STAFF REPORT
Town Council, May 29, 2008
Land Development Ordinance (LDO) Text Amendments (Round 10) (PL08-027a)
Consideration of a series of modifications and revisions to the Land Development Ordinance
Speaker: Ricky Barker, AICP, Associate Planning Director
From: Jeffery G. Ulma,
AICP, Director, Planning Department and Tim Bailey, P.E., Director, Engineering
Department
Prepared by: Jennifer Currin, Planner II, Planning Department
Approved by: William B.
Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager
Proposed Schedule for LDO Amendments:
|
Planning and Development Committee Meeting Date |
March 20, 2008 |
|
Informational Meetings with Property Owners in the Conservation Residential Overlay District |
April 15, 2008 |
|
Developer Focus Group Meeting |
May 1, 2008 |
|
P&D staff report available for on-line commenting in Neighborhood America |
May 2008 |
|
Dates of Advertisements in the Cary Connections section of The Cary News |
May 14, 2008 May 21, 2008 |
|
Date of Public Hearing |
May 29, 2008 |
|
Date of Planning and Zoning Board Worksession |
August 11, 2008* |
|
Date of Planning and Zoning Board Meeting |
August 18, 2008* |
|
Date of Final Action by Town Council |
September 25, 2008* |
|
Effective Date |
October 25. 2008* |
*Italicized dates are tentative.
BACKGROUND:
Introduction
Staff has identified amendments to various portions of the Land Development Ordinance text to be included in Round 10 of LDO amendments. Major items of discussion included in this round of amendments include, but are not limited to: the Conservation Residential Overlay District; Peak Run-Off Control; Subdivision and Site Plans-General Provisions; Cluster Housing (Alternative Development Option:); Signs in Town Center, Mixed Use Overlay Districts and National Register Historic Districts; Appearance; and Other Key Terms Defined.
The amendments also include a number of minor clarifications to address concerns from staff, council members, the focus/stakeholder group and the public. As part of this amendment review process, the Development Review Committee (Town staff comprised of representatives from key departments) has reviewed the proposed amendments.
Conservation Residential Overlay District (CROD) Neighborhood Meeting
Staff held a public meeting on April 15th on the proposed changes to the CROD. All the owners of property within the existing and planned Overlay District were notified of this meeting. The property owners attending the meeting liked some of the changes, including the increases in allowable densities and reductions in the minimum lot sizes within the Very Low Density and Rural Residential areas; the requirement for no mass grading provided there are exceptions allowed for topographic issues; the requirements for open space at the entrance of developments; the requirement for lots with views of open space; and the allowance for the use of sidewalks. The owners disliked the increase in the amount of open space required; the lower development yield than the current ordinance; the lack of any credit for floodplain areas or stream buffers even when a portion is used for a greenway; the overall change of the ordinance when it was only implemented several years ago; the expense of Low Impact Development standards which may not work well with the soils in the area; and no provision for active recreation sites counting towards open space totals.
Developer Focus Group Meeting
A Developer Focus Group meeting was held after the P&D Committee meeting on May 1, 2008 to receive more detailed input and comments on the proposed Round 10 changes. The focus group expressed concerns about the proposed Conservation Residential Overlay District amendments, the telecommunication facilities ordinance, only establishing 100’ UTBs on perennial streams, downstream impact analysis, residential off-street parking requirements, and the phasing plan requirements.
The specific concerns raised by the Developer Focus Group on the proposed CROD amendments were: the net vs. gross density issue; the minimum size requirement for a conservation subdivision; defining central open space; defining small BMP’s; the prescriptive nature of the open space requirements; and the lack of flexibility for applicants to be creative. They also said that the proposed amendment results in a disincentive to provide active recreation.
Representatives of the development community also expressed concerns about several other amendments included in Round 10. Specifically, they felt that new development adjacent to existing towers should have more flexibility on the setbacks. The “two times the tower height setback” is too severe and is not needed for safety. They also felt the language related to the downstream impact analysis was vague and subjective. The representatives also recommended an alternative solution to addressing on-street parking issues in residential development be explored.
