Town of Cary , North Carolina
Comprehensive Plan / Rezoning Staff Report
10-CPA-09 and 10-REZ-11, South Walker Street
Town Council Meeting
March 10, 2011

This is a request to a) amend the Town Center Area Plan (an element of the Comprehensive Plan) and b) to amend the Town of Cary Official Zoning Map for a 0.15-acre parcel located at 219 South Walker Street (northeast corner of South Walker Street and East Park Street) in downtown Cary. The applicant is proposing to change the land use plan designation from High Intensity Mixed Use (HMXD) to Cottage Business and Residential (CB&R), and the zoning of the parcel from Town Center - High Intensity Mixed Use (TC-HMXD) to Town Center - Cottage Business and Residential (TC-CB&R).

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. 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.

Property Owner(s)	County Parcel Number(s) (10-digit)	Real Estate ID(s)	Deeded Acreage
Jeffrey Ransom 8421 23rd Street Westminster, CA 92683	0764507719	0079162	0.15
Total Area			0.15

Applicant & Agent	Applicant Mark Miller Mardon Construction Inc. 1404 Wescott Dr. Raleigh, NC 27614-8732 919-521-2666 mamiller242yahoo.com		Agent Keith Greenwood Eagle Pointe Properties, Inc. P.O. Box 1422 Holly Springs, NC 27540 919-669-5372 kgreenwood@embarqmail.com
Acreage	0.15 ±
General Location	219 S. Walker Street (NE corner of S. Walker Street and E. Park Street)
Schedule	Town Council Public Hearing November 18, 2010	Planning & Zoning Board Public Hearing December 20, 2010		Town Council March 10, 2011
Existing Land Use Plan Designation	High Intensity Mixed Use
Existing Zoning District(s)	Town Center - High Intensity Mixed Use
Existing Zoning Conditions	None
Town Limits	Yes
Valid Protest Petition On Rezoning	None
Staff Contacts	Scott Ramage, AICP Principal Planner 919-462-3888 scott.ramage@townofcary.org and Mary Beerman, AICP Senior Planner 919-469-4342 mary.beerman@townofcary.org

Notification
On November 2, 2010 the Planning Department mailed notification of a public hearing on the request to property owners within 400 feet of the subject property. Notification consistent with General Statutes was published in the Cary News on November 3 and again on November 10, 2010. Notice of the public hearing was also posted on the property.

Neighborhood Meeting
Based on materials supplied by the applicant, the required neighborhood meeting was held on September 22, 2010 and was attended by four citizens. The applicant informed those attending of his desire to rezone the property in order to build a single-family house on the lot. Questions posed were about the placement of the house on the lot and the plans Cary has for a park across the street. All those present were positive about the developer’s proposal.

Town Council Public Hearing, November 18, 2010
No citizens spoke at the public hearing.

Town Council discussion: Several council members expressed concerns about deviating from the original vision for the High Intensity Mixed Use (HMXD) District. One council member raised the question of whether or not the nearby First Methodist Church’s surface parking lot might someday accommodate a parking deck – as recommended in the 2001 Town Center Area Plan – that would in turn make HMXD uses attractive on the opposite (east) side of S. Walker Street, on the block that includes the subject parcel.

Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing, December 20, 2010
The applicant, Keith Greenwood, explained that he originally wanted to build townhomes on the lot, but couldn not do it because of difficulties meeting development ordinance requirements for the use on such a small lot. No other citizens spoke.

Planning and Zoning board Discussion: Mr. Swanstrom asked staff whether there were any plans to look at other changes to the Town Center Plan and TC District in this block, since the public parking deck that was envisioned on Waldo Street between S. Academy and S. Walker Streets has not materialized. Mr. Ramage stated that staff has proposed to council that an update to the Town Center Plan be prepared that would “drill down” and provide more detail about the emerging “downtown character districts” concept discussed at Council Retreat in January 2010. Mr. Swanstrom and Mr. Nath both expressed concerns about “chipping away” at and reducing the extent of the TC-HMXD Subdistrict over time.

Board Recommendations: The board voted unanimously (9-0) to recommend approval of both the proposed comprehensive plan amendment and the proposed rezoning.

Existing Land Use: Property is in a natural state with no structures.
Streams: None indicated on Cary GIS maps.
Floodplain: None indicated on Cary GIS maps.
Wetlands: None indicated on Cary GIS maps.

