06-CPA-03 Bashyam Property Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Staff Report to Town Council   

1.  Background Information

Current Comprehensive Plan Designation:  The NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan, adopted by Town Council on December 11, 2003, is the controlling Comprehensive Plan element for this Neighborhood Activity Center.  That plan designates the subject parcels as “Office/Institutional and/or Medium Density Residential,” with special Notes #2 and #4 prescribing additional recommendations for the subject parcels.  All areas on the Plan map are also subject to the recommendations of the map’s “Purpose and Intent” text box.

Requested Comprehensive Plan Designation:  Mixed Use (MXD) - with amendments to Notes #2 and #4 on the NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan, and with amendments to the “Traffic” section of the “Purpose and Intent” text box on the Plan map. 
Land Use Map

Acreage:  16.09          

Street Address/Location:  Vicinity Map
Southwest corner of NW Maynard Road and Chapel Hill Road 

Applicant:
Ram Bashyam
Bashyam Properties, Inc.
1417 Elberton Place
Raleigh, NC 27609
(919) 872-0253
rbashyam@bellsouth.net 

Applicant’s Contact:
Chris Tingler
Cline Design Associates PA
125 N Harrington Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
(919) 833-6413
ChrisT@clinedesignassoc.com

Or

Joseph Meir
Blue Ridge Realty, Inc
2501 Blue Ridge Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919) 783-9292 x 140
jmeir@br-realty.com 

Town of Cary Case Manager:  
Scott Ramage, Comprehensive Planning Principal Planner
316 N Academy Street, Cary, NC, 27513
(919) 462-3888
scott.ramage@townofcary.org

2.  Summary of Applicant’s Original Requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment   

(The following amendment request is as of the Town Council public hearing on March 9, 2006.  Changes to this original proposal are described in Sections 4 and 5, below.)

2.1  Land Use Plan
The applicant is requesting that the NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan, adopted by Town Council on December 11, 2003, be amended as follows:   

(1) Amend the land use recommendation for the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Chapel Hill Road and NW Maynard Road from “Office/Institutional and/or Medium Density Residential” to “Mixed Use” (MXD).  

(2) Amend Notes #2 and #4 on the NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan map as follows: (The strike-through text is being removed per the applicant’s request and the underlined text is being added per their request.)

Note #2:  This mixed-use area can include Commercial uses, Office and Institutional uses, or either medium density residential uses. or office and institutional uses, or a mix of both.  (Where medium density residential is defined as 3-8 dwellings per acre, single family attached or detached.)  A substantial and reasonable mix of at least two of the aforementioned uses should be provided.  General guidelines:

a.)    Lot consolidation and the provision of shared driveways onto Chapel Hill Road are also recommended in this area, in order to maximize the overall redevelopment potential and avoid land use conflicts with neighboring lots.

b.)    If both residential and office nonresidential uses occur on this quadrant, the architectural styles of the two types of uses should be compatible, and transitions between such uses should conform to Cary’s Design Guidelines Manual.

c.)    Office uses should be limited to no more than about 100,000 square feet of office space on this quadrant, and Commercial/Retail uses to no more than about 100,000 square feet.

d.)    As provided for under the Town’s standard Office/Institutional zoning district, up to 20% of the floor space in any single office building can be used for certain commercial purposes (generally related to serving the office tenants).  The square footage of any mixed building uses will be limited to the proposed cap.

Note #4:  Natural b Buffer adjacent to railroad right-of-way, minimum of 30.  Usually about 100 ft. wide.  Recommended to include a sound wall or fencing to block view of railroad.

(3) Amend the first paragraph under the “Traffic” heading of the “Purpose and Intent” text box on the NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan map as follows:

The overall level of traffic associated with future development within this activity center should not exceed the level that might reasonably have been expected for this neighborhood activity center, prior to the rezoning of the northeast quadrant in May 2003 for a Lowe’s Home Improvement Center (02-REZ-19).  Thus, total trip generation across the entire activity center should not exceed more than about 12,900 18,100 ADT (Average Daily Trips) on weekdays, and 13,500 20,600 ADT on Saturdays.

2.2  Comprehensive Transportation Plan
No requested changes.

2.3  Parks & Greenways Master Plan  Greenways Map
No requested changes.

3.  Feedback at Public Hearings

3.1  Summary of Citizen Comments

Three citizens spoke at the March 9, 2006, Town Council public hearing, and two of them (Ms. Patty Morales and Mr. Brent Miller) raised the following concerns:

·         Both opposed the proposed amendments.

·      Both felt that the Town should abide by its December 2003 Land Use Plan for the activity center.  Mr. Miller felt that the current plan recommendations for office and housing contribute to a carefully-crafted balance of uses and reasonable levels of traffic.

·      Both raised concerns about additional traffic impacts that might result from the amendment.  Mr. Miller felt that the requested Average Daily Traffic (ADT) cap increases were excessive.

·      Ms. Morales voiced concerns about adverse quality-of-life impacts for existing neighborhood residents.