Staff’s Responses to the Concerns:
CROD
The proposed ordinance has not been significantly changed based on the comments received from property owners or the Developer Focus Group. Staff has chosen to wait until after the public hearing to receive direction from Council on how the concerns from property owners and the developer focus group should be addressed.
Telecommunication Facilities
Staff informed the Developer Focus Group that staff already had planned to review the telecommunication facility ordinance in depth at a future date to determine if the ordinance needs specific standards for new development around existing telecommunication facilities versus new telecommunication facilities adjacent to existing development. The current amendment does allow for Council the flexibility to reduce tower setbacks when appropriate.
Establishing General Urban Transition Buffers
The developer focus group suggested that the Town of Cary look at only establishing 100-foot Urban Transition Buffer on perennial streams shown on the USGS Maps and the soils maps. Presently, 100-foot UTB’s are established on both intermittent and perennial streams indicated on the USGS maps. The result of this suggestion would be a 48% reduction in buffered streams in the Towns jurisdiction. Staff does not support this suggestion and recommends that the current method of determining 100-foot buffer remain in effect.
Downstream Impact Analysis
Staff has made revisions to clearly state that the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the storm water leaving the site can be accommodated downstream from the site. This change should address the concerns from the development community.
Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements
Staff amended the language presented at the P&D committee by setting forth requirements that each single-family lot provide for its required parking on the lot or no further than 200 feet away. If the parking is not contained on the lot, then a sidewalk or other acceptable pedestrian way must be provided from the homes to the parking area.
Phasing Plan Requirements
Representatives from the Developer Focus Group stated that the proposed amendment which would limit a subdivision of 100 or less lots to two phases would cause concerns with financial lending institutions. Staff intention was to continue to allow the applicant to develop subdivisions less than 50 lots. To do a smaller number of units, the applicant would have to divide up his or her development into smaller site/subdivision plans. These plans would have to stand on their own with regard to the infrastructure needed to support them.
Changes since the Planning and Development Committee Meeting:
Several changes have occurred to the LDO Round 10 staff report since the P&D Committee meeting on March 20, 2008.
Changes:
· Removed language to clarify the Requirements for Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities for Roads
· Revised the Town Center dimensional standards
· Clarified wording about Trash Containment Area screening
· Reduced the length of Chapter 8 by relocating the requirements applicable to both the Subdivision and Uses Requiring Site Plans sections into a general provisions section
· Removed references to dead-end streets
· Corrected plan references to ensure standardized titles throughout the LDO
· Removed images, revised 1 image and relocated 2 images due to the Chapter 8 amendment
· Added back language to the Conservation Overlay District to allow credit for preserving historic homes and providing for a limited number of attached units within conservation subdivisions.
A summary table of the proposed text amendments grouped under two classifications (major and minor) follows. Major amendments are substantive modifications or additions to the text, while minor amendments are simple corrections to typographical errors. Major amendments are numbered (1-21) in the table, while minor amendments are given a letter designation (A-GG). There are two images included in this round of proposed amendments. The table includes the relevant LDO section being modified and the purpose for the proposed amendment.
Fiscal Impact: The implementation of these proposed changes should not have any fiscal impact. It is anticipated that the work associated with implementing these requirements can be absorbed by the existing staff.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends forwarding the proposed ordinance language to the August 11, 2008 Planning and Zoning Board work session.