Topography: Based on Cary’s GIS maps, there is a change in elevation of approximately 10 feet from the southeast corner of the property to the northeast corner of the property, a distance of approximately 105 feet.

Surrounding Uses:
North – Residential single-family attached (duplex)
South – Vacant lot and residential single-family detached
East – Several townhome-style duplexes and triplexes
West – Residential single-family attached (tri-plex)

Density and Dimensional Standards and Uses Allowed

	Existing Zoning District Town Center – High Intensity Mixed use (TC – HMXD)	Proposed Zoning District Town Center – Cottage Business and Residential (CB&R)
Max. Residential Gross Density	50 units/acre	N/A
Min. Lot Size	N/A	N/A
Minimum Lot Width	N/A	N/A
Front Yard Setback	0	10
Side Yard Setback	N/A	N/A
Rear Yard Setback	N/A	N/A
Maximum Building Height	65 feet	35
Residential uses allowed (see LDO Chapter 5 for complete list)	Allows a wide range of moderate- and higher-density housing types, including multi-family and mixed use, however does not allow detached housing, duplexes, or patio dwellings.	Allows a narrower range of housing types, but includes detached housing, duplexes, patio homes, and multifamily.
Nonresidential uses allowed (see LDO Chapter 5 for complete list)	Allows a wide range of nonresidential uses appropriate to the downtown business area	Allows a narrower range of nonresidential uses. Intent is to allow existing homes in the district to convert to nonresidential or mixed use. Allows new construction and/or additions provided the character, size, and appearance of new buildings or additions are closely related to adjoining residential uses.

Buffers
Section 7.2.3 of the LDO exempts properties located within the Town Center (TC) zoning district from the strict application of the perimeter buffer requirements found in the majority of the Town.

Streetscape
In the vicinity of the subject property, the Downtown Cary Streetscape Master Plan designates S. Walker Street and E. Park Street for a “B Street” streetscape design. The “B Street” standard includes: (a) an 8‑foot brick paver sidewalk on both sides of the street, (b) street trees planted 50 feet on-center, (c) decorative street lights, and (d) the inclusion of a 4-foot bench and trash receptacles at intersections. An example of the “B Street” treatment is provided by the streetscape improvements done for the new surface parking lot developed by First Methodist Church, at the southwest corner of S. Walker Street and Waldo Street. The “B Street” improvements have typically been required for projects that require site plan approval. (If a single-family home were built on this lot, a site plan would not be required.)

Traffic
The requested CB&R (Cottage Business and Residential) subdistrict does not allow as intense a use of the site as does the existing HMXD (High Intensity Mixed Use) subdistrict, especially for nonresidential uses. In terms of residential uses, it is unlikely that the site could accommodate more than a single detached unit, or perhaps a duplex or triplex. A single-family dwelling unit would generate 1 am and 1 pm peak hour trip. Therefore, a traffic study would not be required since this does not meet the 50 peak hour trip threshold as required by our Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.

A. Town Center Area Plan
The subject property is located within the Town Center Area and its land use is guided by the Town Center Area Plan. The current land use designation for the property at 219 S. Walker Street is High Intensity Mixed Use (HMXD). The High Intensity Mixed Use category indicates that a mix of commercial, office, and high- or medium-density housing is envisioned, although it is not anticipated or expected that a mix of uses must be provided on each parcel.

The original rationale for designating both sides of S. Walker Street, north of E. Park St., as HMXD was twofold: First, the 2001 Town Center Area Plan envisioned a future public parking deck to be located on the south side Waldo Street, at or just west of S. Walker Street. The facility was recommended to include street-level offices or retail. It was anticipated that such a nearby facility would spur more intense redevelopment along both sides of S. Walker Street (however multiple lot assembly might be required). Second, the 2001 Town Center Plan also recommended that N. Walker St. be extended northwards to Chapel Hill Road, by going under the North Carolina Railroad corridor. It was anticipated that the level of traffic on Walker Street would increase significantly in the wake of such a connection, which might make the existing low-intensity residential uses less attractive than higher-intensity residential or nonresidential.

The proposed land use designation is Cottage Business and Residential (CB&R). In general, the CB&R category is intended to allow for existing homes along sections of certain collectors and thoroughfares to convert to nonresidential or mixed uses. Any nonresidential uses are intended to be of fairly low intensity. New construction and building additions are also acceptable in CB&R, provided that the character, size, and appearance of buildings are closely related to adjoining residential uses. CB&R is intended for single-family detached housing and building styles. Full descriptions of the land use categories are provided in Chapter 2 of the Town Center Area Plan.

