Town of Cary, North Carolina

Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report to the Town Council

08-CPA-06 Johnson Family, LLC

Request

The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Map 1 of 2; Future Land Use Map of the Southwest Area Plan to change the land use designation of a 10-acre portion of an approximately 21.13-acre tract located at 6816 Green Hope School Road from MXD, “Mixed Use” to LDR, “Low Density Residential”.

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. Southwest Area Plan: This request is for an amendment to the Southwest Area Plan, an element of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. The current land use designation for this site is Mixed Use (MXD) and is located in an area designated for a Neighborhood Activity Center. Within this area medium and high density residential uses are planned at between 3-25 units per acre. Residential uses should be complemented with office and retail uses with a total square footage of between 250,000 and 300,000 s.f. The applicant is requesting the land use designation be changed to Low Density Residential (LDR). The Southwest Area Plan defines Low Density Residential (LDR) as housing densities between one and three dwellings per acre and includes single-family detached on lots typically sized at 10,000 s.f. up to one acre.

B. Comprehensive Transportation Plan:
The Town’s Transportation Plan identifies one thoroughfare, Green Hope School Road:
Existing Section: 2-lane road

Future Section: 2-lane road with paved median

Road Improvements: None scheduled by the Town of Cary

Sidewalks Requirements: Sidewalks required on both sides

Bicycle Requirements: 14’ wide outside lanes

Transit Requirements: TBD

Traffic Analysis: N/A

C. Parks & Greenways Facilities Master Plan: Greenway Map
According to the approved Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Facilities Master Plan a greenway trail is planned through a portion of the parcel.

D. Open Space and Historic Resources Plan:

According to the Open Space and Historical Resources Plan (OSHRP) there are urban transition buffers associated with Panther Creek located on the parcel.

E. Affordable Housing Plan:
The Affordable Housing Plan includes the following goals that may be applicable to this case:

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

Analysis: Although not directly in conformance with this goal, Mr and Mrs Johnson, who are seniors, have stated a desire to continue to reside on their land and have their children close by to care for them as they age.

2. 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.

Analysis: The request is in conflict with this goal as property designated for mixed use would be amended to low density residential.

3. Assure a quality living environment and access to public amenities for all residents, present and future, of the Town of Cary, regardless of income.

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

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

Analysis: Based on Town of Cary Geographic Information Systems (GIS), water and sewer lines are available to the subject property, and waterlines will need to be extended to the property. A collector street is proposed along the western boundary of the property.

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

Analysis: The proposed use contemplated in this amendment is a single-family home on 10 acres. At such low density, open space and natural resources can be easily protected.

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

Analysis: The Southwest Area Plan envisions this property to be in a preferred growth area adjacent to NC Highway 55. The amendment requested would decrease the density in a preferred growth area and thus would adversely impact this Guiding Principle.

Comparison of Existing and Requested Land Use Plan Designations

Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted October 12, 2007

Provided below are the applicant’s responses to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Justification Questions contained in the application form. (The application questions are repeated below.) Please note that the statements below are that of the applicant and does not necessarily represent the views or opinions of the Town of Cary:

How is the proposed request reasonable? In explaining how it is reasonable, please address the following, if applicable:

Applicants request a CPA to a 10-acre tract of land located on the Johnson Family Farm, 6816 Green Hope School Road, Cary, NC 27519. We justify the request due to the fact that the land has been in the family 90-plus years and there has been an occupied, single family residence on the property since the original purchase. Applicant(s) request rezoning from ORD to R-40 in order to permit their daughter. Melinda Massingale, to build a single-family dwelling on the property with the understanding that the present single family dwelling would be removed.

The Johnson family has owned the land surrounding the intersection of Green Hope School Road and Highway 55 for many, many years and has consistently used it as a family homeplace, farm and family business. They own the business at the northwest quadrant of the intersection and much of the surrounding property. Assuming that the “land use plan” was conceived under the assumption that when the property was sold, it would be developed, the Johnson family should be allowed to continue using their land for their personal use.

The property currently has an occupied mobile home, well and septic tank on it, which will be replaced with a single family residence. The land directly across the road is residential and the area on the comprehensive plan, designated by Note 1, has a residential component, thus we think that residential uses would not be out of place here.

Our request to build a single family dwelling on the property would not prevent future, higher intensity uses being placed on the land if and when the Johnson family does decide to sell. In the meantime, the impact to the neighbors and to traffic is minimal.

