Town of Cary, North Carolina

Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report

Case 09-CPA-01 Land Use Plan Update

Town Council Meeting

August 13, 2009

Amendment Request

Consideration of amendments to the Town-wide Land Use Plan to bring it into conformance with revisions to the Mixed Use Overlay District that are proposed as part of the LDO Round 12 amendments. The proposed plan amendments affect the recommendations for mixed-use activity centers in chapters 6, 7, and 8 of the Land Use Plan, plus the legend of the Land Use Plan Map. A complete summary of the proposed amendments is provided following the Background Information below.

Background

After several years of experience with the present policies and regulations that seek to facilitate mixed use development within activity centers, staff was requested to revisit the Town’s plan and ordinance requirements for such development. Staff evaluated the current Land Use Plan recommendations for activity centers, as well as the development process, standards, and guidelines prescribed by the LDO’s Mixed Use Overlay District. We conducted work sessions with Town Council on October 2, 2007; December 19, 2007; and April 27, 2008. In response to those in-depth reviews, this Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) proposes a number of changes to the town-wide Land Use Plan’s recommendations for mixed-use activity centers. These amendments are intended to work in concert with a set of corresponding LDO amendments to the Mixed Use Overlay District (MUOD), introduced as part of LDO Round 12, Part 2, and tracking in parallel with this case through the public review and adoption process.

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

This case does not propose any amendments to either the types of activity centers (neighborhood, community, or regional) or to the boundaries of activity centers, as shown on the Land Use Plan Map. The proposed amendment does, however, affect the definitions and recommendations for activity centers as given in the Land Use Plan document. Accordingly, the proposed amendments do affect all properties designated as part of an activity center on the Land Use Plan Map. This includes approximately 3,715 parcels located within the 35 activity centers that have delineated boundaries on the Land Use Plan Map, covering a total of approximately 6,982 acres. A complete list of these parcels, including Wake County Parcel Identification Numbers (PIN’s), may be obtained from the Planning Department. The specific acreage and number of parcels for an additional two activity centers that lack specific boundaries on the Plan Map cannot be determined.

complete description of proposed plan amendments

The proposed amendments include amendments to both the Land Use Plan document, and to the Legend of the Land Use Plan Map. The complete set of proposed amendments are shown in the attached revised plan sections, in which new text is shown in red, and text to be deleted is shown in red with strikethrough. The revised plan sections include all of Section 6.2 of Chapter 6, Section 6.5.2 of Chapter 6, Section 7.3 of Chapter 7, and Section 8.1 of Chapter 8, in addition to the proposed revisions to the Legend of the Land Use Plan Map.

The following table provides a synopsis of the proposed changes by chapter and section of the document. Section numbers given in the table’s “Chapter, Section, Heading” column are as per the proposed revised plan sections, rather than as in the current adopted plan, unless otherwise indicated with the phrasing “old Section...” Much of Section 6.2 of Chapter 6 has been rewritten or reorganized. Text within the adopted plan that has simply been moved from one part of Section 6.2 to another is not shown as a change using red-colored text in the attachments. However, a complete listing of these non-substantive changes is available that lists all the text passages in the current plan that have been moved to a new location in the proposed revision.

