STAFF REPORT

Planning and Zoning Board – December 19, 2005

Land Development Ordinance (LDO) Text Amendments (Round 6) (PL06-008b)
Consideration of Ordinance amendments to facilitate Activity Center Concept Plans.

Speaker:
Scott F. Ramage, AICP, Principal Planner

From:  Jeffery G. Ulma, AICP, Director, Planning Department
Prepared by:  Scott F. Ramage, Principal Planner
Approved by:  William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by:  Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Background

Staff has prepared amendments to various portions of the Land Development Ordinance associated with the submission requirements for Activity Center Concept Plans (ACCPs).  The need for the proposed amendments was identified during development of the Town-initiated Alston Regional Activity Center Concept Plan, concurrently under review as case 05-AC-005.  These changes include amending the LDO to:  

1.   Remove the requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for activity center concept plans, but leave it as an option.  If a TIA is not submitted, then instead require the TIA at the time of site or subdivision plan submittal, and require a screening traffic study with the ACCP.  There are multiple reasons for this change:

a.   Some ACCPs are likely to be built over many years.  In such cases, the traffic studies will likely expire long before project completion.  In these cases, a broader traffic screening study is preferable to a TIA.

b.   The current TIA approach for ACCPs does not enable staff to rationally apportion individual developers’ responsibilities and timing for the various improvements identified by the TIA.  This is particularly true in cases where multiple development plans within an ACCP are submitted over time, each for different portions of the ACCP, and under more than one developer.

c.   For ACCPs that cover very large areas, traffic impact studies have larger margins of error in their analyses.  For such ACCPs, deferring traffic impact analysis until site or subdivision plan submittal will result in greater accuracy and validity over the phase of construction.  A screening traffic study can be tailored more effectively to the needs presented by such ACCPs. 

2.   Specify that if a parcel in an activity center is covered by an ACCP, and if that ACCP includes site design guidelines and/or a specific circulation network, then the guidelines and circulation network apply regardless of whether a property owner chooses to develop under the base zoning district or the activity center overlay district.  This will help ensure that a uniform design vision and a cohesive circulation network are achieved within an activity center.  Without such a provision, it is possible that an activity center could develop with a jumbled mix of site designs and circulation networks, where parcels developing under the ACCP follow one set of guidelines, and adjacent parcels developing under their base zoning each develop with their own ad hoc designs.

3.   Remove the requirement that a Planned Development District (PDD) must be submitted in tandem with an ACCP for an undeveloped “greenfield” activity center.  Staff believes that the PDD requirement is redundant and confusing, since the ACCP essentially functions as a PDD in this case.

4.   Allow detached dwellings as a permitted use within Regional Activity Center Overlay Districts.  Staff believes that the inclusion of medium-density detached homes within a regional activity center, when done as part of a reasonable mix of housing types and densities, can add important diversity to the activity center’s housing stock.

A summary table of the proposed text amendments is presented below.  The table includes the relevant LDO section being modified as well as the purpose for the proposed amendment.  The proposed amendment wording is also attached.  

Fiscal Impact:  None.  

Staff Recommendation:  Forward the proposed text amendments to the January 26, 2006, meeting of Town Council with a recommendation for approval.  

Proposed Round 6 Summary  

Item#

Amendment Description

LDO Section

Purpose of Amendment

1

Remove the requirement for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for ACCPs.  Provide an alternative to defer the TIA until site or subdivision plan submittal, and instead require a screening traffic study with the ACCP.

3.23.2(A)

and

4.4.2(I)

Traffic screening studies are preferable to TIA’s in cases where ACCPs cover very large areas or are likely to be built out over many years.  Also, deferring traffic impact analysis until site or subdivision plan submittal will enable staff to more rationally apportion the responsibility for discrete roadway improvements.

2

Amend section 4.4.2(E) to specify that if a parcel in an activity center is covered by an ACCP, and if that ACCP includes site design guidelines and/or a particular circulation network, then the guidelines and circulation network apply to the parcel under both the base district zoning and the ACCP.

4.4.2 (E)

Ensures that a uniform design vision and cohesive circulation network are achieved within an Activity Center, regardless of whether a property owner chooses to develop under the base zoning district or the activity center overlay district.

3

Remove the requirement that a PDD must also be submitted in tandem with an ACCP for an undeveloped “greenfield” activity center.

4.4.2 (H)

The requirement for a PDD in conjunction with an ACCP is redundant and confusing.  The ACCP essentially functions as a PDD.

