Town of Cary

The applicant is requesting Council approve an Ordinance to amend the official zoning map of the Town of Cary for approximately 1.71 acres located at 100, 102, 104, 106, 108, and 110 Carostone Court from Parkway Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Parkway PDD Amendment by amending the previously approved Parkway PUD to allow a reduction in the landscape easement along the southern boundary of the PDD parcel R-11 from 50 feet to 30 feet. When the Parkway PUD was approved, buffers were permitted to be located within individual lots. The Land Development Ordinance (LDO) has since been amended, and today buffers of this type are required to be located outside of individual lots. According to current LDO requirements, the PUD required 50’ “buffer” is actually a landscape easement and will be referred to as such throughout the staff report.

The purpose of a rezoning is to evaluate the appropriateness of the applicant’s request for the subject parcel(s) of land. The request is to allow a buffer reduction only. No additional development is being proposed and no impacts will be generated on existing roadways, utilities or stormwater management facilities.

Applicant	Daniel Cummings
Agent	Daniel Cummings 401 Shelwood Circle #H Asheville, NC 28804
Acreage	1.71 ±
General Location Vicinity Map	Southeast of the Laura Duncan Road and Carostone Court intersection
Hearings / Meetings	*Public Hearing* December 13, 2007	*Planning & Zoning* January 28, 2008	*Town Council* February 14, 2008
Land Use Designation Land Use Map	Medium Density Residential (MDR)
Town Limits	In the Town of Cary’s Corporate Limits
Annexation	Not required since it is already within the Town Limits
Valid Protest	No protests were received regarding this case; therefore, no supermajority vote is required.
P&Z Recommendation	Forwarded to Town Council with a recommendation for approval 6-0
Existing Use Zoning Map	Single Family Detached Dwelling Units
Proposed Use PDD Amendment Map	Single Family Detached Dwelling Units
Final Council Action	Council voted 7-0 to approve this request
Staff Contact	Jennifer Currin, Planner II Email: jennifer.currin@townofcary.org Phone: (919) 469-4342 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 8005, Cary, NC 27512

Public Notification:
On November 27, 2007, notices were mailed to property owners within 400 feet of the subject property. In addition, notification consistent with General Statutes was present in the Cary News on November 28 and December 5, 2007.

The applicant is proposing to reduce the previously approved landscape easement width to 30’ along the southern boundary of PUD Parcel R-11. The stream buffer shown on the Town of Cary GIS maps is a different buffer than the PUD required 50’ landscape easement on Parcel R-11. Even if the request was approved by Council to permit a 30’ landscape easement along the southern boundary of PUD Parcel R-11, any new construction on the lots impacted by the stream buffer will have to meet the current LDO requirements.

Since only a landscape easement is provided on the subject properties, the properties within the Town of Cary to the south will have to provide (when developed) the entire required buffer according to LDO Section 7.2.3(E). Therefore, the applicant’s request to reduce the 50’ landscape easement to 30’ will have no impact on the width of the buffer the properties to the south (within the Town of Cary) will have to provide.

As described below in the Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Consistency with the Land Development Ordinance sections, Staff has reviewed the application and information provided prior to this meeting, and the analysis by Staff is that it is consistent with the Goals and Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Ordinance, and is reasonable and in the public interest.

The applicant has submitted the following proposed zoning conditions: The applicant is only proposing to reduce the previously approved landscape easement width to 30’ along the southern boundary of PUD Parcel R-11. The applicant is not proposing to revise any other conditions in the previously approved Parkway PUD.

Feedback at the Town Council Public Hearing: After the public hearing, Council asked several questions regarding this request. One Council member asked how the buffer reduction benefited the community. The applicant stated that it will allow the buffer to match other buffers in the area. The applicant also stated the current larger buffer negatively impacts the subject property owners in that some cannot build decks in their backyards or additions to their homes.

Council noted that some of the lots are platted within the boundaries of the stream buffer and inquired about the intent of the 50-foot buffer. Staff responded that when the subdivision plan was approved, the LDO permitted lots to be platted within the stream buffers; Staff further stated that the Ordinance changed in 2001, and this is no longer permitted by Ordinance and any new construction on the lots impacted by the stream buffer will have to meet the current Land Development Ordinance requirements, and no new impervious area will be permitted.