·      Both felt that the proposed amendment shouldn’t support a potential grocery store, and that the area was already adequately served by supermarkets.

At the June 19, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board public hearing, two nearby residents spoke in favor of the request for the following reasons:

·         Convenience of having retail within walking distance

·      Support for mixed use development  

3.2    Summary of Council Comments

At the March 9, 2006, Town Council public hearing, the following issues were raised by Council members:

·     Traffic Impacts.  Marla Dorrel asked staff to review the traffic budget [for the activity center] and compare it with the requested ADT increases in the proposed plan amendment.  Jennifer Robison asked staff to review the trip budget that was created in 2003, and determine whether mistakes were made regarding the original traffic budget calculations.  

·      Neighborhood vs. Community Activity Center.  Mrs. Robison asked about the requirements of a neighborhood activity center vs. a community activity center (including requirements for a grocery store).  Mrs. Robinson stated the council didn’t want this area to turn into a community activity center because Council didn’t want the community center impacts in this area.

[Note:  the applicant’s amendment request does not include a  request to change the plan designation from a Neighborhood to a Community Activity Center.]

·      Grocery Store.  Mrs. Robinson expressed concerns that the requested land use plan amendment would open the door to allow a grocery store on the southwest quadrant.  She expressed concerns that grocery stores built in close proximity to one another could lead to empty big box shells.  Mr. Joyce felt that a neighborhood grocery store at this location could help neighborhood grocery traffic stay in its own region instead of impacting other major intersections.  (See analysis in Section 6.8, below.) 

4.  Applicant’s Proposed Changes for Planning Board

(In conversations and emails with and from the applicant on June 7 and 8, the applicant submitted the following modifications to their original request, for the June 19, 2006 Planning & Zoning Board hearing.)

For the Planning and Zoning Board public hearing on June 19, the applicant proposed two different options for amending their original Plan Amendment request.  The applicant proposed these two options for Planning Board consideration so that the Board could consider the appropriate option depending on how they viewed the function of this activity center – either as a neighborhood or community-sized center – especially in light of the new information and traffic study (as detailed in Section 6, below). 

Option One

This amendment revision was proposed if the Board, after reviewing the new information, felt that the activity center should still be limited to the amount of nonresidential development more typical of a Neighborhood Activity Center.  Under this option, the amendment presented at the Council public hearing (described in Section 2.1, above) is modified by the applicant as follows:

• Reduce the maximum amount of Commercial/Retail floorspace to 60,000 sq. ft. if no residential units are provided on the SW quadrant, but allow an additional 2,000 sq. ft. of Commercial/Retail for every dwelling unit provided, up to a maximum of 80,000 sq. ft. of Commercial/Retail.
• Limit the maximum single tenant retail user to 50,000 sq. ft.
• Reduce the maximum amount of Office floorspace to 77,000 sq. ft.
• Reduce the maximum number of residential units to 80.

Option Two

This amendment revision was proposed if the Board, after reviewing the new information, felt that the activity center should function more like a Community Activity Center, allowing a greater amount of nonresidential development.  Under this option, the amendment presented at the Council public hearing (described in Section 2.1, above) is modified by the applicant as follows:

• Reduce the maximum amount of Commercial/Retail floorspace to 85,000 sq. ft.
• Limit the maximum single tenant retail user to 50,000 sq. ft.
• Reduce the maximum amount of Office floorspace to 77,000 sq. ft.
• Reduce the maximum number of residential units to 80.

Note:  At their June 19 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board endorsed Option One, above, with five further modifications recommended by staff.  See Section 7 for details.

5.  Applicant’s Changes Since Planning and Zoning Board Action

5.1  Summary of Changes Since Planning Board Action

The applicants have amended their request based on the Planning Board’s recommendation for Option One (see Section 4., above), the Board’s endorsement of five staff-recommended changes, and numerous meetings and discussions since Planning Board action.  The original amendment request (see Section 2., above) has been modified as follows:

1. The requested maximum amount of Commercial/Retail floorspace was reduced from 100,000 sq. ft. to 60,000 sq. ft. if no residential units are provided on the SW quadrant, or up to 70,000 sq. ft. if one residential unit is provided for each 1,000 sq. ft. of Commercial/Retail space over the 60,000 sq. ft. limit.
2. The maximum size of a single tenant retail user is now limited to 50,000 sq. ft.
3. The maximum amount of Office floorspace was reduced from 100,000 to 77,000 sq. ft.
4. Map Note #2 has been modified to give a sense of the minimum amount of use-mixing that would be expected on the quadrant, by stating that “at a minimum, no more than about two-thirds of the developed floorspace should be in the same major use category.”
5. Map Note #2 has been modified to stipulate that “A substantial and reasonable mix of at least two of the aforementioned uses should be provided, exclusive of any residential units provided under the commercial bonus provision..”.
6. Text changes have been added to clarify that either medium- or high-density residential housing types can be included on the SW quadrant, as long as the overall unit count is limited to 128 units – equivalent to medium density residential over the entire quadrant.
7. Text changes have been added to clarify that the commercial/retail floorspace cap applies to all commercial/retail space on the SW quadrant, including commercial/retail space within mixed-use or office buildings.
8. The request to increase the weekday ADT budget from 12,900 to 18,100 has been removed, along with the request to increase the Saturday ADT budget from 13,500 to 20,600.  Instead, the applicant requests that text be added to state that “Future development plans and Mixed Use Sketch Plans should strive to keep the overall activity center ADT within about +/- 10% of the weekday ADT target, and within about +/- 15% of the Saturday ADT target.” 

