09-REZ-17 Chapel Hill Road Rezoning
Town of Cary , North Carolina
Rezoning Staff Report
09-REZ-17 Chapel Hill Road Rezoning
Town Council Meeting
July 15, 2010
REQUEST
To amend the Town of Cary Official Zoning Map to rezone approximately 13.31 acres located on the north side of Chapel Hill Road between Woodland Drive and Fairbanks Road from Residential 40 (R-40) and Residential 20 (R-20) to Transitional Residential Conditional Use (TR-CU). The conditions proposed by the applicant, are included in the Background Information portion of this report.
NOTE: The purpose of the rezoning is to determine whether or not the land uses and densities allowed in the proposed zoning district are appropriate for the site. 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.
SUBJECT PARCELS
|
Property Owner(s) |
County Parcel Number(s) (10-digit) |
Real Estate ID(s) |
Approximate Deeded Acreage |
|
Joseph and Valsa Samuel |
0754875555 portion |
0128515 portion |
1.46 |
|
Balaji Investments, LLC |
0754874015 |
0047564 |
7.12 |
|
Rajakumar Thotakura |
0754862903 |
0047563 |
1.14 |
|
Total Area |
13.31 ± | ||
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Location: North side of Chapel Hill Road between Woodland Drive and Fairbanks Road
Town Limits: Yes
Existing Zoning Districts: Residential 40 (R-40) and Residential 20 (R-20)
Proposed Zoning District: Transitional Residential Conditional Use (TR-CU)
Proposed Zoning Conditions: Use shall be limited to single-family homes, patio homes and townhomes
1. A 100-foot Type B (semi-opaque) Buffer, with disturbances only as allowed per the Town of Cary LDO shall be provided adjacent to properties located at 109, 111, 121, 125 and 129 Woodland Drive.
2. There shall be no more than 63 residential dwelling units on the subject property.
3. All buildings adjacent to properties located at 109, 111, 121, 125 and 129 Woodland Drive shall be limited to 30 feet in height.
4. Townhouse buildings adjacent to properties located at 109, 111, 121, 125, and 129 Woodland Drive shall not have more than five dwelling units per building.
Valid Protest Petition: None
SCHEDULE
Town Council Public Hearing: February 25, 2010
Planning & Zoning Board Meeting: June 21, 2010
Town Council Action: July 15, 2010
CONTACT INFORMATION
|
Applicant: |
Joseph Samuel |
|
Agent |
Jon Frazier, PE, LEED AP |
|
Staff Contact |
Debra Grannan, Senior Planner |
SITE DATA
Existing Land Use: Single-Family Residential
Land Use Plan Designation: Low to Medium Density Residential
Streams: Based on Cary’s GIS files, the subject property is impacted by a stream. Exact field determination will be required at the time of site plan review.
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Single-family residential
South: Single-family residential
East: Single-family residential
West: Single-family residential
CONSISTENCY WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
Density and Dimensional Standards
|
|
Existing R-40 Zoning District |
Existing R-20 Zoning District |
Proposed TR-CU | |
|
Max. Gross Density |
1.08 |
2.17 |
4.7 [1] | |
|
Min. Lot Size |
40,000 |
20,000 |
6,000 for detached single-family dwellings; No minimum for patio homes or townhomes | |
|
Minimum Lot Width |
125 |
90 |
60 for detached, single-family dwellings 20 for patio homes and townhomes | |
|
Front Yard Setback |
From thoroughfare: 50 |
From thoroughfare: 50 For subdivided attached units and townhomes the front and rear setback combined shall equal a minimum of 40 feet with a 3-foot minimum. | ||
|
Side Yard Setback |
15 |
10 |
3 | |
|
Maximum Bldg. Height |
35 |
35 |
35/30 [2] | |
|
[1] The LDO sets a limit of six dwelling units per acre for TR zoning. Based on proposed zoning condition limiting the number of dwelling units to 63, the density would be limited to 4.7 du/ac. | ||||
|
[2] Proposed zoning condition limits the maximum height for buildings adjacent to 109, 111, 121, 125 and 129 Woodland Drive to 30 feet | ||||
Landscape Buffer
In accordance with Chapter 7 of the Land Development Ordinance, both single–family detached dwellings on lots less than 8,000 square feet and the patio homes proposed with this rezoning are classified as a Class 3 use and require a 30-foot Type B (semi-opaque) buffer when adjacent to single-family residential dwellings on lots 8,000 square feet and greater. The existing Bud El Acres subdivision is classified as a Class 2 use. The proposed townhomes are a Class 4 use and would be required to provide a 40-foot Type B Buffer when adjacent to a Class Two use. The applicant has offered a zoning condition to provide a 100-foot Type B Buffer between the subject properties and the existing Bud El Acres Subdivision.