Council asked if the 50 foot buffer was in place when the existing homes were built. Staff explained that the stream buffer and the landscape easement were two separate boundaries. There was concern expressed regarding the location of the existing structures with respect to these boundaries.

The applicant stated the properties impacted by this request are about 15 to 20 feet above the bottom portion of the buffer, and that the houses are at a much higher elevation than the stream. The application also stated there is a dry stream bed, and if there is a torrential downpour, the stream bed may be a few inches deep for a day or two.

A Council member stated, when this issue comes to Council for final vote, the question regarding public good with respect to the proposed request will be raised.

As required by G.S. 160A-328, a P&Z recommendation addressing plan consistency and other matters as deemed appropriate by the Board follows: The Planning and Zoning Board met on January 28, 2008, and voted 6-0 to forward this case to the Town Council with a recommendation of approval because the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and is reasonable and in the public interest as indicated in the staff report.

A. Land Use Plan: This rezoning request conforms to the adopted Land Use Plan. This amendment will not change the Medium Density Residential (MDR) designation of these properties on the Land Use Plan.

B. Growth Management Plan:
The Growth Management Plan includes the following three Guiding Principles which are relevant to this case:

1. L2 Guiding Principle: Ensure that future growth protects sensitive natural resources and protects open space.

2. A2 Guiding Principle: Ensure that the overall amount of development in Cary is consistent with the Town’s growth management goals. [is this principle really relevant to this request?]

3. Q1 Guiding Principle: Continue Cary’s leadership role in quality growth and development.

C. Affordable Housing Plan: The Affordable Housing Plan includes the following five goals which are relevant to this case:

1. Provide for a full range of housing choices for all income groups, families of various sizes, seniors, and persons with special challenges.

2. Facilitate the creation of a reasonable proportion of the Town of Cary’s housing as affordable units through additional homeownership opportunities for individuals and families earning 80% of area median income.

3. Facilitate the affordable housing activities of other entities within the Town of Cary, including construction of affordable housing units, homeownership training, and marketing of assistance programs.

4. Encourage the location of high density housing within walking density and convenient commuting distance of employment, shopping, and other activities, or within a short walk of a bus or transit stop, or through “mixed use” developments.

5. Assure a quality living environment and access to public amenities for all residents, present and future, of the Town of Cary, regardless of income.

Bicycle Requirements: 14’ wide outside lane or striped bicycle lanes required

Traffic Analysis: This PUD is built out and a traffic study was previously done by HNTB at 01-TAR-118. A reduction in the buffer would not require the traffic study to be updated.

E. Parks & Greenways Master Plan: Greenways Map
According to the approved Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Facilities there are no issues related to this site. According to the Open Space and Historic Resources Plan (OSHRP) this site was not identified as significant open space as the parcels are already developed.

F. Environmental:
According to the Town of Cary GIS maps, there is a stream buffer impacting 2 of the 6 parcels part of this subject request. The stream buffer shown on the Town of Cary GIS maps is a different buffer than the PUD required 50’ landscape easement. Even if the request was approved by Council to reduce the landscape easement to 30’ along the southern boundary of PUD Parcel R-11, any new construction on the lots impacted by the stream buffer will have to meet the current LDO requirements. A subdivision plan, SUB-44-PUD-92, was approved in 1993. When the subdivision plan was approved, individual lots were permitted to be platted within stream buffers. In 2001, the Ordinance was amended to no longer permit individual lots to be platted within stream buffers. The subdivision plan predated the current Ordinance requirement. However, any new construction on the lots impacted by the stream buffer, including additional impervious area, will have to meet the current LDO requirements.

G. Buffers:
According to the recorded plat for the subject parcels, BM1994 page 139, the required 50’ landscape easement was provided along the southern boundary, and the required 30’ buffer was provided along the eastern boundary of the Parkway PUD Parcel R-11, both in accordance with the requirements of the PUD.

H. Streetscape:
According to the recorded plat for the subject parcels, BM1994 page 139, a 30’ buffer was provided along Laura Duncan Road, in accordance with the requirements of the PUD.