5.2  Consolidated Plan Amendment for Council Consideration

The revised amendments to the NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan are now as follows:

(1) Amend the land use recommendation for the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Chapel Hill Road and NW Maynard Road from “Office/Institutional and/or Medium Density Residential” to “Mixed Use” (MXD). 

(2) Amend Notes #2 and #4 on the NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan map as follows: (The applicant requests that the strike-through text be removed, and the underlined text be being added.)

Note #2:  This mixed-use area can include Commercial uses, Office and Institutional uses, or either medium density rResidential uses. or office and institutional uses, or a mix of both.  (Where medium density residential is defined as 3-8 dwellings per acre, single family attached or detached.)  A substantial and reasonable mix of at least two of the three aforementioned use categories should be provided, exclusive of any residential units provided under the commercial bonus provision described in (c.), below.  At a minimum, no more than about two-thirds of the developed floorspace should be in the same major use category.  General guidelines:

a.)    Lot consolidation and the provision of shared driveways onto Chapel Hill Road are also recommended in this area, in order to maximize the overall redevelopment potential and avoid land use conflicts with neighboring lots.

b.)    If both residential and office nonresidential uses occur on this quadrant, the architectural styles of the two types of uses should be compatible, and transitions between such uses should conform to Cary’s Design Guidelines Manual.

c.)   Office uses should be limited to no more than about 100,000 +/- 77,000 square feet of office space on this quadrant, and Commercial/Retail uses to no more than about +/- 60,000 square feet if no residential units are provided on the SW quadrant, but allow an additional 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial/retail for every dwelling unit provided, up to a maximum of about +/- 70,000 sq. ft. of commercial/retail.  Individual retail spaces/anchors should not exceed about 50,000 sq. ft.

d.)    As provided for under the Town’s standard Office/Institutional zoning district, up to 20% of the floor space in any single office building can be used for certain commercial purposes (generally related to serving the office tenants).  For mixed-use buildings, the floorspace for the individual uses within such buildings will be subject to the above floorspace caps.

e.)    The total number of residential units should not exceed about 128 units (equivalent to the maximum yield of Medium Density Residential applied over the entire quadrant).  However, either Medium or High Density Residential housing types are acceptable.

Note #4:  Natural b Buffer adjacent to railroad right-of-way, minimum of 30.  Usually about 100 ft. wide.  Recommended to include a sound wall or fencing to block view of railroad. 

(3) Amend the first paragraph under the “Traffic” heading of the “Purpose and Intent” text box on the NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan map as follows:

The overall level of traffic associated with future development within this activity center should not exceed the level that might reasonably have been expected for this neighborhood activity center, prior to the rezoning of the northeast quadrant in May 2003 for a Lowe’s Home Improvement Center (02-REZ-19).  Thus, total trip generation across the entire activity center should not exceed more than about 12,900 ADT (Average Daily Trips) on weekdays, and 13,500 ADT on Saturdays.  Future development plans and Mixed Use Sketch Plans should strive to keep the overall activity center ADT within about +/- 10% of the weekday ADT target, and within about +/- 15% of the Saturday ADT target.

6.  Staff Observations on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Request

6.1  Comprehensive Plan History for the Parcels 

The NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan, adopted by Town Council on December 11, 2003, is the controlling Comprehensive Plan element for this Neighborhood Activity Center.  Council directed staff to develop this special area plan following the adoption of the rezoning for the Lowe’s Home Improvement Center (case 02-REZ-19) on the northeast quadrant of the activity center intersection.  Council provided two guidelines for the development of the special area plan, both of which were incorporated into the final plan:

1.      The area should remain designated as a neighborhood activity center (NAC), and not be changed to a Community Activity Center, with the understanding that at buildout the total nonresidential floorspace was likely to exceed the typical amounts for an NAC.

2.      The overall level of traffic associated with future development within this activity center should not exceed the level that might reasonably have been expected for the original 17-acre commercial tract on the northeast quadrant of the activity center, prior to the rezoning of that quadrant for the Lowe’s Home Improvement Center.  (See Section 6.2, below.)

For the subject parcels the 2003 area plan recommends either medium density residential or office uses (or a combination of both), but no more than 100,000 sq. ft. of office floorspace.  As with the O&I zoning district, the plan also provides for up to 20% of the floorspace in an office building to be used for commercial/retail or services.  The rationale behind the recommendations for the southwest quadrant included the following:

1.      The plan respected the wishes of adjacent neighborhoods that high density residential not be included within this activity center.