4

Allow detached dwelling as a permitted use within Regional Activity Center Overlay Districts, subject to new use-specific standards.

5.1.2, Table 5.1‑1; 5.2.1(L)

Allowing medium-density single family housing, when done as part of an overall mix of housing types, will add housing diversity to the very large regional activity centers.

5

Add a definition for “site design guidelines.”

12.4

Adding a definition for “site design guidelines” will provide clarification for item 2, above.

 


Section 3.23.2(A) Amendments Proposed by Staff:  

3.23 ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FOR ROADS…

            3.23.2 Requirements for Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities for Roads  

                        (A)       Applicability  

                                    (1)        New or Amended Projects  

No subdivision plan, site plan, master plan for a planned development, activity center concept plan, or rezoning that meets requirements for a traffic analysis may be approved unless on the date of such approval there exists a valid and current Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities for Roads (CAPFR) applicable to the project for which such approval is sought. A CAPFR issued in connection with a rezoning or planned development master plan approval shall constitute a CAPFR for any subdivision or site plan that is consistent with and encompassed within such rezoning or master plan approval so long as the CAPFR for the rezoning or master plan approval remains valid (see Section 3.23.6, Expiration of Certificates of Adequacy of Public Facilities for Roads).   

                                    (2)        New or Amended Activity Center Concept Plans  

For an activity center concept plan there are two options.  

Option 1:  The application may follow the same requirements as for New or Amended Projects, as specified in part (1), above.    

Option 2:  A determination need not be made as to the adequacy of public facilities with respect to roads at this point in the development process.  Instead, the determination of the adequacy of public facilities with respect to roads shall occur with review of any subdivision plan, site plan, master plan for a planned development, or base district rezoning submitted for land covered by the activity center concept plan. However, a screening traffic study is required, as described in 4.4.2 (I).

                                    (23)       Automatic Certification for Small and Low Density Developments  

A determination as to the adequacy of public facilities need not be made with respect to roads if the nature of the proposed development is such that the number of estimated trips generated does not exceed the trip generation established in Section 3.23.4, Evaluation of Adequacy of Transportation: Traffic Impact Analysis.  

                                    (34)       Previously Approved Projects and Projects Pending Approval  

Previously approved projects and projects pending action by the Town shall follow the APF requirements existing at the time they were approved or submitted. Applicants may choose to have their projects meet current APFR requirements. Except as otherwise provided herein, the provisions of this Part shall apply to applications for approval of subdivision plans, site plans, rezonings, and planned developments that were submitted for approval by the Town after July 1, 2005.  

PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION

Overview: The following is a general overview of components of this Section. The specific requirements are located within the various sections in this Part and Section 7.11, Transportation Development Fees:

  • All applicants for rezonings and site and/or subdivision plans that meet the trip generation threshold are required to complete a traffic analysis and receive a Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities for Roads.
  • All traffic impact analyses are completed by the Town either through consultants or staff.
  • The Study Area for the traffic analysis is based on the size of and/or the location of the project. Higher auto trip uses generate a larger study area. All controlled access roadways are not included in the analysis; however, the intersections of the ramps with roadways are included.
  • Primarily, the level of service of intersections is used to evaluate transportation impacts within the study area.
  • As the result of the analysis, the applicant is required to make site related improvements that can be contributed to the proposed development (for example, turn lanes in and out of the site and other related improvements). Council must grant exceptions to this. Off-site improvements needed because the roadway/intersection is currently failing and/or the development does not contribute greater than seven percent of the traffic due to the failure are to be completed by the Town or jointly with the applicant.
  • A Certificate of Adequate Public Facilities for Roads may be issued provided that guarantees are made on who will be responsible for the improvements required by the traffic analysis and when these improvements will be completed.
  • Applicants may receive credits/reimbursements for their qualifying transportation system improvements.
  • Certificates of Adequate Public Facilities for Roads are valid for two years with site and/or subdivision plans, three years for rezonings and five years or longer for planned unit developments.

 

                                      (45)    Amendments to subdivision plans, site plans, or rezonings that were originally approved prior to July 1, 2005 shall follow the APF requirements existing at the time of original approval so long as the approvals have not expired and the proposed amendment does not increase the demand generated by that development on any of the public facilities covered under this Section by more than five percent.  
                                  (56)       The waiver provisions of 3.23.5 (D) shall be available to any new or amended project.  