Chapter, Section, Heading	Summary of Amendment
1. Chapter 6, Section 6.2.1	· First paragraph modified to note that medium density residential is also desired in an activity center. · Additional stylistic changes.
2. Chapter 6, Section 6.2.2, through the first 3 bullets	· Minor corrections and stylistic changes to improve readability. · Some modifications to improve the consistency between the descriptions for NAC’s, CAC’s, and RAC’s. Specific mention of medium density residential added to the descriptions for NAC’s and CAC’s. · Paragraphs describing the amount of nonresidential and residential space for each type of activity center are deleted. That topic is now addressed in new Section 6.2.5, Table 6.1.
3. Chapter 6, Section 6.2.2, subsection entitled “Existing Centers and Greenfield Centers”	Subsection is deleted. The distinction between existing and greenfield activity centers is no longer needed, since most greenfield activity center boundaries are now defined and shown on the Land Use Plan Map.
4. Chapter 6, old Section 6.2.3 “Guidelines for Development in Existing Activity Centers”	This topic is now addressed in a rewritten/new Section 6.2.7 “Development Plan Conformance and Evaluation Criteria”, and hence this subsection has been deleted, although some of the text has been moved to new Section 6.2.7.
5. Chapter 6, [new] Section 6.2.3 “Activity Center Land Uses”	This is a new section that provides a needed general description of the types of land uses – and the balance between types of land uses – that are recommended and envisioned for activity centers.
6. Chapter 6, old Section 6.2.4 “Guidelines for Development of Greenfield Activity Centers”	Subsection is deleted. This section is no longer needed since we are removing the distinction between existing and greenfield activity centers.
7. Chapter 6, [new] Section 6.2.4 “Activity Center Locations and Boundaries”	This is old Section 6.2.5, which has been heavily updated to reflect current practices for mapping activity centers on both the Land Use Plan Map and on Area Plan maps.
8. Chapter 6, Section 6.2.5 “Activity Center Characteristics”	· This is the first half of old Section 6.2.7. The section has been updated to reflect the new zoning approach for Mixed Use Districts in LDO Round 12. · In particular, Table 6.1 has been added, and reflects the matrix of performance metrics originally given in the staff report for LDO Round 12, and subsequently revised under guidance from the Planning Board. Footnotes have been added to the table to clarify items. Text has been added to help clarify how one should interpret and apply the metrics given in Table 6.1. · Table 6.1 also incorporates the spacing criteria that were given in the old Table 6.1. However, the rows in old Table 6.1 for “Population Served” and “Service Radius” have been deleted, since the former repeats information inherent in the definitions of Section 6.1 and 6.2.2, and the latter is an unnecessary metric, since it is implied in the “Distance from next closest..” metrics in the subsequent rows of the table.
9. Chapter 6, Section 6.2.6 “Activity Center Design Elements”	This is the second half of old Section 6.2.7. The section has been updated to address design considerations only. Most changes are to Table 6.2, and include: · Miscellaneous clarifications and edits. · The first row under “Mixing” has been removed, since the material in the first paragraph is already covered in Section 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, and the material in the second paragraph is now addressed in new Table 6.1. · The first row under “Residential Density” has been deleted, since the material is already covered in other parts of Section 6.2. Category name changed from “Residential Density” to “Residential Density Transitions.” · The rows under the heading “Principal Establishments in Centers” have been deleted, since the first sentence of the first row, and the entire second and third rows, repeat material already mentioned in Section 6.2.2. The second sentence of the first row has been supplanted by the metrics in new Table 6.1. · The second row under “Parking” has been deleted, since the Plan cannot require the use of decks, and since decks are not an absolutely essential element. This subject may be more properly addressed in the forthcoming revision to the Design Guidelines Manual. · The second row under “Public Outdoor Space” has been deleted, since this topic is now covered in Table 6.1, Section 6.2.5. · The rows labeled “Setbacks” and “Buffers” have been deleted, since the topic is now addressed by the LDO. · The row labeled “Height” has been deleted, since the topic is now addressed by the new metrics table. · The category “Access” has been split into two categories, “Vehicular Access” and “Pedestrian and Bicycle Access”.
10. Chapter 6, Section 6.2.7 “Development Plan Conformance and Evaluation Criteria”	This section is new, and provides evaluation criteria for determining whether or not a development plan or rezoning request within an activity center conforms with the vision described in this Land Use Plan. The section includes many of the evaluation criteria and text that were previously contained in old Section 6.2.3, however some of that original text has been updated or deleted. This new section is more comprehensive, and is designed to work better with the proposed revisions to the Mixed Use District. The section sets forth separate conformance criteria for land use types, land use density and intensity, redevelopment, and general requirements.
11. Chapter 6, Section 6.2.8 “Modifications to Activity Centers on the Land Use Plan Map”	This new section clarifies the procedures that should be followed in order to add or delete an activity center from the Land Use Plan Map, or to amend the boundaries or type of an activity center already delineated on the Map.
12. Chapter 6, Section 6.5.2 “Criteria and Characteristics Common to All Residential Categories”	Under the heading “Dwelling Types, Densities, and Lot Sizes, by Category”, amended the cell under the column “Density Range”, for the row labeled “High Density”, to remove density figures for activity centers, and instead refer to the new height figures given in new Table 6.1 in new Section 6.2.5.
13. Chapter 7, Section 7.3, under heading “Building Design, Height, and Mass”	· In the 4th bullet, changed “comparable” to “compatible” · Deleted 6th and 7th bullets. Building heights within activity centers are now covered in Chapter 6, Section 6.2.5.
14. Chapter 8, Section 8.1, second paragraph (“The Land Use Plan Map has three...”)	The reference to proposed roadways is removed, since the Comprehensive Transportation Plan now addresses this topic. A description of residential density ranges has been added.
15. Chapter 8, Section 8.1, text under heading “Alternate Land Use Designations”	Text has been updated to reflect the conventions of the current Plan Map and amendments made since 1996.
16. Chapter 8, Section 8.1, text under heading “Residential Density Ranges”	This heading and its dependent text has been added to describe the conventions now used for residential density ranges.
17. Chapter 8, Section 8.1, text under heading “Flexible Arrangement of Land Uses within Activity Centers”	Text has been modified to conform with and support the revisions to Chapter 6.
18. Chapter 8, Section 8.1, text under heading “Proposed Roadways”	This part has been deleted since the Comprehensive Transportation Plan now addresses this topic.
19. Chapter 8, Section 8.1, text under heading “Proposed Parks”	This part has been deleted since the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Master Plan now addresses this topic.
20. Land Use Plan Map, Legend, text box labeled “Activity Centers”	· Remove references to “greenfield” and “full or partially-developed” activity centers. The distinction between these stages of development is no longer necessary. · Delete final bullet “Activity Center land uses are preferred over the underlying land use designations”. This text is now superseded by the new document Section 6.2.7. · Modify the Legend’s descriptions for the activity center symbols, to clarify the difference between Land Use Plan boundaries and Zoning Map boundaries.