2.      New commercial/retail uses were primarily focused on the northwest quadrant (and not the subject SW quadrant) because (a) the NW quadrant had more land available for supporting a reasonable mix of both commercial and supporting residential uses; (b) the NW quadrant has better connections to adjacent neighborhoods; (c) the NW quadrant provided more dispersed vehicular access points, and could distribute traffic via an internal connector road linking Evans and Chapel Hill Roads; and (d) at the time of plan development, the owners of parcels on the NW tract were actively involved in and advocating for a mixed-use designation, while the owners of parcels on the SW quadrant were not.

3.     In order to stay within the mandated trip budget, commercial/retail uses needed to be limited, since they generate more trips per unit floorspace than office or residential.  Once the NW quadrant had been selected for the bulk of the future commercial uses through the public process, there was minimal commercial capacity left to assign to the SW quadrant.

4.      Town policy generally seeks a balance between commercial, office, and residential uses within activity centers.  This activity center could have become overly lopsided towards commercial uses had additional retail been planned for the SW quadrant, instead of office and residential.

6.2  Origin and Application of the Plan’s Trip Budget 

Origin of the Plan’s ADT Budget: 

The trip budget contained in the activity center Land Use Plan was developed and arose as follows:

1.      At the time of the Lowe’s rezoning (case 02-REZ-19), approximately 18 acres on the NE quadrant were already zoned General Commercial.  Council asked Engineering staff to provide information on the number of daily trips those 18 acres might reasonably be expected to generate if the site developed as a typical shopping center instead of a Lowe’s Home Store.

2.      Engineering staff identified Shoppes of Kildaire as a comparable site, since it is also about 17-18 acres.  It was determined that at that time Shoppes of Kildaire was generating approximately 12,900 ADT (Average Daily Trips) on weekdays, and 13,500 ADT on Saturdays, on a base of about 160,000 +/- sq. ft. of retail space.

3.      The applicants for the Lowe’s rezoning contended that their home store would generate roughly half the trips of a typical shopping center on that site.

4.      Council approved the Lowe’s rezoning, and directed staff to develop a plan for the entire activity center that stayed within the Shoppes of Kildaire trip budget.

5.      Staff subtracted the daily trips estimated for all existing and approved development (such as Lowe’s) from the adopted trip budget to determine the remaining ADT that was available for future development (about 6,900 ADT weekdays, 6,100 ADT Saturday).  This remaining ADT capacity was then distributed among all future land uses, and drove the development limits recommended by the area plan.

Application of the Trip Budget During 2003 Plan Development:

The Town estimates future ADT by using the ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) Trip Generation Manual.  For hundreds of types of land uses, the Manual provides statistical formulae and methodologies for estimating ADT.  In the case of commercial and office uses, scores of estimation formulae are available, depending on the specific types of commercial or office uses being considered.  During development of the Plan in 2003, staff could not predict the precise future mix of commercial and office uses that might occur within the activity center. 

Hence, staff developed the Plan’s maximum commercial and office floorspace recommendations by using the broad ITE categories #820 “Shopping Center” and #710 “Office” for commercial and office uses, respectively.  It was accepted as a limitation of the method that the actual ADT for future uses might differ, even while remaining within the plan’s floorspace guidelines, depending on the specific types of future retail and office uses.

It might not be fair to landowners to set the Plan’s ADT caps and floorspace based on the general #820 and #710 categories, but then to enforce the ADT caps using more specific categories.  Staff recommends maintaining consistency, and using the #820 and #710  categories when determining conformance with the Plan, but using the more specific categories when performing Traffic Impact Analyses under the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.

6.3  Limitations to the Trip Budget Approach

In considering the requested amendments to the trip budget, multiple limitations to the trip budget approach could be considered: 

First, the trip budget is unrelated to the potential carrying capacity of the nearby intersections.  No analysis was performed or requested that set the trip budget to match intersection capacity in this area. 

Second, the Shoppes of Kildaire ADT figures used in setting the Chapel Hill Road Activity Center’s trip budget only included trips associated with the shopping center portion of the Shoppes of Kildaire activity center.  That is, the ADT figures did not include trips associated with the residential or office and institutional uses located within that community activity center, or within a typical neighborhood activity center.  Thus, for the NW Maynard Activity Center Plan, the ADT trip budget may have been set at too conservative a level.

Third, the trip budget is not legally enforceable at the level of site plans, since it is a policy recommendation, not an ordinance.  Conformance with the trip budget is currently checked when evaluating Mixed Use Sketch Plans (MUSP) or rezoning requests.  With a site plan, the actual trip generation rates may differ from those estimated at the MUSP or rezoning stage.    

Fourth, the trip budget approach becomes untenable over time, as tenants and uses change within built centers, resulting in continual movement of the activity center’s actual total ADT. 

Fifth, during plan development in 2003, staff had to assume and assign a share of the trip budget to properties that already had nonresidential zoning.  If those sites build out more intensely under their base zoning than was estimated by staff, the ADT budget for remaining properties could be significantly reduced.