TOWN COUNCIL Public Hearing Comments September 11, 2008

The applicants spoke in favor of their request. No other citizens came forward to speak at the Town Council public hearing.

Town Council Questions and Comments

Town Council had no questions following the public hearing but noted it was unusual and refreshing for an applicant to request changing from mixed use to low density residential.

Planning and Zoning Board Meeting NOVEMBER 17, 2008

A. Public Hearing Comments

The applicant, Raymond Johnson spoke in favor of his request. He pointed out that the property had been in his family for 90 years and that they wanted to provide a site for his daughter to live on the property. Mr. Johnson also provided a survey of the 10-acre portion of his larger 21.13-acre tract that he plans to transfer to his daughter. Only the 10-acre portion is intended to be part of the request.

No citizens came forward to speak at the Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing on November 17, 2008.

B. Planning and Zoning Board Actions and Analysis

Planning and Zoning Board members did not have any questions or comments for staff or the applicant.

The Board stated that this request seemed reasonable based on the identification of new issues, needs, or opportunities that are not adequately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. A motion was made to forward the case, 08-CPA-06 Johnson Family, LLC, to Town Council with a recommendation for approval. The motion passed 9-0.

Changes Since the Public Hearing

There have been no changes since the Public Hearing.

Staff Analysis

A. Background

The property under consideration is part of the Johnson Family farm and has been in their family for more than 90 years. Raymond Johnson and his wife wish to subdivide a 10-acre parcel and gift it to their daughter to construct a house on the parcel. The property has a land use designation of Mixed Use and a zoning designation of Office Research and Development (ORD). Neither the land use designation nor the zoning designation permits a large-lot single-family residence to be constructed on the parcel. There is however, a non-conforming single-family residence already on the parcel that would be replaced by a new residential structure.

The property received the Mixed Use land use designation during the development of the Southwest Area Plan and was to be part of a 197-acre Neighborhood Activity Center surrounding the intersection of NC 55 and Morrisville Parkway. This Center is further defined by Note 1 on the Southwest Area Plan Land Use Map which states (in part) that “residential uses should comprise one-third to one half of the buildable area” with “a mix of both attached and detached dwellings”. “Non-residential uses (commercial and office) should be focused towards Morrisville Parkway Extension and/or Green Hope School Rd/NC 55.”

The Activity Center is undesignated meaning that the Mixed Use Overlay District has not been placed over the property which would activate and implement the Center. Despite this fact, the area has already seen non-residential development with a large truck repair business, a landscape and mulch business, the National Guard Armory and a self-storage facility either built or being constructed within the area designated for the mixed use center. The property owners have utilized their base zoning of Office, Research and Development to establish these uses. Because of the industrial character of existing development within the mixed use center area, it is unlikely that the complete neighborhood mixed use center envisioned by the Southwest Area Plan will be developed. However, mixed retail and office uses closest to the intersection of Morrisville Parkway and NC55 and supporting higher density residential uses are still possible within this area.

B. Justification

Taking a long term view, staff believes that a neighborhood activity center surrounding the intersection of NC 55 and Morrisville Parkway is still appropriate and that the subject parcel and other vacant parcels in the activity center could still be developed as mixed use supported by higher density residential development. Nonetheless, staff is sympathetic to the desire of the Johnson family and their daughter to live on their family land. While the Johnson’s request might inherently be better handled through an exception, there is not a current mechanism in the Southwest Area Plan or Land Development Ordinance for such an exception to be made. Further the applicant’s stated intent to construct a single-family residence on a 10-acre parcel would not establish a development pattern in the short term that would be irreversible nor make the higher density residential development envisioned by the Southwest Area Plan difficult in the future.

Staff recommendation

Based on the above staff analysis, staff believes the criteria for considering a Comprehensive Plan Amendment has been met. Staff recommends approval of this request.

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 Comment: None have been identified

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

Staff Comment: The Southwest Area Plan designates the subject property as part of a neighborhood activity center. However, the Mixed Use Overlay Zoning District has not been established and existing development patterns are not consistent with uses normally found in a neighborhood center. The applicant has stated a need and desire to have their daughter reside on the property. Division of property among family members is a common practice that cannot be fully anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan.

• 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 Comment: None have been identified

• Identification of errors or omissions in the Comprehensive Plan.

Staff Comment: None have been identified

Town Council Motion Options

Approval Motion:

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

Approval with Modifications Motion:

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