Existing and Requested Zoning District Comparison:
There are existing detached single-family residential dwelling units on the parcels included as part of this subject request. Currently, the Parkway PUD requires that a 50’ “buffer” be provided along the southern boundary of PUD Parcel R-11. When the Parkway PUD and the subdivision plan was approved, buffers were permitted to be located within individual lots. The Land Development Ordinance (LDO) has since been amended, and today buffers are required to be located outside of individual lots. According to current LDO requirements, the existing 50’ “buffer” is actually a landscape easement. The applicant is requesting that this landscape easement be reduced to 30’. The subject properties are north of parcels located within both Cary and Apex zoning jurisdictions. The properties to the south of the subject request are zoned Residential-40 (R-40) and Planned Commercial (Apex zoning district). According to the Town of Cary LDO, for adjacent properties that are located in Cary, a buffer between a commercially zoned parcel and single family detached dwellings in residentially zoned districts on lots that are 8,000 sq. ft. or larger would range from a 20’ Type “B” to a 80’ Type “A”. Each of the adjacent properties typically provides one-half of the required buffer width; however, since the landscape easement is located within the individual lots, the property to the south would have to provide the entire required buffer width. A 20’ Type “B” buffer is required between the existing residential dwelling units and the R-40 parcel to the south (if developed under the existing base zoning).

Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Development Ordinance sets forth the following criteria that the Town Council should consider in reviewing rezonings:

1. The proposed rezoning corrects an error or meets the challenge of some changing condition, trend or fact;

2. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan set forth in Section 1.3 (LDO);

3. The Town and other service providers will be able to provide sufficient public safety, educational, recreational, transportation and utility facilities and services to the subject property while maintaining sufficient levels of service to existing development;

4. The proposed rezoning is unlikely to have significant adverse impacts on the natural environment, including air, water, noise, stormwater management, wildlife and vegetation;

5. The proposed rezoning will not have significant adverse impacts on property in the vicinity of the subject tract;

7. The PDD designation is necessary to address a unique situation or represents a substantial benefit to the Town, compared to what could have been accomplished through strict application of otherwise applicable zoning district standards; and

8. The request complies with the standards and intent of a PDD, as outlined is Section 4.2.3 (LDO).

The applicant is requesting an amendment to the PDD to allow a buffer reduction from 50’ to 30’. No new dwelling units are proposed; therefore impact to schools is not applicable. However, school information is provided below solely for reference purposes.

The school information is being provided for your review; however, the Wake County Board of Education controls capital projects for school capacities.

School Information
Assigned Schools	20^th Day Enrollment*	Permanent Seat Capacity	Average Percent Occupied	Projected Range of Additional Students**	Actual Number of Students Attending WCPS***
Baucom Elementary	852	1035	82%	2-3	3***
Salem Middle	1101	1206	91%	1
Apex High School	2248	2089	108%	1-2
Total Projected range of additional students				4-6	3***

* Current Enrollment and Building Capacity is based on the 20^th day of the school year for 2007-2008 as supplied by the Wake County Public School System. School assignment will be determined at the time of development.

**The Projected Number of Additional Students is only a rough approximation. The actual number of students will vary depending on several variables, such as dwelling unit type, number of bedrooms, dwelling size, and other factors. The basis for making this calculation is based on multipliers provide from Wake County Schools Office of Student Assignment. At rezoning, student yield can not be accurately determined due to unknown variables.

*** As of November 5, 2007, there are three students in Wake County Public Schools at the indicated addresses (subject request) on Carrostone Ct. All three attend their base schools. To protect the privacy of these children, no specific breakdown is given as to the number of children attending the elementary, middle or high schools.

The following statements are provided by the applicant (shown below in italics) in response to the criteria established in the application (shown below in bold) and does not necessarily represent the views or opinions of the Town of Cary. Any statements as to the type, quality or physical features are at the direction of the applicant and may be formulated into a condition):

2. How is the request compatible with the comprehensive plan (i.e. Land Use, Transportation, Open Space and Historic Resources)? The proposed PDD Amendment is compatible because it’s not proposing any changes to the area, and is not affecting any road, land use, open space or historic resources.