Additional considerations might include the following:   The ADT budget approach does not consider how trips are balanced across the day-long 24-hour period.  Uses that generate a greater percentage of their daily trips at peak hour are treated the same as uses that generate proportionally fewer peak hour trips.  Also, the ADT budget approach overstates the actual traffic impacts on adjacent thoroughfares, since it doesn’t account for pass-by and linked trips.  The ADT approach also fails to account for the directional assignments for trips (with or against rush hour traffic). 

6.4  Evaluation of Requested ADT (Average Daily Trips) Budget Amendments

Following the public hearing and Planning Board action, the applicants removed their request to increase the Plan’s stipulated weekday and Saturday ADT budgets, and instead added a text amendment stating that “Future development plans… should strive to keep the overall activity center ADT within about +/- 10% of the weekday ADT target, and within about +/- 15% of the Saturday ADT target.”

According to the applicants, the intent of the proposed text change is to allow Council and the Planning Board some discretion in approving otherwise acceptable Mixed Use Sketch Plans that might marginally deviate from the Plan’s ADT guidelines.

Using the same application methodology as described in Section 6.2 above, staff projected the total activity center ADT that would occur if the southwest quadrant were to have 70,000 sq. ft. of commercial/retail, and 77,000 sq. ft. of office – the maximum suggested by the applicant’s proposed Plan amendment – plus 36 residential units.  The analysis projects weekday ADT at 14,261 – about 10.6% over the 12,900 ADT budget.  Saturday ADT was projected at 15,452, equivalent to 14.5% over the 13,500 ADT budget.

Given the favorable level of service projected for this intersection (see Section 6.5, below), it is unlikely that a variation of 10-15% over or under the activity center’s ADT budget would be significant or noticeable.

6.5  Traffic Study

A traffic impact study is not required for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) case.  However, the applicant elected to pursue a traffic study following the Town Council public hearing, in order to respond to concerns raised about their requested amendments to the plan’s trip budget. 

The traffic impact study was prepared by Town traffic consultant, HNTB, dated May 2006. This study indicates that all intersections in the study area will operate at level of service (LOS) “D” or better except the intersection of Cary Parkway and Chapel Hill Road in Morrisville. Cary Parkway and Chapel Hill Road operates at level of service “E/F” today and will operate at level of service “F/F” in 2009 with full buildout.  Note that this latter intersection lies within the Town of Morrisville’s planning jurisdiction, and therefore is not subject to Cary’s transportation Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (the Town cannot require improvements beyond its jurisdiction).  Also, the projected level of service at that intersection is somewhat related to the fact that Chapel Hill Road has not yet been widened west of this activity center.

The Town’s LOS standard for intersections on or within the Maynard loop is “F,” and “D” outside of Maynard within the limits of this study.

The study would seem to indicate that the increased trip budget can be adequately accommodated on Town of Cary intersections. 

6.6  Available Unused Nonresidential Space and ADT Allocation in NW Quadrant

During discussions with staff, the applicant suggested that some degree of increase in the commercial floorspace allocation for the SW quadrant should be feasible without incurring any impact on the existing ADT budget.  The applicant pointed out that the Activity Center Concept Plan (ACCP) approved for the NW quadrant in January 2005 (case 04-AC-005) did not utilize the full measure of the 2003 area plan’s nonresidential floorspace allocations.  (37,100 sq. ft. of office space allocation and 4,400 sq. ft. of commercial/retail allocation was unused.)   

Under the current plan, the SW quadrant could have up to 20,000 sq. ft. of commercial/retail (equal to 20% of the office building maximum floorspace of 100,000 sq. ft.).  If the unused NW quadrant commercial and office space allocations were transferred to the SW quadrant, then 24,400 sq. ft. of commercial/retail, and 117,100 sq. ft. of office space would be feasible on the SW quadrant, without requiring a change in the ADT caps.  The applicant proposes a maximum of 77,000 sq. ft. office space on the SW quadrant.  The difference of 40,100 sq. ft. of unused office space allocation, if re-allocated as commercial/retail space having an equivalent number of average daily trips, might justify an additional 2,000-10,000 sq. ft. of retail, depending on whether Saturday or weekday ADT proves to be the limiting factor.

6.7  Equity Considerations

The requested plan amendments raise an issue pertaining to the equitable treatment of other landowners within the activity center. 

Background:  At the outset of the public planning process in 2003 for the NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan, staff determined the maximum amount of additional commercial, office, and residential development that could be accommodated within the activity center while abiding by the trip budget caps set by Council.  Those development amounts were then distributed among the remaining vacant and underdeveloped parcels, based upon best planning practices, community input, and Council and Board direction. 

As a result, some property owners received a smaller commercial floorspace allocation in the plan than they would have otherwise preferred.  For example, Mt. Zion Baptist Church, which then owned the majority of the land on the northwest quadrant, would have preferred a recommendation for significantly more retail space than the 60,000 sq. ft. of floorspace recommended in the final plan.