|
Item # |
LDO Heading |
LDO Section |
Amendment Purpose |
|
MAJOR AMENDMENTS |
|||
|
Application Materials & Town Council Review and Approval Process |
3.9.2(B), (F) & (H) |
Adds language clarifying when the plan associated with a Special Use permit application needs to go before P&Z, a reference correction, and to correct an application reference |
|
|
Adequate Public Facilities Planning and Development for Roads |
3.23 |
Removes conflicting Ordinance language and clarifies study area distances and adequate mitigations |
|
|
Conservation Residential Overlay |
4.4.3 |
Implements changes recommended by Council and clarifies the district requirements |
|
|
Day Care |
5.2.2(B) |
Establishes the type of dwelling units and minimum lot sizes were Large Home Day Cares are permitted |
|
|
Telecommunication Facilities |
5.2.4(D) |
Provides information about requesting a reduction of the setback for telecommunication facilities and basing setbacks on use rather than zoning. |
|
|
Accessory Uses and Structures Allowed |
5.3.4 |
Adds requirement requiring food preparation or catering businesses to comply with County and Building Code regulations & removes the requirement for a pool, hot tub, or spa to receive Planning Director approval |
|
|
Temporary Uses and Structures |
5.4 |
Clarifies that temporary classroom facilities requires site plan approval |
|
|
Table 6.1-2: Table of Density and Dimensional Standards-Town Center District |
Table 6.1-2 |
Revisions to some subdistrict height limits and clarifications of some dimensional standards in Town Center subdistricts |
|
|
Trash Containment Areas |
7.2.8(C) |
Changes to clarify screening requirements and when screening is required |
|
|
Establishing General Urban Transition Buffers |
7.2.14(B) |
Revisions to meet current North Carolina requirements and grammar corrections |
|
|
Table 7.2-6 Town of Cary General and Specialized UTBs |
Table 7.2-6 |
Provides clarification relative to the Town’s UTB Ordinance |
|
|
Peak Runoff Control |
7.3.3 |
Aims to protect citizens who live adjacent to near or proposed development from Stormwater run-off |
|
|
Computation of Off-Street Parking Requirements & Required Off-Street Parking Spaces |
7.8.2(C) & (D) |
Removes residential garages from counting towards the parking space requirements and provides references to LDO section which discusses off-street parking in Town Center |
|
|
Subdivision and Site Plans-General Provisions, Subdivisions & Uses Requiring Site Plans |
8.1, 8.2 & 8.3 |
Provides phasing plan requirements for subdivision and site plans and places the requirements applicable to both subdivisions and uses requiring site plans into the general provisions section |
|
|
Alternative Development Option: Cluster Housing |
8.4 |
Revisions to provide appropriate incentives and to clarify requirements |
|
|
Flexibility within the Town Center, Mixed Use Overlay Districts, National Register Historic Districts, and Certain Developments |
9.1.2(C) |
States that Town Center Signage applies to Mixed Use Overlay Districts based upon previous Council direction and also initially introduces that flexible signage regulations for National Register Historic Districts exist |
|
|
Computations |
9.1.5 |
Allows signs located on entry monuments within Town approved area plans to more flexibility when the interior angle of the double sided sign was more than 60 degrees and 90 degrees or less when calculating the permissible square feet of signage. |
|
|
Conditions |
9.3.2 |
Proposes to eliminate clutter at voting centers, provides flexibility for businesses under going a façade renovation, and providing a third ground sign in certain situations |
|
|
Signs in Town Center, Mixed Use Overlay Districts, and National Register Historic Districts |
9.6 |
Adds language identifies that in addition to Town Center, Mixed Use Overlay Districts and National Register Historic Districts may be permitted to have additional signage |
|
|
Appearance (Signs) |
9.8.2 & 9.11.6 |
Provides more direction regarding construction requirements for signs and provides flexibility within uniform sign plans |
|
|
Other Key Terms Defined |
12.4 |
Clarifies the Home Occupation definition, adds definitions for Multi-Use Trails and Principal Structure and revised the Porch definition. |
|
|
MINOR AMENDMENTS |
|||
|
