STAFF REPORT
Town Council Meeting, February 23, 2012

LDO Amendments – 11-LDO-05 (Round 18) (PL12-011d)
Consideration of proposed amendments to the Land Development Ordinance
Speaker:  Wayne Nicholas

 

From:  Jeffery G. Ulma, AICP, Planning Director
Prepared by:  Mary W. Beerman, Senior Planner
Approved by:  Benjamin T. Shivar, Town Manager
Approved by:  Michael J. Bajorek, Assistant Town Manager

 

Executive Summary:  Staff has compiled a series of amendments to the Land Development Ordinance in response to concerns identified by the Town Council, Planning and Zoning Board, and staff.  Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments

 

Schedule for 11-LDO-05 (Round 18) LDO Amendments:

 

Planning and Development Committee	October 20, 2011
Advertisements in The Cary News	November 2, 2011 November 9, 2011
Public Hearing	November 17, 2011
Planning and Zoning Board Worksession	December 12, 2011
Planning and Zoning Board Meeting	January 30, 2012
Final Action by Town Council	February 23, 2012
Effective	March 15, 2012

 

Background. A summary of the proposed amendments is provided below, with a link to the proposed text change and associated background information.

Proposed Land Development Ordinance Amendments
 

Item A:    Downtown Core
Proposed amendments would apply primarily to certain property located within the Town Center zoning district, and include the following:

·               Reduction or elimination of parking requirements;

·               Ability for certain building and sign features to project into the street right-of-way;

·               Application of less restrictive standards to cabinet signs; and

·               Clarification of definitions related to theatres.

Staff Contact:  Mary Beerman, Senior Planner

 

Item B:    Group Homes
The proposed amendment would provide a distinction between group homes and family care homes, and authorize the Zoning Board of Adjustment to grant special exceptions to ensure reasonable accommodation of persons with handicaps to be more consistent with current State and Federal requirements.
Staff Contact:  Rob Wilson, Principal Planner

 

Item C:    Signs

The proposed amendment would:

·         Consider options regarding the number of sides and amount of sign area for an “Entry Monument Alternative to a Ground Sign; and    

·         Add provisions for window signs that were inadvertently omitted from LDO Chapter 9B when it was adopted in April 2011.

Staff Contact:  Mary Beerman, Senior Planner

 

Item E:    Location of Accessory Structures

The proposed amendment would modify provisions related to the location of accessory structures on residential lots.
Staff Contact:  Wayne Nicholas, Planning Manager

 

ITEM F:   Governmental Offices and Shopping Centers

The proposed amendment would:

·            Amend the definition of a shopping center to clarify that at least 60% of the total square footage of the center should be allocated to certain commercial uses; and

·            Require that certain government offices requiring a high level of security due to the nature of the use only be located in predominately non-residential zoning districts.

Staff Contact:  Ricky Barker, Associate Planning Director

 

ITEM G:   Minor Changes, Corrections and Clarification

The proposed amendment would: 

·            Clarify the definition of floor area;

·            Add a definition for Pet Grooming and clarify related definitions;

·            Add existing requirement for buffer adjacent to American Tobacco Trail to Section 7.2.3 for ease of reference;

·            Correct technical items related to urban transition buffers to maintain consistency with State rules.

Staff Contact:  Mary Beerman, Senior Planner

 

Fiscal Impact:  Implementation of most of the recommendations should be absorbed by existing staff.  The extent of the fiscal impact will not be known until specific ordinance requirements are implemented.

Staff Recommendation:  Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments, including the following options:

Item A   Downtown Core – Approval of Option 2 related to non-conforming cabinet signs (would allow replacement of sign panels or blades in existing legal non-conforming cabinet signs, provided that the background of the sign panel is opaque and colors comply with LDO Chapter 9A); and

Item C  Signs – Approval of Option 2 related to entry monument signs (would allow signage on up to four sides of an entry monument instead of only three.)