|
06-CPA-01 1. Background Information Current Comprehensive Plan Designation: Office/Institutional (OFC/INS) Land Use Map Proposed Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use (MXD) Acreage: Approximately 13.00 Street
Address/Location:
Vicinity Map
Applicant: Applicant’s
Contact: Or Jonathan
Hayward Town
Of Cary Case Manager: 2.
Summary of Requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment A.
Land Use Plan: B.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan: No requested changes C. Parks
& Greenways Master Plan: No
requested changes. 3. Feedback
at Public Hearings: No citizens spoke for or against this case at the
Town Council public hearing on March
9, 2006.
A representative of the Home Owners’ Association for the adjacent
Lion’s Gate Subdivision, spoke at the Planning Board public hearing on May 15, 2006.
The representative expressed concerns about the sort of building
heights, density, and traffic impacts that might ultimately occur on the
site. Also,
the representative felt that mixed-use is not well defined at this point,
and future rezoning decisions based on that Land Use Plan designation
could raise resident concerns. (In response
to Board questions, staff explained that height, density, and traffic
impacts were matters more appropriately addressed in rezoning or site plan
cases, and not in a Comprehensive Plan Amendment.) 4.
Changes since the Public Hearings: None. 5. Staff
Observations on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request: A. Comprehensive
Plan History for the Parcel:
The current Land Use Plan designation for this property dates from the original adoption of the Town-wide Land Use Plan in November 1996. At that time, the property was designated with a recommendation for future “Office and Institutional” uses, although even at that time the Regency Park PDD master plan allowed some uses other than Office, including neighborhood retail. The property was nevertheless designated “Office/Institutional” since the predominate character and intent of Regency Park at that time was an Office Park, and since at that time the Land Use Plan did not have a “Mixed Use” land use category. The Office/Institutional designation for the parcel
was also in keeping with the Office/Institutional comprehensive plan
designations that were also applied at that time to the pods/parcels in Regency
Park
south of the lake, some of which also had rights to limited amounts and
types of retail/commercial uses, in addition to the principal Office uses.
B.
Impact and Effect of the Request: The amendment request is to change the Land Use Plan designation for the subject property from “Office/Institutional” to “Mixed Use.” This designation is used when there will definitely be a reasonable mix of at least two or more uses in the subject area. (i.e., at least two of these three uses would be provided: Office/Institutional, Commercial/retail, or Residential.) If
the Land Use Plan is changed to “Mixed Use,” then in order for the
Town and Planning Board to make a finding that a future PDD rezoning
request for the parcel is in conformance with the Land Use Plan, the PDD
amendment should indicate that some reasonable amount of mixing will
occur on the parcel. For
example, a proposed PDD amendment might specify some minimum ratio of
residential to nonresidential space that will be provided, or some minimum
amounts (and types) of both nonresidential and residential space, or some
minimum ratio of commercial/retail to office/institutional uses. C.
Evaluation of the Requested Amendment:
The
issue to be considered in evaluating the proposed Plan Amendment is
whether or not the proposed future land use designation (Mixed Use) is an
improvement or reasonable change from the current designation
(Office/Institutional), based on policies and objectives established by
the Comprehensive Plan and by Town Council.
Analyses of the degree to which the amendment request is compatible
and consistent with pertinent policies and objectives are provided below. D.
Compatibility with the Changing Vision for Regency PDD: The
Town’s long-term land use vision for this area has been changing from
Office/Institutional to Mixed Uses and the inclusion of significant
residential elements. This
change of vision is reflected in Land Use Plan amendment 04-LPA-15 (and
it’s associated rezoning case 04-REZ-19), which amended a number of
large tracts south of Regency Lake
from office to residential. Thus,
the request for a Mixed Use designation appears consistent with the
general direction that has been evolving for Regency PDD.
The only qualification to this observation is that residential uses within the PDD are currently limited to areas south of Regency Lake and the east-west stream buffer. While the subject parcel lies immediately north of the stream emanating from the lake’s dam, it is south of another branch of the same stream, which provides buffering from nonresidential uses north of the site. E.
Compatibility with the Evolving Vision for Office Parks: In
general, over the last several years the Town has also been supportive of
injecting additional residential elements into office parks, in order to
create a more mixed-use environment. This
has been demonstrated by cases such as Land Use Plan amendments 04-LPA-03
and 04-LPA-04 (and their associated rezoning case 04-REZ-06 and
04-REZ-07), which amended numerous parcels within Weston Office Park PDD
from office to residential uses. Thus,
the request for a Mixed Use designation appears consistent with the
general direction that has been evolving for office park PDD’s.
F.
Compatibility with Mixed-Use Policies and Objectives: The
following policy statements from the Vision
Element of the Comprehensive Plan (2004) and Chapter
5 of the Town-wide Land
Use Plan, respectively, may be relevant to this case:
Thus,
the requested plan amendment does seem to conform to the above aspects of
Town policy, by adding support for mixed uses at this site. G.