Equity regarding total commercial space:  The equity issue arises if now, some 2 ½ years later, the overall commercial floorspace allocation for the SW quadrant increases from 20,000 sq. ft. (20% of the current maximum allowed office space of 100,000 sq. ft.) to  60,000-70,000 sq. ft. – a three-to-four-fold increase.  Had a larger total aggregate commercial floorspace allocation been available for distribution among all the vacant and underdeveloped parcels during plan development in 2003, it is likely that the NW quadrant would have obtained a recommendation for substantially more than the plan’s 60,000 sq. ft.

Equity regarding maximum retail tenant size.  For the NW quadrant, the Land Use Plan specifies that “individual non-grocery retail spaces should not exceed about 30,000 sq. ft.”  By contrast, the proposed amendment limits the maximum single tenant retail user on the SW quadrant to 50,000 sq. ft., and not 30,000 sq. ft. as was done for the NW quadrant.  However, staff feels that this difference may not be as inequitable as it might first appear.  One of the motivations for limiting retail tenant size to 30,000 sq. ft. on the NW quadrant was to create a retail massing that would fit comfortably with the adjacent residential uses and neighborhood.  Since the SW quadrant is not adjacent to a comparable nearby neighborhood, such a size limitation is probably not warranted to the same degree. 

6.8  Grocery Store Considerations

As noted in Section 3.2, above, one Council member expressed concerns about the potential for a grocery store on the southwest quadrant if the land use amendment is approved.  The requested plan amendment is silent on the issue of whether or not a grocery is intended on the subject parcels.  It should be noted that the 2003 NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan contains no provisions recommending for or against grocery stores within this activity center. 

The 60,000 sq. ft. of retail space recommended for the NW quadrant was sufficient to accommodate a modestly-sized store such as The Fresh Market or Whole Foods, while still having room for additional shops and restaurant.  One of the photo-simulations prepared for the NW quadrant (and presented at the second community open house and again at the public hearing) in fact showed a grocery-anchored shopping center on the corner, similar to Saltbox Village.

A Council member also asked whether any market study was available to indicate whether or not a grocery was supportable at this location, and without adverse impacts to other grocery stores in the market area.  At this point, no market study is available.  Such a  study can depend highly on the specific size and type of grocery store, since the target markets and market areas can vary widely for different types of stores, such as mainline supermarkets (Food Lion, Harris Teeter, etc.) vs. gourmet/specialty markets (Fresh Market, Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s) vs. ethnic specialty markets (Asia Market, ethnic grocers).

Thus, the question of whether or not a grocery store is desired or appropriate on the SW quadrant is one that is more appropriately evaluated in conjunction with review of a future Activity Center Concept Plan or site plan. 

6.9  Neighborhood vs. Community Activity Center Size Considerations

The requested plan amendment does not include a request to re-designate the activity center from a neighborhood activity center (NAC) to a community activity center (CAC).  The Town-wide Land Use Plan recommends that NAC’s and CAC’s “will likely contain plus or minus” 250,000 sq. ft. and 500,000 sq. ft. of nonresidential space, respectively, split into roughly equal parts commercial and office, and with about one housing unit per 1,000 sq. ft. of nonresidential floorspace.

Under the recommendations of the existing NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan, at buildout the activity center might have about 230‑250,000 sq. ft. of commercial/retail space, and about 300-330,000 sq. ft. of office and institutional space (of which almost half is church space), for a total of approximately 530-580,000 sq. ft. of nonresidential space.  Thus, while technically identified as a neighborhood activity center, in terms of floorspace it’s closer to a community activity center. 

The requested increase could add a maximum of about 37,000-47,000 sq. ft. of nonresidential space to the activity center.  Maximum total office and institutional space would be lowered to 277,000-307,000 sq. ft., while maximum commercial/retail space would be increased into the range of 290,000-320,000 sq. ft.

6.10  Mix and Balance of Uses Considerations

As can be noted in Section 6.9, above, the Activity Center Land Use Plan currently supports a good balance between commercial/retail and office/institutional uses, with a slight edge to office/institutional uses.  The proposed amendments maintain a reasonable commercial/retail to office/institutional ratio, and would result in a slight edge to commercial/retail uses. 

The existing Land Use Plan supports fewer residential units than one would hope to find in an “ideal” activity center, however in large part that is due to the particular conditions of this activity center.  At present the activity center is committed to provide only 79 dwellings, all located on the NW quadrant.  The subject SW quadrant is the only remaining area within the activity center that has a plan recommendation that would support additional residential uses (anywhere from 0 to 128 units).  However, under both the existing and proposed plan recommendations for the SW quadrant, it is possible that the entire quadrant could develop as nonresidential without providing any additional residential units to improve the residential mix within the activity center.

6.11  Compatibility with Other Town Policies and Objectives

The following Town policies could also be relevant to the requested Plan amendment.

