06-REZ-39 Cary Park Mixed Use Overlay District Rezoning
|
06-REZ-39 Cary Park Mixed Use Overlay District Rezoning Background Information Existing Zoning: Zoning map Requested Zoning: add a Community Mixed Use Center Overlay District to the above zoning Land Use Plan Designation: Land use map Acreage: 149.22 acres Location: Vicinity map Applicant: Town of Cary Case Manager: Summary of Requested Rezoning This rezoning request is consistent with the Northwest Area Plan which recommends a mixed-use Community Activity Center at this location. A citizen has requested Mixed Use Overlay District (MUOD) zoning on his property at this location (see case 06-rez-38). Because of this, staff believes now is the appropriate time to initiate MUOD zoning on the remainder of the planned Community Activity Center. This overlay zoning action implements the Plan’s mixed-use Community Activity Center for these properties. If approved, landowners can still develop using their base zoning, or they can choose to activate the MUOD zoning by submitting a mixed-use sketch plan for review. The MUOD zoning would offer property owners the possibility for additional uses and alternative designs. A. Transportation Carpenter Fire Station Road: Cary Glen Boulevard: B. Traffic Impact Analysis A traffic impact analysis is not required for the application of a Mixed Use Overlay District requested in this case, but will be required in the future for any Mixed Use Sketch Plan(s) submitted within the boundary of this Overlay District. C. Parks & Greenways Greenways Map The Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Facilities Master Plan calls for a 10’ wide multi-purpose trail along the east side of Green Level to Durham Road; a 10’ wide greenway trail along the eastern edge of the Mixed Use Overlay District boundary, running parallel with the proposed I-540; and a 10’ wide greenway trail along the north side of Panther Creek. All of these public trails must be constructed to Town of Cary standards. Reference Information Meeting Schedule: Town Council Public Hearing Planning & Zoning Board Town Council Action Feedback at the Public Hearing (February 22, 2007) Staff presented the rezoning request and reported that a protest petition was received from Lincoln-Harris properties. Though Lincoln-Harris does own property in the affected area, the parcels they own do not constitute 20% of the area proposed for the overlay, so the petition was found to be insufficient. A supermajority vote will not be required for Council approval. At the public hearing Jerry Turner of Jerry Turner and Associates spoke on behalf of Lincoln-Harris. Mr. Turner relayed his client’s concern that the Mixed-Use Overlay District may subject their property to additional design guidelines and/or other requirements that are more restrictive than the underlying zoning and the approved Cary Park PDD. No other persons spoke at the public hearing. Since the public hearing, staff has been in contact with Mr. David Connor of Lincoln-Harris, and has provided him with a written statement addressing his concerns. If Lincoln-Harris chooses to develop their property under the existing PDD zoning, the only additional development standards associated with or imposed by the Mixed-Use Overlay District would be those items identified in Section 4.4.2(E) Development Standards, found in Chapter 5 of the LDO. At present, only items (1) through (4) of Section 4.4.2(E) would be applicable, since there is no Mixed-Use Sketch Plan in place for this overlay district. Changes since the Town Council Public Hearing: None Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation (April 16, 2007): The Planning and Zoning Board voted 8-1 to recommend that Council adopt an ordinance allowing this rezoning request. The dissenting member voiced concern about placing a mixed-use overlay district over land zoned Residential-40 (R-40). Changes since the P&Z Board meeting: None Council Discussion and Action (May 24, 2007): Council voted unanimously to table the request until their June 14, 2007 meeting to give staff time to respond to the following questions raised during discussion: 1. Question: Why is staff initiating this Mixed-Use Overlay District at this time? Staff Response: The Land Development Ordinance (LDO), which became effective on July 1, 2003, created Mixed Use Overlay Districts (MUOD’s) as the regulatory vehicle for implementing the vision for mixed-use activity centers as defined by the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. The Town simultaneously applied Mixed Use Overlay Districts (MUOD’s) over all the activity centers in Cary’s planning jurisdiction which were either partially or fully built, or which had approved development plans. At that time, there were no approved development plans for planned activity centers west of NC Hwy 55, and hence at that point the overlay district was not also applied to such areas west of NC 55. Instead, the LDO treated the planned activity centers west of NC 55 as “Undeveloped Mixed Use Centers,” and stipulated that their overlay districts would need to be applied later, but prior to the development of these centers. (See LDO Chapter 4, Section 4.4.2(H).) Further, since changes to base zoning are not allowed within