Town of Cary , North Carolina
Staff Report to the Town Council
August 28, 2008
08-CPA-01 Walnut Place

 AMENDMENT Request

This is a request to amend the land use map of the Town’s Southeast Area Plan, an element of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.  The request is to change the land use designation of approximately 7.94 acres, located at the intersection of Macedonia Road and Walnut Street, from “Medium to High Density Residential” (MDR to HDR) to “Office/Institutional and Commercial” (OFC/INS and COM) with the addition of the following map note to be applied to the subject parcels:  “Note #20: Commercial use limited to a maximum of 40% of total floor area.”

 ORIGINAL REQUEST

The original amendment request submitted by the applicants for the May 8, 2007 Town Council public hearing was to change the designation of the subject 7.94 acres from “Medium to High Density Residential” (MDR to HDR) to “Mixed Use” (MXD).  

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

 Existing Comprehensive Plan recommendations and 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.  Map 1 – Future Land Use of the Southeast Area Plan currently recommends these parcels for Medium to High Density Residential (MDR to HDR) uses, which includes a wide range of appropriate housing types, including single family detached, patio homes, townhomes, or multifamily, at a gross density of 3 or more dwellings per acre.  When evaluating a conforming mixed use sketch plan, the Planning Board and Town Council would therefore have wide latitude in determining and approving the specific type of housing and density that would best fit the subject location.   

The applicant is requesting that the parcels be changed from “Medium to High Density Residential” to “Office/Institutional and Commercial” with a note limiting the commercial use to a maximum of 40% of total floor area.     

B. Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Macedonia Rd. (future realignment planned- see SE Area Plan)
Existing Section:  2-3 lane collector Rd., approximately 60’ ROW to be closed and realigned in the future
Future Section:  2-3 lane major collector, 78’ ROW to be relocated as an extension of Prince Dr. per the Southeast Area Plan
Road Improvements:  None scheduled

Walnut St.
Existing Section:  6-lane, 120’ ROW
Future Section:  6-lane, 124’ ROW 
Road Improvements:  None scheduled

C. Parks & Greenways Facilities Master Plan:  Greenways Map
According to the approved Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Facilities Master Plan a public greenway trail is proposed around the existing pond on the site with a connection to the multi-use trail proposed along the northeast side of Macedonia Road .  A recreation payment-in-lieu will be required for any residential development in accordance with the Land Development Ordinance. 

D.  Open Space and Historic Resources Plan: 
The Plan does not identify any significant natural resources or priority open space on the subject parcels.  No historic resources have been identified.  

E.  Affordable Housing Plan: 
The following Affordable Housing goals may apply:

1.   Provide for a full range of housing choices for all income groups, families of various sizes, seniors, and persons with special challenges.

Staff observation:  While there is no assurance that a conforming residential development plan at this location would improve the overall range of housing choices in this part of Cary , it is also clear that the proposed amendment removes the possibility to improve the range of choices, since the amendment removes the residential land use designation.    

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 between 60% and 80% of area median income and affordable apartments for individuals and families earning up to 60% of the area median income.

Staff observation:  While there is no assurance that a conforming residential development plan at this location would include some measure of affordable units, it is also clear that the proposed amendment removes the possibility to provide affordable units at this location.      

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.

Staff observation:  By removing the recommendation for housing at this location, the amendment request will not contribute to the advancement of this goal.  Housing at the subject location is within about ¼ mile from both The Centrum and Tryon Village shopping centers (i.e., walking distance), about 1/3 mile from Swift Creek shopping center, and just over ½ mile to Crossroads Plaza and Walnut Plaza, and less than ½ mile to the Crossroads Office Park.  The site is also located within walking distance of an existing C-Tran bus stop, and in the future will have an adjacent bus stop.

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

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

Staff observation:  The Town’s Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) for Transportation will ensure concurrency for roadway capacity.  However, the APFO does not guarantee that sufficient roadway capacity will be reserved for future development of the remaining undeveloped parcels along this corridor and in the Southeast Area Plan.  The Southeast Area Plan’s land use recommendations were balanced against a 20-year traffic model during plan development.

