Town of Cary , North Carolina

Comprehensive Plan Amendment Staff Report

09-CPA-05, Chapel Hill Road

Town Council Meeting

May 27, 2010

 

 

To amend the Town of Cary Land Use Plan by changing the future land use designation for nine parcels in a neighborhood from “Low Density Residential” (LDR) to “Low to Medium Density Residential” (LDR to MDR).  The case applicants represent eight of the nine parcels.

 

Location:  The properties are located on the north side of Chapel Hill Road, between Woodland Drive and Fairbanks Road. 

Deeded Acreage:  13.94 +/-

Existing Land Use Designation:  Low Density Residential (LDR)

Requested Land Use Designation:  “Low to Medium Density Residential” (LDR to MDR)

 

NOTE: 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.  Technical design standards of the Land Development Ordinance are addressed during review of the site or subdivision plan and can be found at http://www.amlegal.com/library/nc/cary.shtml.

 

Note:  This case was submitted by representatives of the first eight properties listed below.  The owners of the ninth property, the Harrington’s, did not submit application signatures.

 

Property Owner(s)	County Parcel Number(s) (10-digit)	Real Estate ID(s)	Deeded Acreage
Balaji Investments, LLC	0754870350	0047562	0.68
Balaji Investments LLC	0754874015	0047564	7.12
Samuel, Joseph  & Valsa	0754864723	0020813	0.95
Samuel, Joseph  & Valsa	0754862642	0077640	0.69
Samuel, Joseph  & Valsa	0754875555 portion	0128515 portion	1.46 (out of 1.77 total)
Samuel, Joseph  & Valsa	0754874372	0067933	0.64
Samuel, Joseph  & Valsa	0754875365	0067934	0.63
Thotakura, Rajakumar & Umalakshmi	0754862903	0047563	1.14
Harrington, Stacy W. and Annie L.	0754862850	0028563	0.63
Total Area			13.94 +/-

 

SCHEDULE

 

Review Step	Date	Action
Town Council Public Hearing	February 25, 2010	Forwarded to April 19, 2010 meeting of Planning and Zoning Board
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting	April 19, 2010	Recommended for adoption (7-2)
Town Council  Action1	May 27, 2010	To be determined

¹The date of this meeting will be determined after the Planning & Zoning Board recommendation. The plan amendment will go to the first meeting of the month if there is unanimous approval by the Planning & Zoning Board; otherwise, it will go to the second meeting of the month as a discussion item.

 

Applicant’s Agent/ Contact Person
John Frazier, PE
Crowley, Crisp, and Associates, Inc.
919-562-8860 ext. 29
jfrazier@crowley-crisp.com 

 

Applicant
Joseph Samuel
919-677-8680
jsamuel23@bellsouth.net

 

Staff Contact, Town of Cary
Scott Ramage, AICP
919-462-3888
scott.ramage@townofcary.org

 

Notification
On February 5, 2010 the Town mailed letters of notification to property owners within 400 feet of the subject properties.  For the February 25 Town Council public hearing, ads appeared in the February 10 and 17, 2010 editions of the Cary News, and the property was posted on February 10, 2010.  For the April 19 Planning and Zoning Board public hearing, ads have been scheduled to appear in the April 7 and 14, 2010 editions of the Cary News.

 

Town Council Public Hearing, February 25, 2010
A. Public Hearing Comments
No citizens spoke on this case at the hearing (although one citizen did speak on the related rezoning case, 09-REZ-17 Chapel Hill Road).

B. Council Discussion
There were no council questions related to the comprehensive plan amendment.

Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing, April 19, 2010
A. Public Hearing Comments
Other than the case applicant (John Frazier), no citizens spoke on this case at the hearing.

B. Planning Board Discussion
Board members discussed the impact that a future widening of Chapel Hill Road might have on the subject parcels, and also discussed the proximity of the site to Park Place, the future Park West Village, and a potential rail transit station. Most members felt that a change in residential densities were warranted given those considerations. One board member expressed concern about whether a future rezoning case might tend towards the higher end of the requested density range. Two other board members felt the best land use designation would be “MDR” (Medium Density Residential) only, in order to ensure higher densities at this location, rather than the applicant’s requested “LDR to MDR” (Low to Medium Density Residential) density range. One board member raised concerns about whether pedestrian trips between the site and Park Place, Park West Village, and/or a transit station would be feasible in practice.