Streetscape
Chapel Hill Road is a major thoroughfare and, therefore, in accordance with Chapter 7 of the Land Development Ordinance, a fifty-foot opaque streetscape is required if a residential site plan is developed.
Traffic
The existing property is divided into approximately 9 acres of R-40 zoning and approximately 3.5 acres of R-20 zoning, that would potentially allow for 15 single-family homes which would generate 12 am and 16 pm peak hour trips.
The proposed use is 63 single-family homes which would generate 48 am and 64 pm peak hour trips. Since the proposed zoning generates less than 50 peak hour trips, more than the existing zoning, a traffic study is not required. If the proposed use generates 50 or greater trips at the time of site plan review, a traffic study may be required at that time.
SUMMARY OF PROCESS AND ACTIONS TO DATE
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
On June 21, 2010 the Planning and Zoning Board recommended denial of the request by a vote of 5 to 4.
Some board members expressed concern about the proposed density when compared to the adjacent Bud El Acres neighborhood and felt that more of a transition would be appropriate. By having a Land Use Designation of Low to Medium Density Residential some board members suggested that there should be a mix of housing types such as single-family detached units on the subject property. One board member cited the close proximity of this site to the Nancy Jones house as a reason for not recommending the request for approval. Another member noted that, because the Town did not have road improvements scheduled on Chapel Hill Road, the timing of the request was inappropriate.
Those members who supported the request observed that the proposed density was similar to the Hermitage Park neighborhood to the west.
Changes Since the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
The applicant has added zoning conditions to limit the height of buildings adjacent to Woodland Drive in the Bud El Acres subdivision and to limit townhome buildings to be constructed in groups of no more than five dwelling units per building. The condition limiting the number of dwelling units on the subject property has been revised so that it more clearly limits the total number of all housing types.
School enrollment and figures provided by Wake County Public Schools has been updated to reflect the most recent data.
Town Council Public Hearing
On February 25, 2010 staff presented the request to Town Council and noted that there had been several citizen inquires but no protest petitions were submitted. One adjacent property owner spoke at the public hearing and expressed concern about cut-through traffic. Staff explained that connectivity issues would be evaluated during site plan review, but noted that the applicant could not introduce a zoning condition to prevent connectivity between neighborhoods.
The Town Council questioned the proposed density of the request and raised concerns about ensuring that any new development be aesthetically pleasing to existing neighbors. The Town Council forwarded the request to the June 21, 2010 Planning and Zoning Board meeting.
Changes since the Town Council Public Hearing
On May 27, 2010, The Town of Cary Comprehensive Land Use Plan associated with this case was amended for the subject properties from “Low Density Residential” (LDR) to “Low to Medium Density Residential” (LDR to MDR).
Notification
On February 5, 2010 notification of the rezoning request was mailed to property owners within 400 feet of the subject property. In addition, notification consistent with General Statutes was published in the Cary News on February 10 and 17, 2010. Notice of the hearing was posted on February 10, 2010.
Neighborhood Meetings
June 11, 2009: Based on documents provided by the applicant, an initial neighborhood meeting was held on Thursday, June 11, 2009 at 8 p.m. to present the proposal. Neighbors expressed concerns regarding traffic, road connectivity, property values, the value of the housing product proposed in the future development, stormwater management and runoff.
October 16, 2009: The applicant also reported that the neighbors voiced opposition to any rezoning within the existing Bud El Acres subdivision. After modifying the initial request to remove property that was located in Bud El Acres, the applicant held a second neighborhood meeting on Friday, October 16, 2009 at 5:30 p.m. At the second meeting, the applicant reported that concerns focused on the widening of Chapel Hill Road, the proposed density of the subject property, and buffers between the proposed rezoning and the existing neighborhood.
Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Development Ordinance sets forth the following criteria that should be considered in reviewing rezonings:
1. The proposed rezoning corrects an error or meets the challenge of some changing condition, trend or fact;
2. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan set forth in Section 1.3 (LDO);
3. The Town and other service providers will be able to provide sufficient public safety, educational, recreational, transportation and utility facilities and services to the subject property while maintaining sufficient levels of service to existing development;
4. The proposed rezoning is unlikely to have significant adverse impacts on the natural environment, including air, water, noise, stormwater management, wildlife and vegetation;
5. The proposed rezoning will not have significant adverse impacts on property in the vicinity of the subject tract;
6. The proposed zoning classification is suitable for the subject property.
APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE OR AREA PLAN REQUIREMENTS
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 to Medium Density Residential” (LDR), which includes single-family dwellings at densities ranging from about one to eight units per acre. A wide range of single-family housing products may be appropriate, including single-family detached, duplexes, patio homes, semi-detached/attached homes, and townhomes.
The proposed rezoning includes a condition that limits a maximum gross density to about 4.73 dwellings per acre, with housing types limited to single-family detached, patio homes, and townhomes. The proposed rezoning, therefore, generally conforms to the Land Use Plan’s long-range recommended land use designation in terms of product type and density.
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 rezoning 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 rezoning request, it is not possible to determine the extent to which Principle L2 may or may not be achieved; it will depend on the final development plan. However, the 100-foot buffer proposed in the conditions will help to preserve open space. 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 Rd. is designated as a Major Thoroughfare
Existing Section: 2-lane road, approximately 60-foot ROW
Future Section: 6-lane median divided, 124-foot ROW
Sidewalks: Will be required on both sides
Bicycle Lanes: 14-foot-wide outside lanes required
Transit: No requirements
Status of Planned Improvements: None scheduled by the Town
Parks And Greenways Master Plan
According to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Facilities Master Plan a multi-use trail is proposed along the north/east side of Chapel Hill Road. Construction of a 10-wide multi-use trail will be required, in lieu of a conventional sidewalk, along this site’s frontage on Chapel Hill Road. A recreation payment-in-lieu will be due for residential development in accordance with the LDO.
These comments were reviewed and approved by the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Arts Advisory Board at its May 2010 meeting, and by the Greenway Committee at its April 2010 meeting, with the additional request that the developer continue the multi-use trail an additional approximate 130’ to the north to connect to an existing 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.
STAFF OBSERVATION
The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable, adopted plans, policies and documents.
The proposed 100-foot buffer would serve to visually buffer existing adjacent properties homeowners along Woodland Drive from new development on the subject property in areas where the Urban Transition Buffer is not present. Limiting the number of townhome dwelling units to five within a building for buildings backing up to Woodland Drive, and limiting the height of these buildings to 30 feet, will allow an opportunity for more open space between building groupings and limit the visual impact on adjacent properties.
OTHER REFERENCE INFORMATION
This information is being provided for your review; however, the Wake County Board of Education controls capital projects for school capacities
|
Schools |
Assigned Schools |
20th Day Enrollment1 |
Permanent |
Average Percent |
Projected Range of Additional |
|
Northwoods Elementary |
537 |
591 |
91% |
6 to 26 | |
|
West Cary Middle School |
1049 |
1104 |
95% |
4 to 10 | |
|
Cary High School |
2030 |
2243 |
91% |
3 to 12 | |
|
| |||||
|
Total |
13 to 48 | ||||
1 Current Enrollment and Building Capacity is based on the 20th day of the school year for 2009- 2010 as supplied by the Wake County Public School System. School assignment will be determined at the time of development.