3. What are the benefits and detriments to the owner, neighbors and the community? There are No detriments. The benefits are: to make this buffer compatible to other existing buffers in the neighborhood, thereby allowing all properties to be similar. Most other buffers in the immediate surrounding area are 30’; therefore this buffer, also, should be 30’ in order to be consistent.

4. How are all the allowable uses with the proposed rezoning compatible with, or how do they relate to, the uses currently present on adjacent tracts? The proposed is totally compatible because it will not change any existing zoning—zoning will remain the same. The proposed is consistent with all adjacent tracks because the proposed will, then, have the same buffer as the other adjacent parcels in this development.

5. PDD/new or amended: What reductions/amendments and/or modifications to the development standards of the LDO are being requested and how are they justified? Applicants must list these items and/or clearly highlight them within the Planned Development document. The reduction/amendment that is being requested is: to have the existing 50’ buffer be reduced to a 30’ buffer. The proposed area of reduction is the only area in the neighborhood that maintains such a long back yard buffer. All other properties in this neighborhood only need to abide by a 30’ buffer while our properties demand a 50’ buffer. In the case of 106 Carostone Court, an injustice is being incurred because their existing deck has 5’-7’ of its area extending into this long 50’ buffer area; had this buffer been consistent with the others in our neighborhood, then this homeowner would not be faced with this hardship. This specific deck area has been custom built, includes an expensive arbor, and, incorporated within, has cultivated (10) years of specialty tree growth that encompasses the specific area mentioned. In addition, there are no obstructions, adjacent lots/adjoining lots, nor future planning that would be hindered by the granting of a 30’ buffer. Furthermore, a 30’ buffer is more practical for a small neighborhood of this type and all property owners affected are open and welcoming of this proposed change. Lastly, considering many existing properties within the City limits of Cary have 30’ Buffers, then this request is neither unreasonable nor unusual. I appreciate and thank the Board for their understanding in this matter. Thank you.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF CARY TO AMEND A PDD CONDITION OF APPROXIMATELY 1.71 ACRES LOCATED AT 100, 102, 104, 106, 108, AND 110 CAROSTONE COURT OWNED BY ROHINI & KARUNANATHAN VANNIK RASAKULASURIAR, AMY AND CHRISTOPHER BODE, MATTHEW AND LORI HENDERSON, DEAN RESSLER, HASMUKH AND REKHA PATEL, AND RAFEAL MULLER AND ANA SANTIAGO FROM PARKWAY PUD TO PARKWAY PDD AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE PDD PARCEL R-11 FROM 50 FEET TO 30 FEET.

Section 1: The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended by rezoning the area described as follows:

PARCEL & OWNER INFORMATION
Property Owner(s)	County Parcel Number(s) (10 digit)	Real Estate ID(s)	Area ± (Acres)
Rohini & Karunanathan Vannik Rasakulasuriar 100 Carostone Court Cary, NC 27513	0753029361	0205818	0.46 ±
Amy and Christopher Bode 102 Carostone Court Cary, NC 27513	0753120215	0205819	0.30 ±
Matthew and Lori Henderson 104 Carostone Court Cary, NC 27513	0753120285	0205820	0.22 ±
Dean Ressler 106 Carostone Court Cary, NC 27513	0753121254	0205821	0.21 ±
Hasmukh and Rekha Patel 108 Carostone Court Cary, NC 27513	0753122224	0205822	0.22 ±
Rafeal Muller and Ana Santiago 110 Carostone Court Cary, NC 27513	0753123215	0205823	0.30 ±
Total Acres			1.71 ±

Section 2: That this Property is rezoned from Parkway PUD to Parkway PDD amendment set forth within the PDD amendment document, and all the requirements of the Cary Land Development Ordinance (LDO) and other applicable laws, standards, polices and guidelines.

Section 3: The conditions mutually approved by the Town and the applicant for promoting public health, safety and the general welfare are set forth within the Parkway PDD amendment. These conditions address conformance of the development and use of the Property to ordinances and officially adopted plans and address impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the development and use of the Property.


Harold Weinbrecht, Jr. Mayor		Date