The board voted to recommend approval of the proposed amendment, by a vote of 7-2, with the majority citing the changing character of the area and the analyses given in this staff report. Opposing board members cited concerns about (a) changing the character of development along Chapel Hill Road, (b) creating additional development pressure near the historic Nancy Jones House, and (c) the timing of the request, feeling that the need for the amendment was still many years away.

B. Changes Since Planning and Zoning Board Action
There have been no changes to the application since either the Town Council public hearing or the Planning and Zoning Board’s action.

 

Land Use Plan
Long-range land use recommendations for the subject parcels are given by the town-wide Land Use Plan.  The Land Use Plan designates all of the subject parcels as “Low Density Residential” (LDR), which includes single-family dwellings at densities of about one to three units per acre.  The applicants propose to change the land use designation to “Low to Medium Density Residential” (LDR to MDR).  There have been no prior land use plan amendments for these parcels since initial plan adoption in 1996.

An associated rezoning request, 09-REZ-17, proposes to change the zoning of the subject parcels from R-40 and R-20 to TR-CU (Transitional Residential – Conditional Use).

 

Comparison of development potential for current versus requested land use designations:

 

 

 

Growth Management Plan
The Growth Management Plan includes the following Guiding Principles which may be relevant to this case:
1.  Guiding Principle R1: Ensure that adequate infrastructure and services are available concurrently with new development.
2.  Guiding Principle L1: Concentrate growth near existing and planned employment centers and available and planned infrastructure to minimize costly service-area extensions.
3.  Guiding Principle L2: Ensure that future growth protects sensitive natural resources and protects open space.
4.  Guiding Principle A1: Increase permitted densities in preferred growth areas to encourage desired forms of development.

 

Analysis:  The proposed amendment is consistent with Guiding Principles R1 and L1; the location has adequate infrastructure and services, and is located within a quarter-mile of the Park Place Shopping Center and its surrounding mixed-use areas.  For this particular amendment request, it is not possible to determine the extent to which Principle L2 may or may not be achieved; it will depend on the particular conditions in a rezoning case, plus the final development plan.  It is also difficult to ascertain whether or not Principle A1 is achieved:  If a regional rail transit station is in fact someday sited near Park Place, then areas proximate to that station – including the subject parcels – might be considered a “preferred growth area,” thus satisfying Principle A1.  The lack of certainty regarding the station location makes it impossible to definitively judge conformance with A1.

 

Affordable Housing Plan
The Affordable Housing Plan includes the following goals that may be relevant 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.

Staff Comments:  The proposed amendment may offer the possibility of increasing the diversity of the area’s housing stock, due to the potential for medium densities.  Medium density housing may also present a higher likelihood of greater affordability than for large-lot single family housing.

2.  Promote the preservation of the Town of Cary’s existing housing stock through housing rehabilitation resources to maintain the affordable housing that already exists in the community.

Staff Comments:  The amendment may set the stage for eventual removal of the seven existing homes, should the area redevelop.

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 Comments:  The housing would be within a quarter-mile walking distance of shops and services at Park Place Shopping Center.  If the regional rail transit station is in fact sited near Park Place, the housing would also be convenient to regional transit.

 

Comprehensive Transportation Plan

Chapel Hill Road is designated as a Major Thoroughfare
Existing Section:  2-lane road, approximately 60 feet of right-of-way
Future Section:  6-lane median divided, 124 feet of right-of-way
Sidewalks:  Will be required on both sides
Bicycle lanes:  14-foot-wide outside lanes required
Transit:  To be determined
Status of Planned Improvements:  None scheduled by the Town

Parks And Greenways Master Plan
The Parks and Greenways Facilities Master Plan does not show any parks or greenways within or adjacent to the subject parcels, however a 10-foot multiuse trail is planned along the north side of Chapel Hill Road in lieu of a conventional sidewalk.

 

Open Space and Historic Resources Plan
The open space inventory associated with the Open Space and Historic Resources Plan indicates that there is a mixed upland hardwood plant community towards the northeast portion of the tract.

 

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:

 

1.  Describe how the requested amendment is warranted due to changes in conditions, forecasts, or assumptions since the original Comprehensive Plan recommendations were developed.