Section 4.4.2(E) Amendments Proposed by Staff:

4.4.2(E)  Development Standards

Not withstanding an approved ACCP or planned development master plan, any development and/or redevelopment proposed for parcels located within an Activity Center Overlay shall be required to meet the following development standards:

(1)      Any conditions related to allowable land uses and/or landscaping buffer provisions applied through a conditional use rezoning shall continue to apply; and

(2)      The maximum perimeter buffer type and width shall not exceed the standards for a 65-foot Type A buffer as reflected in Section 7.2.3, unless otherwise controlled through a previous conditional use permit; and

(3)      The road network shall be designed to ensure that adjacent residential areas will have direct access to the non-residential portions of the activity center in lieu of entering and exiting through thoroughfares and/or collector streets; and

(4)      The development/redevelopment shall provide or contribute to a pedestrian and road network that connects non-residential and existing residential uses (multi-family and single-family) developments in accordance with the design guidelines.

Exceptions may be considered to items 3 & 4 above provided the following condition exists:

a.      Adjacent established single family residential developments (not part of an approved activity center concept plan or master plan) that are proposed to connect through a roadway to a Regional Activity Center.

Note:  The above listed exemption shall not be considered valid or

            appropriate when public uses (including but not limited to schools,

            libraries, and parks) are proposed within a Regional Activity Center (RAC).  

 (5)     If there is an approved ACCP that covers the proposed development and/or redevelopment parcels, and if the ACCP includes specific site design guidelines, then the design guidelines shall apply, regardless of whether the parcels are developed under the base zoning or the Activity Center Overlay District zoning.     

(6)      If there is an approved ACCP that covers parcels within the development and/or redevelopment proposal, and if the ACCP specifies a particular circulation network, then those aspects of the ACCP shall apply, regardless of whether the parcels are developed under the base zoning or the Activity Center Overlay District zoning.  A development/redevelopment proposal submitted under the base district zoning should not preclude the ultimate attainment of the circulation network outlined in the ACCP.   

Section 4.4.2(H) Amendments Proposed by Staff:

4.4.2(H)  Undeveloped Activity Centers

(1)      Description and Intent

The Land Use Plan Map designates certain undeveloped areas as future activity centers. Such areas have not yet been included within the Activity Center Overlay District, yet the Town intends to include such lands in the district prior to their development. It is the intent of the Town to require properties within such undeveloped centers to develop or redevelop consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and a specific Activity Center Concept Plan (ACCP) prepared for each center.

(2)      Activity Center Planning Process is Mandatory

For lands designated as activity centers on the Land Use Plan Map and that currently are undeveloped or underdeveloped, the activity center planning process set forth in this section is mandatory.  No planned development rezoning shall be approved for lands designated on the Land Use Plan Map as an activity center, unless that planned development rezoning is accompanied by a request for rezoning to the Activity Center Overlay District and an associated ACCP.

(3)      Establishment

To establish a new Activity Center Overlay District, an applicant shall submit the following (which shall be processed concurrently):

(a)      an application for a rezoning to a Planned Development District (see Section 3.4); and

(ba)    an application for rezoning to the Activity Center Overlay District; and

(cb)    an Activity Center Concept Plan for the entire activity center area; and

(dc)    an application for a Land Use Plan Amendment to apply the overlay district to an area not designated as an activity center on the Land Use Plan (see Section 3.2.2).

(4)      Relocation of an Existing Activity Center Designation

In cases where an undeveloped activity center is proposed in a location which is substantially different from that depicted on the Land Use Plan, then the Planning Department may consider relocating the activity center designation from its current location on the Land Use Plan.

In addition to notifying property owners within 100 feet of the proposed new activity center location as required by Section 3 above, the Planning Department shall also notify those property owners who own property which would have qualified as having been located within the activity center prior to its relocation.

(5)      Process

The process for review and approval of an ACCP in an undeveloped activity center shall be the same as the process for review and approval of an ACCP in a fully or partially developed activity center, which is set forth in subsection (G)(4) above.  However, the protest petition process in such cases shall be that set forth in Section 3.4.1(F), Protest Petitions.