Notice Requirements & Table 3.1-1: Notice Requirements |
3.1.6 & Table 3.1-1 |
Corrects formatting and removes procedures from the table that do not exist anymore |
|
|
Subdivisions Creating One Additional Lot or Gift Lots & Review and Approval of Final Plats |
3.9.3(E) & (F) |
Corrects references and formatting |
|
|
Residential and Non-Residential Zoning Districts |
4.2.2 |
Corrects references, grammar and formatting |
|
|
General Use and Development Standards for All PDD Districts |
4.2.3(D) |
Corrects references |
|
|
Location of District & Buffer Requirement |
4.4.4 (B) & (D) |
Removes conflicting language and corrects formatting |
|
|
Watershed Protection Overlay |
4.4.6 |
Revisions to meet current North Carolina requirements and correct formatting |
|
|
Table 5.1-1: Table of Permitted Uses-General Use Districts (Except TC & CT) |
Table 5.1-1 |
Corrects references and corrects day care nomenclature |
|
|
Table 5.1-2: Table of Town Center (TC) District Uses |
Table 5.1-2 |
Includes new reference and corrects references |
|
|
Table 5.1-3: Table of Corridor Transition (CT) District Uses |
Table 5.1-3 |
Corrects reference |
|
|
Residential Uses |
5.2.1 |
Corrects references and formatting and clarifies how to determine the amount of a residential use that may be permitted in a non-residential use |
|
|
Vehicle Filling Station, Vehicle Repair, and Vehicle Service |
5.2.3(N) |
Renumbers the Section to provide clarification and revises the heading |
|
|
Industrial Uses |
5.2.4 |
Provides clarification and adds a new section, not new language |
|
|
Location of Accessory Buildings, Structures, or Vehicles |
5.3.2(D) |
Clarifies how to determine the size of an accessory structure |
|
|
Additional Regulations |
6.1.1(B) |
Corrects references |
|
|
Non-Residential Districts (Not Including TC or CT Districts) |
6.1.2 |
Clarifies how setbacks are measured and corrects formatting |
|
|
Minimum Lot Dimensions |
6.2.2 |
Corrects reference |
|
|
Definition/Measurement |
6.3.1 |
Corrects Plan references and deletes duplicate image |
|
|
General Height Regulations |
6.4.2 |
Clarifies how setbacks are measured and corrects formatting |
|
|
Requirements for Perimeter Buffers and Landscape Areas |
7.2.3 |
Removing image |
|
|
Streetscape and Streetfront Landscaping |
7.2.4 |
Clarifies streetscape requirements along collectors |
|
|
Landscaping Requirements in Parking Areas and Vehicular Use Areas & Design Standards |
7.2.6(A), (C) & (D) |
Corrects reference and formatting and removes unnecessary language |
|
|
Rails Required for Retaining Walls and Steep Grade Changes |
7.2.7(J) |
Corrects grammatical error and formatting |
|
|
Miscellaneous Landscaping Requirements |
7.2.9 |
Provides consistent requirement and corrects formatting |
|
|
Allowable Modifications and Reductions |
7.2.10 |
Remedies parking reduction provision, clarifies streetscape requirement, and corrects formatting and grammar |
|
|
Table 7.2-5 Town of Cary General and Specialized UTBS |
Table 7.2-5 |
Removes the word “yes” from a header row |
|
|
Discharge Prohibitions |
7.3.6(G) |
Identifies authorized enforcement agency |
|
|
Additions & Accessory Structures |
7.5.3(G) & (H) |
Revises heading for clarification and provides consistent formatting |
|
|
Development within Non-Residential Centers |
7.7.3 |
Deleting image |
|
|
Standards for Streets/On-Site Vehicular Circulation & Standards for Pedestrian Facilities |
7.10.3 & 7.10.4 |
Remove reference to dead-end streets, and also to correct spelling and provide consistent formatting. |
|
|
Alternative Development Option: Traditional Neighborhood Development & Single-Family Residential Design Guidelines |
8.5 & 8.6 |
Renumbers section and provides consistent formatting |
|
|
Prohibited Signs and Devices |
9.4 |
Corrects references and formatting |
|
|
Civil Penalties |
11.4.3 |
Revisions to meet current North Carolina requirements and correct formatting |
|
|
Day Care |
12.3.3(D) |
Provides consistent language in LDO and ensures that a person running a home day care actually lives in the dwelling unit |
|
|
IMAGES |
|||
|
Cul-de-Sacs |
8.1.4(A)(6) |
Revise image to remove dead-end streets image and place image in new location |
|
|
Utility Easements |
8.1.4(E)(1) |
Place image in new location |
|
A PDF file showing the deletions and additions to the current LDO text is also attached.