2 The Projected Number of Additional Students is an approximation. The actual number of students is dependent on variables, such as the number of bedrooms and dwelling size. For example: a site with 63 four bedroom homes could yield 48 additional students, while 63 two bedroom townhomes may yield 13 students. The basis for making this calculation is based on multipliers provide from Wake County Schools Office of Student Assignment. At rezoning, student yield can not be accurately determined due to unknown variables.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
The following statements are provided by the applicant (shown below in italics) in response to the criteria established in the application (shown below in bold) and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of the Town of Cary. Any statements as to the type, the quality, or the physical features are at the direction of the applicant and may be formulated into a condition:
1. Any issues with the size of the tract?
Response: There are no issues with the size of the tract. At 13.94 calculated acres the tract is conducive to TR-CU zoning. Additionally, the size of the tract will allow for all dimensional requirements of the Town of Cary Land Development Ordinance to be met.
2. How is the request compatible with the Comprehensive Plan (i.e. Land Use, Transportation, Open Space and Historic Resources)?
Response: The request will require a change to the comprehensive plan from Land use of LDR to a land use of LDR to MDR. As part of future development of the property, the owners will be required to make improvement 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-foot pedestrian trail. The extent of the improvements and necessary right-of-way dedication would make it very difficult to make improvement 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.
3. What are the benefits and detriments to the owner, neighbors and the community?
Response: the benefits to the owner are an opportunity to provide improvements to the property with a high quality development, while generating enough dwelling units to offset the cost of roadway improvements along Chapel Hill Road, which would include half of a 124’ right of way and 120 feet back-to-back roadway with a 10-foot pedestrian trail.
4. How are the allowable uses with the proposed rezoning compatible with, or how do they relate to, the uses currently present on adjacent tracts?
Response: The adjacent tracts to the north in Hermitage Park are zoned TR, the adjacent tracts to the east and south are zoned R-20 and the tracts across Chapel Hill Road to the west are zoned a mix of R40, R-20 and I. While the proposed TR-CU zoning is similar to the adjacent tracts in Hermitage Park, the limit on the use types and the 100-foot Type B buffer will provide a transition from the existing TR zoned tracts to the existing R20 zoned tracts to the east.
ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION
09-REZ-17 Chapel Hill Road
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF CARY TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 13.31 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CHAPEL HILL ROAD OWNED BY JOSEPH AND VALSA SAMUEL, BALAJI INVESTMENTS, LLC., AND RAJAKUMAR THOTAKURA BY REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL 40 (R-40) AND RESIDENTAIL 20 (R-20) TO TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL USE (TR-CU)
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:
PARCEL & OWNER INFORMATION
|
Property Owner(s) |
County Parcel Number(s) 10 digit) |
Real Estate ID(s) |
Previous Zoning |
New Zoning |
Area ± (Acres) |
|
Joseph and Valsa Samuel |
0754875555 portion |
0128515 portion |
R40 |
TR-CU |
1.46 |
|
Balaji Investments, LLC |
0754874015 |
0047564 |
R40 R20 |
TR-CU |
7.12 |
|
Rajakumar Thotakura |
0754862903 |
0047563 |
R40 |
TR-CU |
1.14 |
|
Total Acres |
13.31± | ||||
Section 2: That this Property is rezoned from Residential 40 and Residential 20 to Transitional Residential Conditional Use, subject to the individualized development conditions set forth herein, and all the requirements of the Cary Land Development Ordinance (LDO) and other applicable laws, standards, policies and guidelines
Section 3: The conditions mutually approved by the Town and the applicant for promoting public health, safety and the general welfare are:
1. A 100-foot Type B (semi-opaque) Buffer, with disturbances only as allowed per the Town of Cary LDO shall be provided adjacent to properties located at 109, 111, 121, 125 and 129 Woodland Drive.
2. There shall be no more than 63 residential dwelling units on the subject property.
3. All buildings adjacent to properties located at 109, 111, 121, 125 and 129 Woodland Drive shall be limited to 30 feet in height.
4. Townhouse buildings adjacent to properties located at 109, 111, 121, 125, and 129 Woodland Drive shall not have more than five dwelling units per building.
These conditions address conformance of the development and use of the Property to ordinances and officially adopted plans and address impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the development and use of the Property.
Section 4: This ordinance shall be effective on the date of adoption.
Adopted and effective: DATE
________________________________________
Harold Weinbrecht, Jr.
Mayor
______________________________
Date