a MUOD, the Town’s policy since adoption of the LDO has been to require the landowner/applicant to request MUOD zoning for any parcel within a planned activity center west of NC55. In cases where the applicant does not represent all of the property within the activity center (as in this case), the Town initiates the overlay district rezoning for the balance of the properties. The precedents for this policy are established by the MUOD rezoning of Village at the Park in July 2006 (06‑REZ‑12) and Alston in March 2006 (05-REZ-19). Other related Town-initiated precedents include the Town-initiated extension of the Swift Creek MUOD in March 2005 (04-REZ-26). Thus, this Town-initiated rezoning case was triggered by the Meacham family’s rezoning request (case 06-REZ-38) to rezone two properties in this area. Upon receiving the Meacham request, staff initiated this corresponding rezoning request to include the balance of the planned activity center within the district. In this way, the entire activity center will be comprehensively included within the MUOD, rather than just “spot-zoning” two parcels on a single quadrant of the activity center. 2. Question: Are there any other activity centers for which staff will, in the future, also be initiating Mixed-Use Overlay Districts? Staff Response: That will depend on whether or not any future rezoning requests to MUOD include all of the properties within the activity center, or just some of the properties. If an applicant requests MUOD rezoning for a portion of the parcels, then the Town will initiate a corresponding MUOD rezoning for the balance of the parcels, following the policy outlined above. At present, there remain two entire activity centers and portions of two additional activity centers west of NC55 that do not yet have any MUOD zoning. 3. Question: What additional development rights or densities does the Mixed-Use Overlay District confer on the affected properties? Staff Response: The mixed use overlay district only allows a landowner/developer to submit and request Council approval of a corresponding Mixed Use Sketch Plan (MUSP). The MUSP identifies the types of possible uses that are requested, as well as the amounts, intensities, and densities of uses. The MUSP also shows a conceptual site layout and design for the site. No uses are actually “activated” unless they are included in a MUSP approved by Council. Additionally, Council has discretion to determine and approve the most appropriate mix of uses, and the specific densities to be allowed. While the LDO does open the possibility for MUSP’s to have a wide range of uses, the ordinance also states that a MUSP should be consistent with the requirements of the Land Use Plan. In this case, since there is an adopted Area Plan (i.e., the Northwest Area Plan) that designates a specific land use pattern within the activity center, any submitted MUSP would be expected to conform to the plan. Thus, in the southeast quadrant of this proposed overlay that garnered substantial comment at the last meeting, any future sketch plan should provide a mix of high- and medium-density residential uses as generally laid out on the plan map. Otherwise, a corresponding plan amendment would be triggered. Also, since the Land Use Plan uses broad density ranges in defining medium- and high-density residential, in this example Council would have discretion in deciding whether to approve densities at the low, middle, or high ends of those ranges for a MUSP. In a similar fashion, conventional rezoning cases outside of MUOD’s must also be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, or else a corresponding Comprehensive Plan amendment would also be triggered. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted documents and policies: Ordinance for Consideration: 06-REZ-39 [Mixed Use Overlay District] AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF CARY TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 149.22 ACRES LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF CARY GLEN BOULEVARD AND CARPENTER FIRE STATION ROAD FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAJOR (PDD), OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONAL USE (OI-CU) and REsidential 40 (R-40) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MAJOR (PDD), OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONAL USE (OI-CU) and Residential 40 (R-40) with A Community mixed use overlay DISTRICT. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CARY: Section 1: The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended by rezoning the area described as follows (“Property”):
Section 2: That the Property is rezoned from Planned Development District Major (PDD), Office and Institutional Conditional Use (OI-CU) and Residential 40 (R-40) TO Planned Development District Major (PDD), Office and Institutional Conditional Use (OI-CU) and Residential 40 (R-40) with a Community Mixed Use Overlay District, subject to all the requirements of the Cary Land Development Ordinance (LDO) and other applicable laws, standards, policies and guidelines. Section 3: This ordinance shall be effective on the date of adoption. Adopted and effective: June 14, 2007
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