B. Parks & Greenways Master Plan
There are no greenways or parks facilities recommended for the subject parcel. The parcel is in close proximity to a planned downtown park, and within walking distance of many downtown cultural arts facilities.

C. Growth Management Plan
The Growth Management Plan includes the following Guiding Principles that are relevant to this case:

1. R1 Guiding Principle: Ensure that adequate infrastructure and services are available concurrently with new development.

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

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

Analysis: Both the proposed and the existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations appear consistent with the Guiding Principles. Public utilities are available adjacent to the site. The subject property is located within a preferred growth area – the Town Center Area.

D. Affordable Housing Plan
The following Affordable Housing Plan’s goals are applicable to the proposed rezoning case:

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.

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.

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: Both the proposed and the existing Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations support a number of residential options for the site. The requested CB&R designation removes a number of nonresidential options from the site, perhaps making it more likely that a residential use would occur, thus furthering the housing goals. However, the CB&R district also removes some housing types that are available in the current HMXD District, such as townhomes and semi-detached/attached dwellings. Therefore, on balance, it is unclear as to whether the existing or the proposed zoning and land use designation would have the greater chance of furthering the Town’s housing goals.

E. Comprehensive Transportation Plan
South Walker Street
Street Classification: S. Walker Street is designated as a Minor Thoroughfare
Existing Section: 2-lane undivided with curb & gutter (approximately 30’ boc-boc)
Future Section: 2-lane undivided (cross-section undefined per TCAP)
Sidewalks: Existing along eastern side
Bicycle Lanes: None existing or planned
Transit: None existing or planned
Status of Planned Improvements: No improvements planned

East Park Street
Street Classification: E. Park Street is designated as a Collector Street
Existing Section: 2-lane undivided with curb & gutter (approximately 26’ boc-boc)
Future Section: 2-lane undivided (cross-section undefined per TCAP)
Sidewalks: Existing along northern side
Bicycle Lanes: Existing signed route
Transit: None existing or planned
Status of Planned Improvements: No improvements planned

F. Open Space Plan
According to the Open Space Plan, there are no significant natural resources associated with the subject property.

G. Historic Preservation Master Plan
There are no identified historic resources on this site.

Section 3.2.2(B) of the Land Development Ordinance states that proposals to amend the Comprehensive Plan shall be evaluated 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 High Intensity Mixed Use (HMXD) land use designation for the subject parcel (as well as for other lots on S. Walker St. north of the subject parcel) was based in part on the Town Center Area Plan’s recommendation for a future public parking facility on the south side of Waldo Street, just west of S. Walker Street. The HMXD designation on the east side of S. Walker Street was also based in part on the realization that lot consolidation would be required in order to enable viable HMXD development. At present, the public parking facility has not been achieved, and lot consolidation has not occurred. However, the 2008 Downtown Parking Strategic Implementation Study still recommends nearby public parking.

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

Analysis: No new issues have been identified.

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 changes have been identified.

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

Analysis: No errors or omissions have been identified.

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

Schools Impact
If approved, this rezoning would reduce the potential number of students generated from development at this site. Therefore, there is no additional potential school impact associated with this rezoning request.

STAFF EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION

Case History: The subject parcel was acquired by Jeffrey Ransom in October 2005. This rezoning and plan amendment request came about after the applicant, Mark Miller, held a pre-application conference with staff (the Development Review Committee) on July 21, 2010, to explore the feasibility of constructing 3 townhomes on the lot. While the use was permitted within the HMXD District, the applicant was informed that his proposed site plan would require significant revisions, and that it would be exceedingly difficult to accommodate the three townhomes depicted on the site while still meeting Town parking, stormwater, and impervious surface regulations. As noted in section “Requirements of the Land Development Ordinance,” above, there are no required setbacks in HMXD, although room is required to accommodate the adopted Downtown Streetscape for both S. Walker and E. Park Streets.

Neither the applicant nor staff explored the feasibility of nonresidential uses on the site, or smaller townhome footprints or fewer units, such as a duplex. The applicant determined that he’d prefer a zoning classification that provided the option for a single family home, which is not a permitted use in the HMXD District. Staff indicated that either the TC-CB&R or TC-MDR (Medium Density Residential) districts would provide such a use option, and that both were also already contiguous to the site. It was felt that the CB&R District might provide greater long-term options for mixed-use within a building, or for a long-term conversion to nonresidential uses, without requiring a subsequent future rezoning.