 

Section 4.4.2(I) Amendments Proposed by Staff:

 4.4.2(I)  Required Contents of an ACCP

ACCPs are conceptual documents that address the general density, mix of uses, and development patterns within an activity center.  They are less detailed than the site and/or subdivision plans required for full site plan or subdivision review.   The intent is to provide sufficient information to determine consistency with the land use plan. Minimum requirements for ACCPs include:

(1)      Size and location of the land proposed for development as a new activity center, or portion of an existing/partially built activity center;

(2)      Proposed gross density of the new activity center or portion of an existing/partially built activity center including the maximum number of dwelling units and square footage of uses;

(3)      A general concept plan showing major and minor transportation corridors and pedestrian linkages throughout the area proposed for development, including appropriate linkages between uses;

(4)      General use categories proposed for the new activity center, or portion of an existing/partially built activity center, including approximate total percentages of land area and general locations devoted to residential, office, commercial, and institutional uses.   The concept plan should show how the mixed uses and urban open space are being achieved;

(5)      Specifications for the buffering/screening of adjacent residential properties.  Buffer widths shall not exceed the requirements otherwise specified within this Ordinance; and

(6)      Information on how the plan shall meet the Town’s design guidelines; and

(7)      If a traffic impact analysis is required under the provisions of Section 3.23, then it must be completed prior to or concurrent with development of the ACCP.

(8)      If a traffic impact analysis is not required or provided according to the provisions of section 3.23, then a screening traffic study must be submitted prior to or concurrent with development of the ACCP. The proposed nature, characteristics, and methodology of the screening traffic study shall be approved in advance of the study by the Director of Engineering.  In considering and approving the appropriate nature, characteristics, and methodology of the screening traffic study, the Director shall consider factors including, but not limited to, the following:

(a)      the amount of undeveloped or redevelopable land within and proximate to the activity center;

(b)      the location of the activity center within the Town as a whole, in particular whether or not the ACCP is located on the development fringe of the Town, or within long-established and developed parts of Cary;

(c)      the type and intensity of the land uses proposed by the ACCP;

(d)      the availability and currency of existing traffic models and studies for the area;

(e)      the degree to which the proposed ACCP and its surrounding existing, approved, and planned land uses do or do not deviate from the assumptions of the regional NCDOT traffic model or other models used by the Town to develop elements of its Comprehensive Plan or to guide its facility planning;

(f)       the degree to which existing traffic models or studies for the area indicate that the existing and planned roadway network is likely to have excess or deficient traffic capacity in the future;

(g)      the anticipated buildout timeframe of the ACCP;

(h)      the degree to which the proposed ACCP conforms with the Comprehensive Plan.  

PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION

Regarding part (8), above:

  • All traffic screening studies are to be completed by the Town either through consultants or staff.
  • For an ACCP covering a very small geographic area, or that is unlikely to be split into multiple development tracts under different owners, the Town may require a traffic screening study that meets the requirements of a Traffic Impact Analysis as described in Section 3.23.

 


Section 5.1.2, Table 5.1-1 Amendments Proposed by Staff:

5.1.2  Table of Permitted Uses – General Use Districts (Except TC & CT)

TABLE 5.1-1: TABLE OF PERMITTED USES – GENERAL USE DISTRICTS (EXCEPT TC & CT)

P = Permitted Use; S = Special Use (see Section 3.8); A = Accessory Use

Use Class is listed for determining the type of required perimeter buffers, and is repeated in Section 7.2

 

 

RESIDENTIAL

NON-RESIDENTIAL

ACTIVITY CENTER OVERLAY

 

Use Category

Use Type and [Use Class]

R

8

0

R

4

0

R

2

0

R

1

2

R
8

T
R

R
M
F

R
R

O
I

G
C

O
R
D

I

N

A

C

C

A

C

R

A

C

Use-Specific Stds

Household Living

Boarding house [4]

 

S/P

S/P

S/P

S/P

S/P

 

 

 

 

 

 

P

P

P

5.2.1(A)

Caretaker’s residence [4]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P

P

P

P

P

5.2.1(B)

Detached dwelling [2/3]

P

P

P

P

P

P

 

 

 

 

 

 

P 

 S/P

P 

5.2.1(L)

Duplex dwelling [5]

 

 

 

 

 

P

P

 

 

 

 

 

P

P

P

 

Manufactured home [4]

P

P

S

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.2.1(J)

Manufactured home park [4]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mobile home

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.2.1(N)

Multi-family dwelling [4]

 

 

 

 

 

 

P

 

 

 

 

 

P

P

P

5.2.1(F)

Patio dwelling [4]

 

 

 

 

 

P

P

 

 

 

 

 

P

P

P

5.2.1(H)

Residential use in non-residential building [ 4/5/6 ]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P

 

P

 

P

P

P

5.2.1(I)

Semi-detached/
attached dwelling [4]

 

 

 

 

 

P