Summary of Key Changes

Among all the amendments listed in the table above, the principal amendments occur in Section 6.2 of Chapter 6. Highlights of these amendments include:

• Adding a comprehensive table of performance measures and standards for the three classes of activity centers, as discussed at Council work sessions. (Table 6.1, Section 6.2.5)
• Adding a new subsection that provides clear and comprehensive guidelines for evaluating whether or not a development proposal conforms to the Land Use Plan. (Section 6.2.7)
• Removing the distinction between complete, partially complete, and greenfield activity centers from both the plan text and the plan map.

Applicable Comprehensive or Area Plan Requirements:

A. Land Use Plan:

The governing element of Cary’s Comprehensive Plan is the Land Use Plan, originally adopted in November 1996. This case proposes a range of text amendments to Chapter 6, Sections 6.2 and 6.5.3, plus Chapter 7, Section 7.3, and Chapter 8, Section 8.1, as well as to the Legend of the Plan Map.

Relevant amendment history: Chapter 6, Section 6.2 of the Land Use Plan was fully revised in 2003, in conjunction with the adoption of Cary’s new Land Development Ordinance, both effective on July 1, 2003. Section 6.2 contains the bulk of the definitions and recommendations for mixed-use activity centers. The section was updated to support the new Mixed Use Overlay District (MUOD), established with the adoption of the LDO, and to remove or adjust guidelines and metrics which had been regarded as impeding design creativity and flexibility.

B. Comprehensive Transportation Plan:
Since this case concerns over three dozen activity centers, spread over thousands of parcels and acres, and not a single or small group of parcels, it is not practical to identify all possible Transportation Plan recommendations that might affect each of the parcels. Refer instead to the Comprehensive Transportation Plan for general information and Transportation Plan maps.

C. Parks & Greenways Master Plan:
Since this case concerns over three dozen activity centers, spread over thousands of parcels and acres, and not a single or small group of parcels, it is not practical to identify all possible Parks, Recreation, and Greenway facilities planned for this area. Refer instead to the Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Master Plan for general information and related plan maps.

D. Open Space and Historic Resources Plan:

Since this case concerns over three dozen activity centers, spread over thousands of parcels and acres, and not a single or small group of parcels, it is not practical to identify all possible open space and historic resources within this area. Refer instead to the Open Space and Historic Resources Plan for general information and related plan maps.

