|
05-CPA-21 Reedy Creek
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Background Information Current
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Current land
use map Proposed
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Proposed
land use map Note: Applicant has dropped the request for the HDR designation subsequent to the public hearing. Acreage: Approximately 6.27 acres Location: Vicinity Map 801 NE Maynard Road, 771, 803 Reedy Creek Road Applicant:
Town
of Cary Case Manager: Reference Information Meeting Schedule: Town Council Public Hearing Date: June 8, 2006 Action: Town Council forwarded the request to the July 17, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. Planning & Zoning Board: Date: July 17, 2006, Tabled until the September 18, 2006 P&Z Board meeting Action: Recommended denial of the request 9-0 Town Council Action: Date: October 26, 2006; Tabled at the applicant's request until the November 14 Town Council meeting. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval Vote: Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted August 29, 2005: (Please note that the following statement is that of the applicant and does not necessarily represent the views or opinions of the Town of Cary) “The concept of the proposed project is that many of the residents could live, work, and access services on the site. The project is envisioned as an upscale place, with luxury condominium buildings defining usable outdoor spaces: courtyards with recreation facilities and terraced gardens. The Atrium building is planned to house retail, office, and residential uses, all of which have views into the central atrium. In order to minimize the impacts of grading and impervious surfaces, much of the parking is under the buildings. This parking is accessed at the ends of the condominium buildings, and where possible, is hidden from view with the adept use of natural grade. The parking at the Atrium building is mostly accommodated in two levels of underground structured parking.” Summary of Requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment A. Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment Current Land Use Plan Designation:
Proposed
Land Use Plan Designation: B.
Transportation: Future Roadway Section: 6 lanes median divided, 124’ ROW CIP Schedule: N/A Sidewalk Requirements: Both sides Bicycle Requirements: WOL Transit Requirements: Bus shelter (5 ft by 12 ft) with concrete pad at location to be determined somewhere near the mid-point of the development along Maynard Existing Reedy Creek Road Section: 2-3 lanes, 60’ ROW Future Roadway Section: 3 lanes, 67’ ROW CIP Schedule: 2007 (this project is NOT budgeted) Sidewalk Requirements: Both sides Bicycle Requirements: WOL Transit Requirements: None C.
Parks & Greenways:
Greenways Map
Feedback
at Town Council Public Hearing June 8,
2006: Significant feedback was provided at the public
hearing. The applicant’s
representative, Mr. Azad Atashi, spoke in favor of the request, noting
that it was the applicant’s intent to provide a quality mixed use
development incorporating residential, office and commercial uses.
A number of persons spoke in opposition to the request.
Their concerns may be summarized as follows: Water
Quality
– Concern for impacts to the Black Creek watershed, protection for the
headwaters to streams feeding Umstead Park, flooding and adequacy of
stormwater BMP’s. Traffic
– There were a number of concerns expressed about the traffic in the
area, particularly with regards to the adequacy of Reedy Creek Road,
cut-through traffic, safety of children and the presence of the elementary
and middle schools there, and ozone and asthma problems associated with
increased traffic. Vegetation/Wildlife
– Loss of existing vegetation and the impact on wildlife. Growth and
Development – Citizens noted recent
development in this area, that the Town shouldn’t change vision for the
area as expressed in comprehensive plan, Town should integrate mixed uses
in some of the other existing centers such as Crossroads first, light and
noise problems, increased crime. Parks and Recreation – Several persons spoke of need for park in the area and suggested the Town purchase this property for that purpose. Town Council Comments – Council members expressed concerns about building heights, riparian buffers and stormwater facilities, loss of land designated for office uses and the impact of that on the Town’s economic development efforts. Councilmember Roseland asked that this property be examined for its suitability as a park and/or open space. Changes since the Town Council Public Hearing: This CPA case, as presented at the Public Hearing, included a request to change the land use on parcel 0764775445, (3.89 acres at 707 NW Maynard Road) and a portion of parcel 0764870452,(7.50 acres at 801 NW Maynard Road) from Office and Institutional (O&I) or Medium Density Residential (MDR) to High Density Residential (HDR). As a result of neighborhood input presented at the Public Hearing and discussions with staff, the applicant has requested to eliminate the land use change for these parcels. As a result of this change, the request now under consideration is to amend the land use of the remainder of parcel 0764870452 (3.24 acres) from O&I or MDR to Mixed Use. Parcels located at 771 and 803 Reedy Creek Road are requested to be changed from Low Density Residential (LDR) to Office & Institutional (O&I). Feedback at Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing September 18, 2006: At the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board several new issues were presented in addition to those discussed at the Town Council public hearing. Several speakers indicated that there had been little conversation between the applicant and residents and that they had not been presented a plan for development. Speakers also questioned the lack of notice from the Town regarding the P&Z hearing. (Note: It is the Town’s policy to notify residents of both hearings in the original notice sent to neighboring property owners.) Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation September 18, 2006: The Planning and Zoning Board unanimously recommended denying the request and finding it to be inconsistent with the Town of Cary Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: (Vote 9-0)