Encourage Mixed-Use Development.  Chapter 5 of the Town-wide Land Use Plan includes the following policy objective:  “Encourage and provide for mixed-use development with a variety of housing types, densities, nonresidential uses …”  The requested plan amendment does seem to conform to this objective, by adding support for mixed uses at this site.

Location of Future Growth.  The Vision Element of the Comprehensive Plan (2004) includes Policy G-11:  “Concentrate growth in areas already served by existing or planned infrastructure to minimize costly service area extensions.”  This policy is echoed in the Growth Management Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan (2000) as Guiding Principle L1.   Thus, the requested plan amendment seems to be supportive of this policy, by providing for additional infill density in an area where adequate public facilities already exist.  

6.12  Economic Development Considerations

Under the existing 2003 Activity Center Land Use Plan, the entire SW quadrant of the activity center could develop either as residential-only, or as office-only, or as a mix of the two.  The proposed Plan amendment will now require a mix of uses, ensuring that there will be at least some measure of nonresidential development on the quadrant.  This should help to advance the Town’s economic development goals.  However, the amendment would remove the possibility of attaining office-only development on the site, since a mix of uses would be needed.  It is also possible that the quadrant will develop with more commercial/retail space than office space.

6.11  Railroad Buffer Considerations

The request to amend the railroad buffer from 100 to 30 ft. is compatible with LDO requirements and still wider than the 20 ft. buffer required for office or multifamily adjacent to a railroad.  However, the wide buffer originally recommended in the 2003 plan was intended to provide a very generous buffer next to this planned TTA commuter rail corridor in the event that the site developed as residential.  The proposed narrower buffer should also be adequate, if a berm or wall is provided, or perhaps in conjunction with additional soundproofing of any residential units.  

7.  Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation (June 19, 2006)

Board Action:  By a vote of 6-4, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the Town’s NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan as originally submitted  in Section 2.1, above, but with the modifications proposed by the applicants as Option One in Section 4, provided that the proposed amendments include the five staff-recommended modifications described below. 

1. Modify Option One to replace the provision limiting the maximum single tenant retail user on the SW quadrant to 50,000 sq. ft. with the text currently used for the NW quadrant, namely that “individual non-grocery retail spaces should not exceed about 30,000 sq. ft.”
2. Modify Option One so that it allows an additional 1,000 sq. ft. of Commercial/Retail – instead of the proposed 2,000 sq. ft. – for every additional dwelling unit provided, up to a maximum of 80,000 sq. ft.
3. Modify Option One to change the residential cap of 80 units to reflect the existing medium density residential cap of 128 units.
4. Modify the proposed amendment to Map Note #2 to stipulate that “A substantial and reasonable mix of at least two of the aforementioned uses should be provided, exclusive of any residential units provided under the commercial bonus provision”.
5. Modify the amendment to Map Note #2 to clarify the minimal amount of use mixing necessary in order to achieve the “substantial and reasonable mix” proposed by the applicant.  Staff recommends stating that “at a minimum, no more than about two-thirds of the developed floorspace should be in the same major use category.”

Board Discussion:  Comments made by Board members during their deliberation included:  Some Board members felt that increasing the trip budget would go against maintaining the Neighborhood Activity Center at a scale appropriate for nearby residents.  Others thought the site was a good location for mixed-use, but felt that the applicants’ original submittal sought too large an increase in the ADT budget.  One Board member felt that there was no compelling reason to change the Land Use Plan, since it was developed fairly recently and with ample input from residents.  Some Board members expressed concerns over traffic impacts, while other Board members thought the original ADT cap was arrived at arbitrarily, and that limiting the uses based on the ADT budget didn’t seem appropriate.  One Board member thought this was a good location for retail, restaurants, banking, and so forth, since the site’s proximity to the railroad is problematic for residential uses, while the site is well-located to serve nearby neighborhoods.    

8.  Staff Recommendations

Note:  Subsequent to Planning Board action, the applicant revised their amendment request to include all of the Board’s recommendations except for limiting the size of non-grocery retail spaces to a maximum of 30,000 sq. ft.  Other changes proposed by the applicants subsequent to Planning and Zoning Board action are noted in Section 5., above.

Comprehensive Plan Amendment:  On balance, staff feels that the applicant’s revised amendment is reasonable.  Staff recommends approval of the applicants’ revised Plan Amendment presented in Section 5.2, above, based on the following considerations:

(a) As noted in Section 6.3, the ADT budget was probably set too low in 2003, since the original cap did not account for office or residential uses within an activity center;

(b) as noted in Section 6.3, the ADT trip budget approach is imprecise and has many limitations and failings;

(c) as noted in Section 6.5, the traffic impact study shows acceptable levels of service at all Cary intersections; and

(d) the proposal to keep the overall activity center ADT within about +/- 10% of the weekday ADT target, and within about +/- 15% of the Saturday ADT target will allow Council some discretion in approving otherwise acceptable Mixed Use Sketch Plans that might marginally deviate from the Plan’s ADT guidelines.

