|
TOWN
OF CARY,
NORTH CAROLINA
REQUEST FOR REZONING
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN COUNCIL (AMENDED
1/25/05)
|
|
Rezoning
Petition:
|
04-REZ-19
Regency
Park
Planned Development District (PDD) Major
|
|
Land
Use Plan Amendment:
|
04-LPA-15
Amend the Land Use Plan to permit a mix of residential, office and
institutional, and commercial uses
|
|
Meeting
|
Date
|
Staff
Recommendation
|
Action
|
|
Town Council
Public Hearing
|
October 14, 2004
|
Forward to the
December 20, 2004
Planning and Zoning Board meeting
|
Forwarded to the
Dec. 20, 2004
Planning and Zoning Board meeting
|
|
Planning and
Zoning Board
|
December 20, 2004
|
Recommend
approval with conditions outlined below
|
The Planning and
Zoning Board recommended approval with staff conditions (4-2)
|
|
Town Council
|
January 13, 2005
|
Recommend
approval with the conditions outlined below
|
Applicant
requested item be tabled until the
January
27, 2005
Town Council meeting. Town
Council tabled until January 27, 2005 meeting
|
|
Town Council
|
January 27, 2005
|
Recommend
approval with the conditions listed below
|
By
a vote of 4-2, the Town Council approved the request without the
conditions on
January
27, 2005
|
|
TOWN
OF
CARY
CASE MANAGER
|
|
Beth
Lewis, Senior Planner
|
Phone:
(919) 462-3944
Email: beth.lewis@townofcary.org
|
|
STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
|
|
Staff recommends approval
of this request provided the following changes are incorporated by
the applicant:
-
A 200 foot conservation easement from the greenway
connection on the west end of the lake edge on Tract 3 to the
eastern property line of Tract 2.
This includes the existing 100’ riparian buffer and an
additional 100’.
-
Amending the northern portion of Tract 2 adjacent to the
lake and the Lucent Technologies site from single family
residential to Office and Institutional.
-
Additional deed restrictions on all residential properties
preventing future claims regarding the noise from the
amphitheater.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION ADDENDUM (
1/21/05
)
The
applicant requested that the item be tabled for further review
and discussion. The
staff has been in contact with Jack Wrightson, the Town’s
noise consultant. Mr.
Wrightson prepared the initial concert sound assessment for the
Town with regard to
Regency
Park
in 2003. Questions
concerning the appropriateness of residential uses in proximity
to the amphitheatre were raised recently and were answered as
follows:
“We agree that from a master planning standpoint, and in regards to
maintaining the Town's investment in the facility, residential
would not be the first choice in that location, and a commercial
use would be more compatible.
The 100 ft. buffer is certainly useful, but will not
dramatically lower sound levels at the proposed homes.
The
Staff recommendation for deed restrictions, if upheld from a
legal standpoint is highly recommended.
The
recommendation for 25 dB noise level reduction for outside to
inside noise levels is also a very good element.
We would make a couple of changes to this document.
First, the exterior wall construction is not specified,
the combination of the exterior wall and interior wall finish
should achieve an STC rating of at least 40.
Having been involved in locales where the noise control
construction techniques are prescribed, we would recommend that
the builder, owner or developer be able to present alternative
noise control construction, provided it can be demonstrated that
their scheme can achieve a comparable reduction.
This can be done be performing a calculation which
demonstrates a NLR of 25 (assuming popular music as the source
sound) or by using the Shell Isolation Rating (SIR) method
(which was developed by the Federal Government) to demonstrate
at noise level reduction of at least SIR 33.”
A further question was raised
as to the difference between different types of noise, for
example, airport noise, noise from power tools and lawn
equipment, and concert noise, and if people respond to different
types of noise differently.