E. Affordable Housing Plan:
The proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan do not generally change the effects that the Land Use Plan has on the goals of the Affordable Housing Plan. However, the Affordable Housing Plan includes the following goals which are advanced by the purpose and intent of mixed use activity centers:

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

Analysis, Goals 1-3: The mix and density of housing types recommended for activity centers, in close and walkable proximity to retail and office uses, may advance the achievement of these goals. For example, activity centers provide excellent land use opportunities for a wide range of housing types and densities, and the proposed plan revisions strengthen and clarify the intended residential-to-nonresidential mix.

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

Analysis, Goal 4: Some of the proposed amendments clarify and improve the recommendations for public amenities within activity centers.

F. Growth Management Plan: The proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan do not generally change the effects that the Land Use Plan has on the goals of the Growth Management Plan. However, the Growth Management Plan includes the following Guiding Principles which are relevant to the purpose and goals of mixed use activity centers:

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

2. Guiding Principle A2: Increase permitted densities in preferred growth areas to encouraged desired forms of development.

Analysis, L1 and A2: The entire concept for activity centers helps to support and sustain these Guiding Principles.

Town Council Public Hearing Of February 26, 2009

A. Public Hearing Comments

Only one citizen spoke, requesting that Council forward the proposed amendments to the Developer Focus Group, so that the development community could offer comments.

B. Town Council Discussion

Councilman Portman asked why the metrics table in the plan amendment recommends excluding theatres and cinemas from the commercial floorspace limit guidelines. Staff replied that certain uses (such as hotels, motels, theatres and cinemas) have a lot of space, but not necessarily a lot of people, and these uses do not have the impacts of typical retail. Mr. Portman expressed concerns about maintaining this exclusion, citing potential impacts on neighborhoods (traffic, physical scale, etc.).

C. Changes after the Town Council Public Hearing of March 26, 2009

None.

planning and zoning board work sessions of march 9 and april 13, 2009

A. Planning Board Comments

Planning Board discussion focused on the content of Table 6.1 (Recommended General Characteristics of Activity Centers), from Section 6.2.5 of Chapter 6 of the Land Use Plan. Table 6.1 contains the metrics proposed for mixed use activity centers. Board members’ comments and suggestions included the following:

· Regarding the proposed metrics for “big box” retailers, a number of board members felt that the table should include separate metrics rows and maximum floorspace figures for big box retailers that utilize structured parking, or that configure the big box store as a multistory building. One board member was not concerned about providing a floorspace limit for regional activity centers.

· One board member was concerned that the table does not provide a limit for retail sites smaller than shopping centers.

· One board member suggested that there be some overlap in the commercial floorspace ranges for neighborhood, community, and regional activity centers, since overlap does in fact occur.

· Several board members suggested that the floorspace and related metrics be described as “typical”, rather than “maximum”.

· One board member thought that we could perhaps omit the commercial floorspace ranges from the table altogether, since the market would impose those limits anyway, based on the allowed number of shopping centers and major and minor anchors.

· One board member preferred that the table specify a “recommended” or “ideal” amount of office space, or ratio of office to commercial space, rather than specifying a minimum ratio.

· Several board members concurred that they would prefer to have a “typical amount” or “preferred range” of housing units given in the table, rather than a minimum ratio.

· One board member questioned why no maximum density was given for housing in regional activity centers. Other members questioned whether or not it was necessary to specify a density limit, since the table already included recommended limits on the number of stories. In general, it was agreed that height guidelines were more pertinent, and the density metrics could be dropped. One board member suggested that residential buildings could be given an increase in height for vertically-mixed buildings, such as buildings having residential above first floor retail.

· One board member cautioned against excluding all hotel space from the commercial floorspace limits, since a hotel’s restaurant, club, or convention facilities might function more like commercial or office space than residential space.

B. Changes after the Planning Board Work Sessions of March 9 and April 13, 2009

Staff revised Table 6.1 in response to the board’s comments and suggestions, for presentation at their May 11, 2009, work session.

Significant changes included:

· Most references to metrics “maximums” were changed to “typical,” and a number of single-figure metrics were changed to ranges.

· Many of the metric ranges were adjusted to have some overlap between the recommendations for neighborhood, community, and regional activity centers.

· Some of the floorspace recommendations were adjusted based on more recent research.

· The metrics for “big box” retailers were expanded into three rows, with floorspace recommendations given separately for big box sites that use structured parking and/or multistory buildings.

· The table was clarified to note that only the residential/lodging portion of a hotel is exempt from the recommended commercial/retail floorspace limits.