Compatibility with Use Transitions and Buffer Guidelines: Chapters 5
and 6 of the Town-Wide
Land Use Plan (1996) provide the following guidelines regarding
buffers and transitions between different uses:
Since the subject parcel is surrounded to the north, east, and south by both Town of Cary public open space and parkland, as well as by 200-foot-wide stream buffer corridors, the plan amendment seems to comply with the guideline for providing buffer transitions between uses. Note in the last bullet above that architectural or design treatments can sometimes be used as an alternative to a buffer transition between uses. Since the base zoning already allows office and commercial uses, the effect of the plan amendment – if adopted – would be to lend future support to a rezoning that would seek to add residential uses to the mix. Since residential uses already exist south of the site, and since generous buffers surround the buildable area of the site, one could reasonably conclude that the introduction of residential uses on the site is reasonable and compatible with adjacent uses. As noted in
the following paragraphs, however, the issue of precisely what sorts of
residential housing types and densities would be compatible with adjacent
uses is a topic that will need to be addressed with a rezoning case for
the site, and not with this plan amendment request. H.
Compatibility and Limitations with the “Mixed Use” Category: Regency
PDD is not covered by a special area plan, but rather by the Town-wide
Land use Plan, originally adopted in 1996, with subsequent amendments.
To date, the “Mixed Use” future land use category has been used
primarily within the boundaries of special area plans, since the
designation did not exist at the time of the Town-wide 1996 Plan.
By
and large, special area plans tend to limit the use of the “Mixed Use”
classification to parcels within activity centers or the downtown.
Also, special area plans that use the “Mixed Use” designation
frequently provide specific definitions for what is meant by the term,
often with the addition of notes or annotations on the plan maps that
specify required use mixes and development limits.
(e.g., see the Town
Center Area Plan, the Northwest
and Southwest
Area Plans, the Southeast
Area Plan, and the NW
Maynard Activity Center Plan.
Since
the requested amendment pertains to the Town-wide Land Use Plan, there is
no specific definition or annotations available that specify the
recommended minimum mix of uses, or minimum or maximum densities or
intensities of future development. Thus,
if the Land Use Plan were amended to “Mixed Use,” then for any future
rezoning cases pertaining to the parcel, the Planning Board and Town
Council would have some latitude in determining:
(a) whether or not the zoning case proposes an acceptable amount of
use-mixing so as to be considered “Mixed Use,” and (b) whether the
density, intensity, height, bulk, and mass of buildings that could be
permitted under the rezoning is contextually appropriate.
Thus, in considering this plan Amendment request, the Board should consider only whether or not the introduction of mixed uses, possibly containing a residential element, is appropriate on the parcel, and not the issue of the appropriate density/intensity of those uses. That latter concern should be dealt with in conjunction with a specific rezoning application. I.
Compatibility with Fiscal and Economic Policies and Guidelines: The
following policy statements from the Vision
Element of the Comprehensive Plan (2004) and Chapter
5 of the Town-wide Land
Use Plan, respectively, may be relevant to this case:
The
issue to be considered with respect to the above policies is whether or
not the potential shifting of land within Regency PDD from nonresidential
business/employment use to some degree of residential use runs counter to
the above economic development policies.
That is, the Board should consider whether or not it might be
preferable to retain the land for nonresidential, economic development
purposes than use it for residential uses.
Note that the discussion under section 4.D., above, seemed to set a
policy precedent for shifting nonresidential land to residential uses
within Regency PDD. 6. Staff
Recommendation On balance, based on the diverse considerations
described in Section 5. above, including the case precedents for Regency
Park PDD, staff recommends adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendment. 7. Planning
and Zoning Board Recommendation (May 15, 2006) At its May 15th meeting, the Board voted 5-2 to recommend adoption of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Comments made by Board members during their deliberation included: Some P&Z Board members had concerns with the economic development impacts of converting office park sites to residential uses (see Section 5.I, above), and Weston Office Park was cited as an example. (This concern formed part of the basis for the two dissenting votes.) Other P&Z Board members said mixed-use at this and similar office park locations made sense, and that some people were trying to live closer to where they work. There was also discussion about whether high-density residential uses might be introduced onto the site with a future rezoning case, as part of a mixed-use project. In response to a Board question, staff explained that if the Land Use Plan amendment is adopted, the Board will still have discretion in evaluating future rezoning cases in terms of whether or not the proposed use types, density, and use mix is contextually appropriate for this specific location, under the guidelines of the Land Use Plan. 8. Town Council Motion Options: (Ordinances are at the end of this report) 06-CPA-01 Regency Park TO ADOPT (To Amend Comprehensive Plan) To
adopt the ordinance amending the Town of Cary Comprehensive Plan by
amending the Land Use Plan as set forth in associated document and map
dated June 22, 2006 as referenced in the Ordinance.