Staff Analysis: The lot in question is currently bordered on all four sides by residential uses: a triplex to the north, a triplex to the west, a duplex to the east, and a vacant lot and a single family home to the south. HMXD District is currently north and west of the site, MDR District is immediately east of the site, and CB&R District is immediately south of the site. Considerations in favor of the applicants request include: (a) the request simply moves the existing CB&R district north by one lot, or about 80 ft. excluding right-of-way; (b) since adoption of the Town Center Area Plan in 2001, the Town has not achieved the public parking deck originally envisioned on Waldo Street just west of S. Walker St., and as yet there has been no consolidation or redevelopment of parcels on the east side of S. Walker St.; and (c) the existing HMXD zoning does not allow duplex or single family detached, and the site may not be large enough to support three townhomes of market size.

Considerations mitigating against the applicant’s request include: (a) the site may still be viable for nonresidential uses; (b) the site may still have potential if developed in combination with redevelopment of one or more adjacent lots to the north; (c) the provision of a public parking facility at some point in the future is still recommended, per the Town’s 2008 Downtown Parking Strategic Implementation Study; and (d) the northward extension of Walker Street to Chapel Hill Road is still planned, with engineering design currently under way. If traffic increases significantly on S. Walker Street after the connection is made, it may render single family uses along S. Walker Street less attractive.

On balance, given the uncertainty and long-range timing of downtown parking initiatives and roadway projects, and given the small (approx. 6,500 sq. ft.) size of the subject parcel, its location contiguous to other CB&R-designated properties, and the relative unlikelihood that adjacent uses will change in the near future, staff recommends in favor of the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment.

Provided below are the applicant’s responses (shown below in italics) to the “justification for a comprehensive plan amendment” questions contained in the application form. Please note that the statements below are those of the applicant and do 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.
Response: The requested amendment is warranted because under the current rules governing setbacks for the existing zoning of the property, a structure would be virtually impossible to be built. Only one singe family home can be built due to these conditions.

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.
Response: The requested amendment is warranted because, under the proposed Town of Cary Land Use Plan, and because this is a corner site, the proposed single family home, being built as a bungalow, will fit in well with the future improvements to this area of Cary.

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.
Response: N/A

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

Provided below are the applicant’s responses (shown below in italics) to the “justification for rezoning” questions contained in the rezoning application. Please note that the statements below are those of the applicant and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of the Town of Cary.

1. Any issues with the tract, in relation to physical characteristics of site (e.g., size, shape, resources areas, topography)?
Response: None

2. How is the request compatible with the comprehensive plan (i.e. Land Use, Transportation, Open Space and Historic Resources)?
Response: There are both single family and multi family around this property.

3. What are the benefits and detriments of the proposed rezoning to the owner, neighbors and the community?
Response: None. Our proposed use – one single family home – is completely compatible with the surrounding uses and was met with positive feedback at our 7/21 Town of Cary pre-application meeting.

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: Completely compatible – see answer 2.

5. What reductions/amendments and/or modifications to the development standards of the LDO are being requested and how are they justified? (PDD, new or amended) Applicants must list these items and/or clearly highlight them within the Planned Development document.
Response: We are seeking to “down zone” the parcel from the current HMXD zoning, which on this site cannot be done, to a zoning for one single family home site. In our pre-application meeting with the town on 7/21/10, our initial desire was to build town homes, which under the current zoning is allowed. However, due to the several issues including transportation, this is not possible. The only option for this site is to build one single family home. I visited with most of the surrounding neighbors and, with no exceptions, all though well of the proposal and had no issues.

ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION

10-REZ-11 South Walker Street

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF CARY TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 0.15 ACRES LOCATED AT 219 SOUTH WALKER STREET OWNED BY JEFFREY RANSOM, BY REZONING FROM TOWN CENTER - HIGH INTENSITY MIXED USE (TC - HMXD) TO TOWN CENTER COTTAGE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL (TC – CB&R).

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)	Area ± (Acres)
Jeffrey Ransom 8421 23rd Street Westminster, CA 92683	0764507719	0079162	0.15
Total Acres			0.15

Section 2: That this Property is rezoned from Town Center - High Intensity Mixed Use (TC - HMXD) to Town Center - Cottage Business and Residential (TC – CB&R) 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, polices and guidelines

Section 3: The conditions mutually approved by the Town and the applicant for promoting public health, safety and the general welfare are:

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