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

Staff observation:  The subject parcels are located within an area where urban services are readily available, and is located within walking distance of employment opportunities at Crossroads Office Park , Crossroads and Walnut Plazas , The Centrum, Tryon Village , and Swift Creek Shopping Center .  Residential development in this area would be located within walking distance of an existing C-Tran bus stop, and in the future will have an adjacent bus stop. 

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

TOWN COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING OF MAY 8, 2008

A.      Public Hearing Comments

No citizens spoke at the public hearing.

B.      Town Council Questions and Comments

Ms. Robison asked for clarification on the location of possible future access points from Walnut Street to serve the site.

C.  Changes After the Town Council Public Hearing

The applicant’s initial request was amend Map 1 - Future Land Use of the Southeast Area Plan so that the future land use recommendation for the subject parcels are changed from “Medium to High Density Residential” to “Mixed Use”.  Staff informed the applicants that the “Mixed Use” land use category in the Southeast Area Plan is defined as including “a substantial mix of both residential and nonresidential uses”  (see Appendix A, Southeast Area Plan).   Accordingly, any mixed use sketch plan submitted to the Town for this site would need to include a residential component in order to be found in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 

Upon reflection, the applicants determined they did not wish to include a residential component on the site, but rather preferred that the site be used for a mix of office and commercial/retail uses.  The applicants subsequently modified their amendment request, and now wish to change the Plan designation on Map 1 – Future Land Use from “Medium to High Density Residential” to “Office/Institutional and Commercial” (“OFC/INS and COM”).  The amendment also now includes a request to add a new Note #20 to Map 1, specifying that no more than about 40% of building floor space on the site would be used for commercial/retail.

PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING OF JULY 21, 2008

A.   Public Hearing Comments
No citizens spoke at the public hearing.

B.  Planning and Zoning Board Questions and Comments

Ms. Wayman and Ms. Commiskey commented that they do not want to see high density residential on this site.  They believe that the developer’s proposal for office and commercial uses would be better than the current Southeast Area Plan designation, which is for medium- to high-density residential.  Ms. Rudy and Mr. Miller expressed support for the recommendations of the Plan, noting that the Plan was adopted fairly recently and shouldn’t be taken lightly.  Mr. Ciulla and Mr. Swanstrom expressed concerns about the traffic impacts on Walnut Street if the Plan were changed to allow more commercial, pointing out that “we have to draw the line somewhere.”  Ms. Sadtler commented that she would not be happy with commercial uses at this site and appreciates having a break in commercial uses along Walnut Street.  Mr. Nath noted that gas is $4 per gallon, and developing residential uses at this site would provide opportunities for citizens to walk to nearby services.  Mr. Baulch commented that he doesn’t believe the site lends itself to residential uses alone – he would prefer it be developed as mixed-use.  Mr. Baulch also asked for clarification about the current mix of uses in the Swift Creek Community Activity Center, of which this site is a part.

Staff Analysis

A.  Planning History for the Site

1. Southeast Area Plan. The subject site was designated for medium to high density residential uses with adoption of the Southeast Area Plan in 2004.  (Prior to 2004, the site was designated for high density residential uses by the Southeast Gateway Area Plan in March 1998.)  The Plan was developed with participation from the community, Planning Board, and Council, as described in Section 1.4, Chapter 1, of the Plan. 
2. Swift Creek Community Activity Center   Though the subject site is located within the northeast quadrant of the Swift Creek Community Activity Center, the general floorspace guidelines associated with  Community Activity Centers are superseded by the recommendations of the more comprehensive Southeast Area Plan.  The Southeast Area Plan was created with public input, traffic analysis and modeling (the results of which are discussed in more detail in B.3. below), and sound planning principles. The  Community Activity Center floorspace guidelines are used for activity centers that are not covered by detailed area plans.

Staff Analysis

A.  Planning History for the Site

The subject site was designated for medium to high density residential uses with adoption of the Southeast Area Plan in 2004.  (Prior to 2004, the site was designated for high density residential uses by the Southeast Gateway Area Plan in March 1998.)  The Plan was developed with participation from the community, Planning Board, and Council, as described in Section 1.4, Chapter 1, of the Plan. 