· The metrics for office space were updated to provide typical floorspace ranges, typical ratios of office to total nonresidential floorspace, as well as providing an ideal minimum ratio.

· The recommended minimum number of residential units per 1,000 sq. ft. of nonresidential space was updated to specify a “typical range,” while still providing an “ideal minimum.” Also, residential density recommendations were removed.

· Building height limits were expanded to include a height bonus for mixed-use buildings that have a nonresidential first floor.

planning and zoning board work session of May 11, 2009

A. Planning Board Comments

At their May 11 work session, the board reviewed staff’s revisions to Table 6.1, Section 6.2.5, of Chapter 6 of the Land Use Plan. Board members’ comments and suggestions included the following:

· Most board members approved of the table’s new metrics for “big box” retailers, however one board member preferred the original approach, which he felt was more flexible. One board member asked that the table mention that shared parking could be used to reduce parking acreage, and not just structured parking.

· One board member felt that the retail and office floorspace limits for community activity centers should be lowered back down to about 600,000 sq. ft., and that the low end of the limits for regional centers seemed too low, especially for office.

· One board member felt that exceptions from the metrics guidelines should be allowed for cases of exceptional design.

· It was suggested that the words “or more” be removed from the “Ideal minimum” figures in the row entitled “Typical range and ideal minimum for the office share of total nonresidential floorspace”.

· It was suggested that the words “or more” be removed from the metrics in the row entitled “Typical number of residential units per 1,000 sq. ft. of nonresidential space”.

· For the row labeled “Typical number of residential units per 1,000 sq. ft. of nonresidential space”, it was suggested that the figures for a community center be changed from “½ to 4” to “½ to 3”, and for a regional center changed from “½ to 1 ½” to perhaps “1/2 to 4” – to encourage the greatest future residential densities in our regional centers.

· For the row labeled “Ideal min. number of residential units per 1,000 sq. ft.”, it was suggested that the figures for community centers and regional centers be increased.

· For the row labeled “Typical Maximum Building Height at street front”, it was suggested that perhaps the height figures in feet weren’t needed, since the number of stories were given. One board member suggested raising the height limit in regional centers to 9-10 stories. It was also suggested that the word “maximum” might be deleted from the label.

B. Changes after the Planning Board Work Session of May 11, 2009

Staff revised Table 6.1 in Section 6.2, Chapter 6, in response to the board’s comments and suggestions. Significant changes include:

· Endnotes were added to the latter two rows that address the typical floorspace for big boxes, to clarify that parking acreage can be limited through the use of either shared parking or structured parking.

· In the row labeled “Typical range of commercial/retail floorspace,” the upper end of the range for a community activity center was lowered from 750,000 to 600,000 sq. ft., and the lower end of the range for a regional center was increased from 400,000 to 500,000 sq. ft.

· In the row labeled “Typical range of office/institutional floorspace,” the upper end of the range for a community activity center was lowered from 750,000 to 650,000 sq. ft., and the lower end of the range for a regional center was increased from 500,000 to 600,000 sq. ft.

· In the row labeled “Typical range and ideal minimum for the office share of total nonresidential floorspace,” the words “or more” were removed from after the percentage figures cited as ideal minimums.

· In the row labeled “Typical number of residential units per 1,000 sq. ft. of nonresidential space,” the words “or more” were removed from all the cited ranges; the range for a community center was changed from “½ to 4” to “½ to 3”; and the range for a regional center was changed from “½ to 1½” to “½ to 4.”

· In the row labeled “Ideal min. number of residential units per 1,000 sq. ft. of nonresidential space,” the figures for community and regional centers were increased from 1 to 1¼.

· In the row specifying building height, the recommended maximum height for a regional center was increased to 10 stories. The number of feet cited for each of the three types of centers was moved to parentheses, giving greater emphasis to the limit on the number of stories. An endnote was also added to clarify the definition of “vertically-mixed building.” (Staff decided against changing the label to indicate that the cited heights were “typical,” since only the maximum height is cited, rather than a range.)