This action is reasonable and in the public interest based upon the
information contained in the staff reports and P&Z recommendation. [Vote] TO
DENY To deny the ordinance amending the Town of Cary Comprehensive Plan as this proposed map amendment is/is not consistent with the recommendations and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan and is/is not reasonable and in the public interest because _______________________. [Vote]
9. Reference Information Meeting Schedule:
Town
Council Public Hearing Date: March 9, 2006
Action: Town
Council forwarded the case to the May
15, 2006, Planning and Zoning Board
meeting. Planning & Zoning Board Date: May 15, 2006
Action:
Forward to Town Council for approval (5-2) Town Council Action Date: June 22, 2006
Applicant’s Justification Statement: January 30, 2006 (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): “Regency Park is a 655.24 acre Planned Development District (PDD). An amendment to the PDD is being proposed. The acreage for the amendment is 12.89 acres. The amendment proposes a change in the current land use within Regency Park PDD. The current land uses for this portion of the PDD include; commercial and the comprehensive plan which includes Office and Institutional. The amendment proposes mixed use with high density residential (condos). The Town’s adopted Land Use plan for this area shows commercial. This is based on the current approved Land Use Plan for Regency Park PDD. With this submittal is a request to amend the Town’s adopted land use plan. “The proposed Regency Park PDD Amendment reflects the changes that have happened since the adoption of Regency Park PDD. Residential development has occurred adjacent to the proposed amendment as well as the immediate surrounding areas. This includes Lion’s Gate and the most recent tracts adjacent to Lucent Technologies, Regency Park Estates and Barrington. The proposed mixed use and high density residential land uses will create a more well balanced mixed use PDD. The HD Residential will maximize the use of the site (which only 5 of the 12.89 acres are usable.) Also, the proposed amendment will have a positive economic impact on the revenue that the amended property will generate for the City of Cary. Finally, the proposed amendment is effectively a “down zoning” and thus will be a positive impact. All of the above reasons justify a change to the Town’s adopted Land Use Plan and the amendment to Regency Park PDD. “The proposed revision provides for a minimum of 180 residential units. The number of residential units may increase. “There are 7.99 acres of area that will not be disturbed within the tract of 12.89 acres or 62% of the site. “The current Traffic Impact Study (01-TAR-113) was prepared by Town traffic consultant HNTB dated March 2001. This study looked at the impacts of a 240,000 sq. ft. office complex. “The proposal will generate much less traffic than the office complex for which it is currently zoned. As a result, a TIA will not be required for rezoning. This TIA is good for five years. Recent traffic studies in this area show all intersections along Regency Parkway operate at a good level of service "C". Also, the entrance will be at the intersection of Ederlee and Regency Parkway, where they two new stop lights are going in. “The benefits to the neighbors and community include: “down zoning” property from commercial to residential. Property backs up to residential (Lion’s Gate) and nature preserve, less traffic, increased property values, and noise. “All applicable greenway requirements will meet the Town’s requirements.” Schools: There is insufficient information at the level of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to do a specific forecast of student generation. However, the proposed amendment would support rezoning cases that seek to include residential units on this parcel. Thus, the requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment does have the potential for supporting a rezoning case that could generate future students and thus have a public schools impact. This impact should be evaluated with such a rezoning case. Transit
Requirements: Bus shelter or pull-out required Adjacent/nearby
roadways on Town of Cary Transportation Plan: Regency
Drive, north of Ederlee: Adjacent/nearby
roadways on our Transportation Plan: Future Roadway Section: 4-lane median
divided, 100 ft. ROW Schedule: N/A Sidewalk Requirements: required on both
sides Bicycle Requirements: Wide outside lane
required Ederlee Road, south of Regency Drive Adjacent/nearby
roadways on our Transportation Plan: Future Roadway Section: 4-lane median
divided 100 ft. ROW Schedule: N/A Sidewalk Requirements: sidewalk required
on both sides Bicycle Requirements: wide outside lane
required Development Plan
Issues: A public request to amend Cary’s Comprehensive Plan must be considered on its merits, independent of any request to rezone the parcels in question, and independent of any specific development plan. In the case of a request to amend the Land Use Plan, the focus of analysis is to evaluate the appropriateness of the requested future land use classification for the subject parcels of land. Specific development requirements related to the technical aspects of land development, such as access, stormwater management, road improvements, utility line placement, road connectivity and landscape plantings, are not considered during the CPA process. However, all of these development issues must be addressed for compliance with existing requirements spelled out in the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) when the site or subdivision plan is submitted. All such requirements can be found at http:vic.townofcary.org. 10.
Ordinances for Consideration: Land Use Plan Amendment
06-CPA-01 An Ordinance to amend the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Cary to change the approximately 13.00 acres located at the eastern side of the intersection of Ederlee Road and Regency Parkway from Office/Institutional (OFC/INS) to Mixed Use (MXD). 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 area shown below from Office/Institutional to Mixed Use.
Section 2: This ordinance shall be effective on the date of adoption.
(Signed)
|
||||||||||||||||