Mr. Wrightson responded as follows:
“Residents respond more negatively do concerts for two main reasons: 1)
they don't approve of the sound/activity as a normal part of
single family, suburban life, 2), the rythymic and melodic
nature of music make if far more easy to discern at equal levels
than sounds that are, comparatively speaking, less distinctive,
or being more featureless than music. As general rule, one can
expect more complaints from music at, say 55 dBA than for
traffic noise at 55 dBA”
A question as to what
difference distance from the sound would make was raised.
The closest point of the amphitheatre to the property
slated for residential use is 820’.
However, the staff recommendation of office uses closest
to the amphitheatre would move the residences back to
1400-1500’ from the amphitheatre.
Staff asked whether that distance would make a
discernable difference. Mr.
Wrightson’s response was:
“The
further you can move the residences from the amphitheater the
better. The
difference you're citing should lower sound levels by about 6
dBA which is significant. Any
thick stands of dense vegetation that break line of sight to the
facility from the homes will also help, but how much I can't say
without knowing more. Placing the commerical building between
residences and the amphitheater, breaking line of sight will
also help. Distance
and any barrier (a single row of trees does not constitute a
barrier in this case) that blocks line of sight are your best
tools here.”
The final
question asked how this set of circumstances measured up against
similar circumstances, and what the solution in other
circumstances might be. Mr.
Wrightson’s response:
“It
has only been "solved" by some combination of
substantial noise control construction at the amphitheater (wing
walls, roof, much more and solid stage house, for example),
regulatory relief, operational limitations on the facility and
some level of acceptance of the noise source by the residents.
It has never been solved in a way that made everyone
happy. One big advantage that you have is that you don't have
many loud shows and the proposed development is behind the
stagehouse, which helps dramatically. We continue to recommend
mandatory disclosure of the amphitheatre and potential noise and
traffic impacts prior to sale and resale of all the residential
properties. Deed restrictions, or noise easements associated
with amphitheater noise are also recommended as is a substantial
noise control construction (outside to inside) requirement.
No matter how much you warn them, some folks will always
claim that they had no idea and will complain. The easement and
disclosure are intended to protect the Town from these
complainants.”
Staff’s
recommendation remains that a conservation easement of 100’
that parallels the riparian buffer be installed in Tracts 2 and
3, and that a 7-8 acre parcel in Tract 2 closest to the lake be
used for office uses.
|
|
|
|
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
|
|
This
request includes a rezoning and Land Use Plan amendment request for
168.32 acres within the Regency Park Planned Development District (PDD).
The land uses currently permitted within the area include
commercial, office, research and development, hotel, club,
retirement facility, and health care facility.
The proposed revision would permit 404 residential units,
295,000 square feet of office space, and 18,000 square feet of
retail space. (AMENDED
12/10/04
)
|
|
Parcel
|
Current
PDD
|
Proposal
8-30-04
|
Proposal
12-6-04
|
|
C-7
|
- Office
and Institutional uses
- Commercial
uses
- Hotel
- Club
- Retirement
village
- Health
care facility
|
- Tract
1, 2.84 acres– 18,000 square feet of commercial
development or two single-family residences (0.7 units per acre)
- Tract
2, 33.27 acres- 39 single-family residences (1.18 units per
acre)
- Tract
3, 7.7 acres – 26 residential units (3.71 units per acre)
- Tract
4, 20.11 acres- 90 residential units (4.48 units per acre)
- Tract
5, 3.06 acres – 58 residential units (18.95 units per
acre)
|
- Tract
1, 2.21 acres-18,000