Applicant Response:  As part of future development of the property, the owners will be required to make improvements to Chapel Hill Road to the order of half of a 124’ future right-of-way and 120’ back-to-back roadway with a 10’ pedestrian trail.  The extent of the improvements and necessary right-of-way dedication would make it very difficult to make improvements to the properties under the existing LDR land use designation.  The owners are sensitive to the surrounding neighborhoods and are requesting only a land use change great enough to provide the capital that would be necessary to make the required improvements.

 

2.  Describe how the requested amendment is warranted due to new issues, needs, or opportunities that have arisen in this geographic area since the original Comprehensive Plan recommendations were developed. 

Applicant Response:  The request will allow for a transition between the LDR land uses to the east and south and the higher density residential and commercial land uses to the north.  The request will provide the opportunity for alternative housing types nearby to the religious facilities in the area as well as the commercial zones at the intersections of Cary Parkway and Chapel Hill Road and Maynard Road and Chapel Hill road.  The religious facilities and commercial development have provided the opportunity for more residential growth in the area.

 

3.  Describe how the requested amendment is warranted due to changes in Town policies, objectives, or standards since the original Comprehensive Plan recommendations were developed.

Applicant Response:  The requested amendment is not based on changes in Town policies, objectives, or standards.  However, as part of the Town’s Transportation Plan, Chapel Hill Road is to be widened to a 124’ right-of-way and 120’ back-to-back section, which will make these required improvements along Chapel Hill Road very expensive for future developers. 

 

4.  Describe how the requested amendment is warranted due to errors or omissions in the current Comprehensive Plan

Applicant Response:  The requested amendment is not based on errors or omissions to the current Plan.

 

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:

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

Analysis:  The long-range land use recommendations for the subject parcels date from the development of the town-wide Land Use Plan in 1996.  At that time, the precise cross-section and number of travel lanes that might ultimately be required for the adjacent section of Chapel Hill Road was unknown, and might have ranged from a 4-lane road or wider, with or without a median.  The 1996 Plan recommended that a special Corridor Plan be developed for Chapel Hill Road once more information was known.  Recommendations for Chapel Hill Road were clarified with the adoption of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) in September 2008, which set the cross-section at 6 travel lanes with a landscaped median.  

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

Analysis:  When the long-range land use recommendations for the subject parcels were developed in 1996, there was no regional rail transit station envisioned within close proximity to the subject parcels.  Rather, the station was planned to be located near the intersection of Morrisville Parkway and Crabtree Crossing Parkway, about 1.5 miles northwest of the subject parcels.  Since that time, the Triangle Transit Authority has adjusted their plans to consider a future rail station site near Park Place Shopping Center, potentially as little as 1/3-mile from the case site.  (Note:  The station location is not assured, and may still be moved.) 

3.  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

Analysis:  No relevant changes in policies, objectives, principles, or standards have been identified.

4.  Identification of errors or omissions in the Comprehensive Plan.

Analysis:  No errors or omissions have been identified. 

 

Staff recommends in favor of the proposed amendment, based on the following analysis.

 

As noted under “Criteria for Consideration in Reviewing Comprehensive Plan Amendments,” above, the long-term vision for Chapel Hill Road near the subject properties has changed since the current land use recommendations for the properties were developed in 1996.  If the 2008 Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) had recommended a 4- or 5-lane treatment for this section of the thoroughfare, it may have been reasonable to recommend a continuation of the Low Density Residential designation for the properties, in order to help maintain the character of the corridor.  That would have been in keeping with similar land use recommendations along widened sections of Maynard Road.  However, the CTP currently recommends a 6-lane median-divided section, which is likely to change the character of the corridor in such a way that single-family uses fronting on – or immediately adjacent to – the thoroughfare become less tenable.   

 

The proposed plan amendment raises the possibility of site redevelopment that will adequately buffer future homes from the ultimate limits of the thoroughfare.  Higher density homes might be placed closer to Chapel Hill Road, with a transition to lower densities near the existing homes on Woodland Drive.  The precise types of housing and density will be determined at the time of rezoning.  Town Council and the Planning and Zoning Board will have considerable latitude in determining the precise type of zoning that best fits in with adjacent established neighborhoods, and with the future extent of Chapel Hill Road.

 

Lastly, the proposed plan amendment could place additional housing within a quarter-mile to half-mile of the Park Place Shopping Center.  Should a future regional rail transit station be built somewhere in proximity to Park Place, the added density could also help support the rail station.