposed by the applicant, but with the following further changes and modifications: (list any additional changes).

Denial Motion:

I move that we deny the proposed amendment because it fails to meet the requirements of Section 3.2.2(B) of the Land Development Ordinance for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and for other reasons and justifications cited in this staff report.