B.  Land Use Plan Analysis

There were five reasons why the community, staff, the Planning Board, and Council designated these parcels as medium to high density residential during the 2003-2004 planning process.  These reasons are as follows:

1. Council direction.  The 2004 Southeast Area Plan was developed according to Council direction 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).  Council further directed that commercial development along Walnut Street/Holly Springs Road should be strictly limited, in order to avoid continuous nonresidential strip development along that corridor.  
2. Avoidance of continuous strip commercial.  By placing residential uses on both sides of Walnut Street, south of the Macedonia Road intersection, the Plan was able to achieve an almost ¼-mile long “break” between the continuous nonresidential stretch of Walnut Street north of the subject site, and the continuous nonresidential stretch of Walnut Street that begins south of the creek at the southern end of the site.  In the absence of this break, uninterrupted commercial/retail development would extend for over 8,500 ft. (1.6 miles) along Walnut Street . The residential land use break limits the greatest length of uninterrupted commercial to no more than about 5,900 ft. (1.1 mile).
3. Traffic analysis and modeling.  The Plan’s pattern of land uses was carefully balanced against the projected 20-year traffic capacity of the road network, using a network traffic model.  The mix of retail, office, and residential uses has been crafted to provide the best utilization of the roadway network, while not exceeding projected capacity.  By mixing land uses, the Plan is able to balance traffic flow in each direction on the roadways, plus maximize internal trip capture that only becomes possible with a mix of uses.   
4. Compatibility with adjacent land uses.  The designation complemented and matched both the existing zoning and medium to high density residential uses planned for the north side of the realigned Macedonia Road .  The designation also complemented and matched the land use recommendations for the opposite (west) side of Walnut Street , which were developed cooperatively with Midland Atlantic.
5. Neighborhood opposition.  In 2003-2004, the Macedonia Road neighborhood was strongly against development within their neighborhood, and the community opposed all nonresidential uses, as well as higher residential densities.  The end result was that since the community did not advocate for nonresidential uses during the planning process, that traffic capacity was allocated to other parcels that were strongly advocating for nonresidential uses – such as at Tryon Village .

Analysis:  Staff feels that all of the above considerations are still valid, form a sound rationale for the existing land use recommendations, as well as a rationale for avoiding conversion of the site to retail and office. 

C.  Buildout 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 is based on the net usable acreage of the 6.98 acres, since approximately 2.36 acres of the site lay in riparian buffers.  Residential densities are projected using a range of 3 to 12 dwellings per acre.  The nonresidential analysis is based on floor-to-area ratios (FAR) ranging from 0.18 to 0.30, 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
Commercial/Retail floor space	0 sq. ft.	22,500 to 36,400 sq. ft.
Office floor space	0 sq. ft.	32,500 to 54,600 sq. ft.
Total Nonresidential floor space	0 sq. ft.	55,000 to 91,000 sq. ft.
Residential Dwellings	21-84 dwellings	0 dwellings

 

Analysis:  Under the proposed amendment, the total increase in commercial/retail floorspace is likely to be to somewhere in the range of 22,500 to 36,400 sq. ft., since the proposed Note #20 limits commercial to no more than 40% of total nonresidential space.  Accordingly, the total increase in office space might range between 32,500 and 54,600 sq. ft.  There would be a loss of between 21 and 84 residential units.  However, the exact amount of floor space will not be determined until a Mixed Use Sketch Plan (MUSP) for the site is approved by Town Council.   

D.  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:   There have been no changes in this regard.

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

Staff Analysis:   No new issues have been identified.

• 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:   There have been no changes in this regard.

• Identification of errors or omissions in the Comprehensive Plan.

Staff Analysis:   No errors or omissions have been identified.

 STAFF Recommendation  

Based on the above staff analysis, staff feels the criteria for considering Comprehensive Plan amendments has not been met.  Therefore staff recommends against the amendment request and that the Board forward this case to Town Council with a recommendation for denial.    

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.