· A sentence was added to the end of the introductory paragraph for Section 6.2.5, to clarify that exceptions to the table’s metrics could be considered in cases of exceptional design.

planning and zoning board public hearing, June 15, 2009

A. Public Hearing Comments

None of the citizens who spoke had comments concerning the Land Use Plan amendments. Comments were instead directed towards the related LDO amendments to the Mixed Use Overlay District (contained in LDO Round 12, Part 2). However, one citizen did provide written comments for the Board, offering the following suggestions:

· The Land Use Plan should recommend there be a mix of at least two uses on each of the quadrants within a neighborhood activity center, rather than just within the entire activity center taken as a whole. (Staff response: In practice, the size of neighborhood centers often makes it difficult or impractical to require mixing at the quadrant level, although such mixing is of course encouraged.)

· The Land Use Plan should include a specific list of pedestrian-oriented design features for activity centers. Conformance with the Land Use Plan should also depend on whether or not a development plan achieves a sufficient degree of pedestrian-oriented design. (Staff response: Pedestrian-friendly design is certainly an important issue, however those design issues are being addressed separately via the Site Design Standards currently under development.)

· The Land Use Plan should recommend density bonuses in exchange for specific public amenities and design features. (Staff response: This is more an ordinance than a plan issue, however the Town’s zoning districts are not currently designed so as to enable effective use of density bonuses.)

· The Land Use Plan should provide more specific guidance and criteria as to which types of public spaces should be provided in a development (i.e., plaza, square, green, or park?). (Staff response: Staff prefers the flexible guidelines currently proposed, since the unique geography and circumstances of each activity center make it difficult to prescribe specific treatments.)

B. Planning Board Discussion and Action

Discussion focused on the related LDO amendments to the Mixed Use Overlay District (contained in LDO Round 12, Part 2), rather than on the proposed Land Use Plan amendments. The Board recommended approval of the case by a vote of 6-0.

C. Amendment Changes Subsequent to Planning Board Action on June 15, 2009

None.

Staff Analysis

Staff feels that the proposed amendments to the Land Use Plan, including the changes proposed by the Planning Board, represent a significant improvement to the guidance and recommendations provided by the Land Use Plan for activity centers.

The reorganization proposed for Section 6.2, Chapter 6, provides a much more structured approach towards activity centers, moving the reader from basic concepts to detailed metrics and recommendations. The new recommendations bring a greater amount of detail and measurable criteria to bear on activity centers, while still recognizing that differences will exist between centers, and that not all of the criteria will fit each and every activity center.

Further, by consolidating most of the activity center recommendations into a single table of performance “metrics,” it will be easier for citizens, developers, land owners, and elected and appointed officials to quickly and easily compare development proposals against the Town’s official expectations. In addition, a new section has been added to Chapter 6 – Section 6.2.7 – to provide clear guidance for determining whether or not a particular development proposal conforms to the Land Use Plan. This new section should make it much easier for elected and appointed officials to systematically and methodically approach the evaluation of development proposals.

The floorspace guidelines given in the new Table 6.1 are based on many months of staff research, and represent a significant improvement over the existing metrics. For example, staff research revealed that the existing floorspace guidelines for neighborhood and community activity centers weren’t realistic, and didn’t accurately reflect the wide range in floorspace that has already occurred in numerous centers. For instance, the current Land Use Plan recommends that neighborhood activity centers have about 125,000 sq. ft. of commercial/retail space. However, staff’s research revealed that, at buildout, the average amount of commercial/retail floorspace in a neighborhood activity center is closer to 160,000 sq. ft. Further, Cary’s 17 neighborhood activity centers can reasonably be expected to range anywhere from 62,000 – 250,000 sq. ft. in commercial/retail floorspace. The situation for office space is similar.

The new floorspace guidelines not only better reflect the on-the-ground reality of Cary’s existing activity centers, but also provide room for growth and redevelopment in those centers.

Staff Recommendation

Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of these amendments to the Land Use Plan.

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: The current plan’s guidelines for commercial and office floorspace no longer reflect the latest market data or trends, and fail to express the full range of floorspace that might be appropriate at different centers of the same type.

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

Staff Comment: The current plan does not provide sufficient guidance for determining whether or not a development plan is in conformance with the Land Use 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: The proposed revisions to the Land Use Plan are necessitated by amendments proposed for the Mixed Use Overlay District, and are based on Council direction that the Land Use Plan should provide comprehensive and detailed performance metrics for activity centers.

• Identification of errors or omissions in the Comprehensive Plan.

Staff Comment: None identified.