square feet of commercial development or two single-family
residences (0.7 units per acre)
- Tract
2, 30.1 acres-39 single-family residences (1.3 units per
acre)
- Tract
3, 10.02 acres-39 single-family residences (3.89 units per
acre)
- Tract
4, 19.4 acres-90 residential units (4.64 units per acre)
|
|
C-7a
|
·
Office and Institutional uses
·
Commercial uses
·
Hotel
·
Club
·
Retirement village
·
Health care facility
|
·
Open space
|
·
Open Space
|
|
C-8
|
·
Office, Research, and Development uses
·
Office and Institutional uses
|
·
Tract 9, 16.5
acres – 148 residential units (8.97 units per acre) or
congregate care facility or
180,000 square feet of office use
|
·
Tract 6, 12.84
acres-120 residential units (9.35 units per acre) or
115,000 square feet of office use (AMENDED
12/10/04
)
·
Tract 7, 15.25
acres- (AMENDED
12/10/04
) 180,000 square
feet of office use
|
|
C-9
|
·
Office, Research, and Development
·
Office and Institutional uses
|
·
Tract 6, 25.35
acres – 114 residential units (4.5 units per acre)
·
Tract 7, 8.47
acres – 130 residential units (15.35 units per acre)
or congregate care facility
or 85,000 square feet of office use
·
Tract 8, 2.91
acres – 52 residential units (17.87 units per
acre) or congregate care facility or
30,000 square feet of office use
|
·
Tract 5, 26.44
acres- 114 residential units (4.31 units per acre)
|
|
Parcel
|
Maximum
Density (Du/Ac)
|
Acreage
|
Total
Units
|
Minimum
Lot
Size
|
|
0751988701
0751888179
0751896367
0751792515
0751880219
|
1.69
units per acre overall
|
29.19
19.31
32.71
85.92
1.70
|
552
overall
|
- Tract
1
– 18,000 square feet if developed residentially
- Tract
2
- 18,000 square feet
- Tracts
3-6
- 7,500 square feet if single-family detached units are
constructed (AMENDED
12/10/04
)
|
|
Total
|
|
168.83
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
APPLICANT’S
JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
|
|
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 168.32 acres.
The amendment proposes a change in the current land uses
within Regency Park PDD. The
current land uses for this portion of the PDD include commercial,
office, research and development, hotel, club, retirement village,
and health care facility. The
amendment proposes limited retail, a range of residential uses,
office, and congregate care. The
Town’s adopted Land Use Plan for this area shows office,
institutional, and industrial. 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. This includes
Regency Park Estates and
Barrington
. The proposed
residential land uses will create a more well balanced mixed-use PDD.
More people will have the opportunity to live near where they
work. Exclusive of this
amendment, there is currently additional office development
occurring within Regency Park PDD.
The anticipated six (6) year absorption schedule for this
amendment will accelerate the revenue generated from this property.
It will also accelerate the improvement of public facilities.
This will be further discussed in a market analysis of the
proposed development that will be submitted to the Town prior to the
public hearing. 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 maximum of 657 residential units.
The number of residential units may be reduced if offices are
built. A maximum of
295,000 square feet of office may be built in Tracts 7, 8 and 9.
A maximum of 18,000 square feet of retail is proposed for
Tract 1 with an alternate use of single-family with a maximum of two
additional lots. The
proposed gross density for Regency Park PDD is 1.69 dwelling units
per acre.
There
are 32.48 acres of buffer and 17.05 acres of open space within the
tract for a total of 49.53 acres out of a total of 168.32 acres or
29.4% of the site.
Vehicular
access is provided from the extension of Regency Parkway.
Additional access points are also proposed as shown on the
Land Use/Circulation Plan. Sidewalks
are planned for one side of Regency Parkway and
Ederlee Drive
(see Plan).
Sidewalks will be on one side of all other streets except
cul-de-sacs. Trail
connections are shown going to the existing lake trail and within
the proposed development.