Related Policy Recommendation:  Staff also recommends that Council confirm staff’s recommended practice for determining whether or not a Mixed Use Sketch Plan (MUSP) or development plan is in conformance with the Plan’s ADT budget, as described in Section 6.2 above.  That is, staff recommends that ITE land use categories #820 Shopping Center and  #710 Office Building be used for estimating total ADT for commercial and office uses when determining whether a MUSP or development plan is in conformance with the trip budget.  However, the  more specific ITE categories will continue to be used, whenever possible, when performing Traffic Impact Analyses under the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. 

9.  Reference Information 

9.1  Meeting Schedule 

Town Council Public Hearing:
Date:  March 9, 2006
Action:  Forward to the May 15, 2006 Planning and Zoning Board meeting 

Planning & Zoning Board:
Date:  May 15, 2006
Action:  Request tabled until June 19, 2006, Board meeting
Date:  June 19, 2006
Action: The Board recommended approval with modifications by a vote of 6-4, and forwarded the case to the July 27, 2006 Town Council meeting for action.

Town Council:
Date:  July 27, 2006
Action:  Tabled to September 14, 2006
Date:  September 14, 2006
Action:  Tabled until October 12, 2006
Date:  October 12, 2006
Action:  Read below

9.2  Applicant’s Justification Statement:  Dated January 30, 2006, amended February 10, 2006, by Michael Lattner, Cline Design Associates PA. (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 proposed Maynard Village site described in this application is located at the southwest quadrant intersection of NW Maynard Road and Chapel Hill Road.  It is our intent to request an amendment to the land use designation for this quadrant from Office/Institutional and/or Medium Density Residential to a Mixed Use designation.  The proposed Mixed Use designation offers opportunities for blended uses more consistent with creating a concentrated “node” of development that contains a mix of shopping, office, and residential uses.  The notes as approved that address specifically this quadrant are requested to be modified as follows:”  

[Applicant describes the amendments to Note #2, as described under Section 2.1., above.]  

“Secondly, the approved cap for the total trip generations across the entire Activity Center was established at 12,900 ADT on the weekdays and 13,500 ADT on Saturdays.  Currently with the development of the Lowes Home Improvement Center (02-REZ-19) and the Northwoods development under construction, the calculated ADT for those two quadrants is 9015 trips on the weekday and 10,734 trips on Saturday.  The remaining two quadrants and a tract south of West Cary Middle School will have a total of 3885 trips on the weekday and 2766 trips on Saturday to split between 14 individual tracts.  We feel this is an under estimated prediction as it relates to the previous approvals and current developments.  The calculated traffic counts for the north west quadrant (Northwoods) and north east quadrant (Lowes Home Improvement) dominate 70% of the total trip generations across the entire Activity Center.  We feel that this major intersection can accommodate an increase in traffic capacity over the approved 12,900 ADT on weekdays.  

“Finally, we believe the continuity both visually and economically is vital to the future of this Neighborhood Activity Center.  With this minor alteration of allowed land uses to Mixed Use we can continue the cohesive, unified and pedestrian friendly design described in Cary’s Design Guidelines.  The Town of Cary’s Community Appearance Manual describes that a Neighborhood Activity Center, “provide[s] facilities to serve the daily needs of one or more adjoining neighborhoods.  This one convenient location contains small-scale facilities such as a supermarket, a drug store, service stations, small offices and a day-care center”.  Currently, there is no approved or proposed neighborhood grocery store, drug store, service station or day-care center in this entire Neighborhood Activity Center.”  

9.3  Adjacent/nearby roadways on Town of Cary Transportation Plan 

Chapel Hill Road: 

• Existing Roadway Section: transitional section, 2lanes (3 lanes at intersection)
• Future Roadway Section: 6 lanes with median
• Schedule: N/A
• Sidewalk Requirements: both sides
• Bicycle Requirements: wide outside lane required
• Transit Requirement: None

NW Maynard Road:

• Existing Roadway Section: 4 lanes median divided
• Future Roadway Section: 4 lane median divided
• Schedule: N/A
• Sidewalk Requirements: both sides
• Bicycle Requirements: Wide outside lane required
• Transit Requirements: Five ft. by 12 ft. bus shelter with bench required on Maynard Road at least 80 feet before Chapel Hill Road.  Shelter should also include solar lighting.  Frame must be metal and dark brown with metal fabricated roof in light green color.

9.4  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 does not propose any land use changes that would result in an increase in student generation for the site.  Rather, the proposed amendments could result in an overall decrease in student generation from the site.  

9.5  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.  

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 16.09 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CHAPEL HILL ROAD AND NORTHWEST MAYNARD ROAD FROM “Office and Institutional AND/OR Medium Density Residential” TO “mIXED USE,” and to amend note #2, note #4, and the “purpose and intent” text on the nw maynard activity center land use plan map as described in section 5.2 of this report.

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 and/or Medium Density Residential” to “Mixed Use” on the Land Use Plan Map, and to amend Note #2, Note #4, and the “Purpose and Intent” text on the NW Maynard Activity Center Land Use Plan Map as described in section 5.2 of this report.