Changes since the Planning and Zoning Board meeting: Since the Planning and Zoning Board meeting, the applicant has had a number of meetings with neighborhood residents. From speaking with both the neighborhood residents and the applicant, these meetings have been productive and agreement has been reached on many points. Most of the points of agreement, however, are more appropriately addressed with the future Activity Center Concept Plan (ACCP) rather than at this stage. In the course of the discussion between the applicant and the neighborhood staff has been questioned regarding the inclusion of building height restrictions as a condition of the comprehensive plan amendment. Building heights are clearly regulated by the Land Development Ordinance and would normally be addressed at the ACCP or site plan stage. However, several of our land use plans contain “notes” that provide guidance regarding the intensity of development in certain locations. Given the nature and heights of the surrounding land uses, the Town Council may include guiding conditions with the comprehensive plan amendment addressing such issues as height and density of development on this property. It should be noted that such conditions would not have the authority of ordinance and would serve only to guide how the subsequent ACCP would be evaluated. Staff Recommendation on the CPA: Reedy Creek is designated as a Neighborhood Activity Center. According to Chapter 6, Section 6.6.2 of the Land Use Plan, a neighborhood activity center should contain plus or minus 250,000 square feet of non-residential space floorspace and higher density residential uses of at least 1 multifamily unit per 1,000 square feet of non-residential floorspace. The non-residential floorspace should be divided equally between commercial and office and institutional uses. In evaluating requests for land use amendments within activity centers, staff first examines the current mix of uses within the center and the impact the requested amendment would have on the desired mix. The table below depicts this information for the Reedy Creek Activity Center. Reedy
Creek Neighborhood Activity
Center
*14.47
acres of this 16.47 acres is designated O&I or MDR As the table shows the
Reedy Creek Activity Center
is under-developed in non-residential use categories from what is normally
desired in a neighborhood center.
The most serous shortfall is in the Office/Institutional category
where the only O&I use is a church.
There are presently 379 residential units developed and 131 units
approved or under construction in this activity center.
While it is acceptable to exceed the ratio of at least 1 unit per 1000 square feet of non-residential
space, the current ratio is 7.3 residential units per 1000 s.f. of
non-residential. Recently
approved activity center concept plans converted O&I designated
property for the Ardmore
development (88 townhomes) and a 12-lot single family development.
With the amendments offered by the applicant
after
the Town Council public hearing, staff is supportive of the
requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
Leaving the current designation of O&I or Medium Density
Residential in place for much of the site allows for a proper transition
of uses between the single family development in Royal Oaks and the
commercial and high density residential development to the south and west.
Part A: Mixed Use for 3.24 acre Hashemi parcel Inasmuch as one of the goals of activity centers is to encourage mixed use, staff is supportive of the request to designate an area for mixed use. This change will allow for greater flexibility so that the type and intensity of uses can be tailored to the sensitive environmental conditions on the site and be more compatible with the surrounding community. Staff recommends approval of the change to Mixed Use. Part B: Office and Institutional Use for the Two Northern Parcels totaling 3.03 acres. Staff encouraged the applicant to include these two parcels in his request. The current land use of these parcels is Low Density Residential while the zoning is Office and Institutional. Land use and zoning designations should be consistent. Staff prefers to change the land use to match the zoning rather than vice versa because low density residential development is discouraged in activity centers and additional office uses are needed. Staff recommends approval of the request for Office and Institutional land use for these parcels. Although the residents have expressed concern over the intensity and possible building heights if the requested amendment is approved it should be noted that the existing zoning designation of O&I already would permit developments of an intensity similar to the mixed use area. The height of buildings is regulated by our Land Development Ordinance and should be considered when reviewing an Activity Center Concept Plan for this property. Town Council Motion Options MOTION TO ADOPT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE TOWN OF CARY TO CHANGE THE LAND USE PLAN MAP DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY 6.27 ACRES LOCATED at the 801 ne mAYNARD rOAD (PORTION) AND 771 AND 803 REEDY CREEK ROAD FROM Office and Institutional (OFC/INS) OR Medium Density Residential (MDR) AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (ldr) TO MIXED USE (mxd) AND OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL (OFC/INS). BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CARY: Section 1: The Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Cary is hereby amended by changing the future land use designation for the properties identified below from Office and Institutional (OFC/INS) or Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use (MXD) and Office and Institutional (OFC/INS) on the Land Use Plan Map.
Section 2.This ordinance shall be effective on the date of adoption. [Vote] MOTION
TO DENY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT This proposed amendment (05-CPA-21): Reedy Creek Comprehensive Plan Amendment) to change the future land use designation for these properties from Office and Institutional (OFC/INS) or Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Low Density Residential (LDR) to Mixed Use (MXD) and Office and Institutional (OFC/INS) has been evaluated by staff and the Planning & Zoning Board, cannot be supported because ________________ , and is hereby denied. [Vote] Signed,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