|
CURRENT
& PROPOSED TOWN OF
CARY
LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION
|
|
Current
Land Use Plan designation:
Tract
1: Office and
Institutional, Office Park
Tract
2: Office and
Institutional, Office Park
Tract
3: Office and
Institutional, Office Park
Tract
4: Office and
Institutional, Office Park
Tract
5: Office and
Institutional, Office Park
Tract
6: Office and
Industrial, Office Park
Tract
7: Office and
Industrial, Office Park
Tract
8: Office and
Industrial, Office Park
Tract
9: Office and
Industrial, Office Park
|
Proposed
Land Use Plan Designation:
Tract
1: Commercial or Low
Density Residential
Tract
2: Low Density
Residential
Tract
3: Low to Medium Density
Residential
Tract
4: Low to Medium Density
Residential
Tract
5: Low to High Density
Residential AMENDED
12/10/04
Tract
6: Low to High Density
Residential, or Office/ Institutional AMENDED
12/10/04
Tract
7: Office/Institutional AMENDED
12/10/04
|
EXISTING
& PROPOSED ZONING
|
|
Current
Zoning: Planned
Development District (PDD) Major
|
Proposed
Zoning: Planned
Development District (PDD) Major
|
|
ADJACENT
ZONING & LAND USES
|
|
|
Existing
Use
|
|
Existing
Land Use Designation
|
|
North:
|
Symphony
Lake
and
Regency
Park
|
Planned
Development District (PDD) Major
|
Parks, Open Space,
Lake
,
and Office/Institutional
|
|
East:
|
Lucent
Technologies office
Single-family residences in Regency Estates subdivision
|
Planned
Development District (PDD) Major
|
Office/Institutional,
Lake
,
Park, Open Space, and Low Density Residential
|
|
South:
|
Single-family
residences in
Barrington
and
Cambridge
subdivisions
|
Planned
Development District (PDD) Major
|
Low
Density Residential
|
|
West:
|
Progress
Energy Substation,US Hwy 1,
MacGregor
Center
office park
|
Industrial
(I)
Office, Research, and Development (ORD)
|
Office/Institutional
|
PLANNING
|
|
Comprehensive
Plan Analysis & Open Space Considerations
|
One
of the most important issues for consideration is the conversion of
this portion of
Regency
Park
from office use to residential use.
This location has been seen as one of the town’s major
office parks due to it location and the existing office uses.
Staff is testing this conversion based upon our fiscal impact
model. This information
should be provided prior to the
January 13, 2005
Council meeting. However,
based on a land use prospective there are several key issues:
- The
degree of compatibility of new residential uses with our
existing amphitheater. The
applicant has provided for disclosures for new residents;
however, we are not sure this will significantly address the
compatibility issue. Some
of the units in Tracts 2, 3 and 4 would lie closer to the Koka
Booth Amphitheater than any other existing residential units,
including those in the Lions Gate and Regency Hills
neighborhoods, which are the source of the majority of
complaints about events at the amphitheatre.
A 2003 concert sound assessment commissioned by the Town
indicated that the “presence of the lake…allows sound to
travel more readily to these neighborhoods as sound loses less
energy over distance over water in comparison with vegetated
areas.”
- Environmental
and visual issues adjacent to the lake. From an open space
protection standpoint, staff has concerns regarding the sections
of Tracts 2 and 3 fronting
Symphony
Lake
and the Town greenway. The
north-facing slopes across from the lake were designated as
‘priority open space’ during the evaluation conducted for
the Open Space and Historic Resources Plan.
Specifically, these areas were deemed important because
of (1) their adjacency to the Town greenway (Symphony Lake
Trail) and (2) they represent the ‘viewshed’ or backdrop to
the amphitheatre. The
lakefront slopes on Tract 3 provide a segment of this backdrop.
To address the visual-aesthetic concerns, the applicant proposes
an additional 20 foot
undisturbed natural area on all residential lots adjacent to the
stream buffer, beginning at a point on the north side of Tract 3
where the existing greenway crosses the western end of Symphony
Lake and continuing southeastwardly to a point where it
intersects with the open space area between Tracts 2 and 3.
However, we feel a 200 foot conservation easement is more
appropriate.
- Preserving
this existing viable office area – Being one of the town’s
premier office parks, the staff has concerns about the
conversion as proposed by the applicant.
There is a significant amount of land proposed for office
uses throughout the town; however, this office development
already has existing infrastructure to support Class A corporate
headquarter office development.
A portion of the vacant office sites within Regency
should be preserved because these sites are more conducive for
our future office development.
Staff
concurs with the proposal for Tract 7 to consist of office uses only
as am | |
