Rezoning Staff Report to the Town
Council
07-REZ-35
Request
The applicant is requesting
Town Council approve an Ordinance to amend the official zoning map of the Town
of Cary for approximately 16.65 acres, located north of High House Road between
Old Apex Road and W. Chatham Street, by amending the previously approved
Highland Village Planned Development District (PDD) to increase the total number
of residential units, remove the ownership requirement for the multi-family
units, and an increase the overall density.
The purpose of a rezoning is to evaluate the
appropriateness of a proposed land use for the subject parcel(s) 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 rezoning process.
However, all of these development issues must be addressed for compliance
with existing requirements specified 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.
Background
Information
|
Applicant |
DHIC, Inc. (Gregg Warren) |
||
|
Agent |
Chris Tingler
Cline Design Associates |
||
|
Acreage |
16.65 ± |
||
|
General
Location |
North of |
||
|
Hearings /
Meetings |
Public Hearing |
Planning & Zoning |
Town Council |
|
Land Use
Designation |
Mixed Density Residential (MXDR) |
||
|
Town Limits |
In the Town of |
||
|
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 |
Forward to Town Council with a
recommendation for approval 5-2 |
||
|
Existing Use |
Vacant |
||
|
Proposed Use |
Multi-family dwelling units |
||
|
Final Council
Action |
Council voted 6-1 to approve this request |
||
|
Staff Contact |
Jennifer Currin, Planner II
Email:
jennifer.currin@townofcary.org
Phone:
Mailing Address: |
||
Public Notification:
On
summary
The applicant is proposing
to increase the total number of residential units, remove the ownership
requirement for the multi-family units, and increase the overall density within
the PDD. The current Highland Village PDD was approved for a total of 258
residential units, comprised of 60 condominiums, 48 townhouses and 150
apartments. The overall densities approved in the current PDD document range
from 6.69-24.52 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is requesting an increase
in the total number of units to 278, comprised of 48 townhouses and 230
multi-family units, some of which are intended for the occupancy of persons 55
years of age or older. Due to the requested increase in the total number of
units, the overall densities will increase to 9-28.3 dwelling units per acre.
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 the application 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 proposing to increase the total number of residential units, remove
the ownership requirement for the multi-family units, and increase the overall
density within the proposed PDD.
The applicant is not proposing to revise any other conditions in the previously
approved Highland Village Planned Development District
(PDD).
Feedback at the Town
Council Public Hearing: Mr. Michael
Lattner of Cline Design Associates, on behalf of DHIC, stated the original
planned unit development was submitted in August 2001, and there has been one
amendment, approved in October 2002. He stated the proposal is to build 80 age
restricted multi-family units. The applicant envisions one building similar to
the existing Commons building that would flank the central green on the campus.
He stated the proposal is consistent with the Town Center Area Plan, it requires
no exceptions to the Land Development Ordinance and there is adequate
infrastructure in place. He stated this proposal will have no impact to the
school system. They held a neighborhood meeting on November 26, and no one
voiced objections.
Mr. Greg Warren of DHIC stated
they have three different apartment communities at
A couple residents of
A Council member inquired if
the applicant would consider whether some of the proposed units could be
included as additional subsidized units.
Changes Since the Town Council Public Hearing:
None
Planning and Zoning
Board Recommendation
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 March 17,
2008 and voted 5-2 to forward this case to the Town Council with a
recommendation for 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.
Changes since the Planning and Zoning Board
Meeting:
None
Consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan
A.
Land Use Plan:
The Town Center Area Plan, an
adopted element of the
B.
Growth Management Plan:
The
Growth Management Plan includes the
following Guiding Principles which are relevant to this case:
1.
R1 Guiding
Principle: Ensure that adequate infrastructure and services are available
concurrently with new development.
2.
A1 Guiding
Principle: Increase permitted densities in preferred growth areas to encouraged
desired forms of development.
C.
Affordable Housing Plan:
The Town adopted an
Affordable Housing Plan and the following goals are applicable to the proposal:
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
3.
Strive for
innovation and partnerships in the creation of model ordinances, policies, and
programs in the area of providing expanding housing opportunities for low- and
moderate-income persons.
4.
Facilitate the
affordable housing activities of other entities within the Town of
5.
Encourage the
location of high density housing within walking and convenient commuting
distance of employment, shopping, and other activities, or within a short walk
of a bus or transit stop, through "mixed use" developments, residences created
on the upper floors of nonresidential downtown buildings, and other creative
strategies.
6.
Assure a quality
living environment and access to public amenities for all residents, present and
future, of the Town of
D.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan:
High
Existing Section:
Approx. 95’ right-of-way, 4-lane median divided
Future Section:
100’ right-of-way, 4-lane median divided
Road Improvements:
N/A
Sidewalks Requirements:
Required on both sides
Bicycle Requirements:
14’ wide outside lane required
Transit Requirements:
None
Traffic
Analysis:
A Traffic study was completed by HNTB (08-TAR-122a) and the following
conclusions were made in the report:
•
No intersection
or critical intersection movement for stop-controlled intersections is expected
to experience a deficient peak hour level of service for the Central
Transportation Zone thresholds (LOS F and a v/c>1.25).
The only stop-controlled movement that is/will be a LOS F is the
northbound left-turn at the intersection of
•
No further
mitigation is recommended at the time of this preliminary submittal.
E.
Parks & Greenways Master Plan:
Greenways Map
In accordance with the approved
Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Facilities Master Plan, construction of
a 10’ wide multi-use trail on the property frontage along
Consistency with the
Land Development Ordinance
F.
Environmental:
According to the Town of
G.
Buffers:
According to the PDD document
previously approved, there is a 50’ Type “A” buffer along the majority of the
CSX Railroad right-of-way. There is a short length along the southern portion of
the CSX Railroad right-of-way that only has a 10’ Type “A” buffer. A 20’ Type
“B” buffer was approved along the northwestern portion of the PDD boundary,
northwest and south of
H. Streetscape:
The previous PDD document was
approved with a 30’ streetscape along
Existing and Requested Zoning District
Comparison:
The proposed project is in
the rezoning stage and therefore preliminary engineering of the site has not
been provided to Staff for review.
Prior to Site Plan or Subdivision Plan approval, the application will be
required to demonstrate consistency with the Land Development Ordinance with
respect to specific development requirements, such as access, stormwater
management, road improvements, utility line placement, road connectivity and
landscape plantings.
The applicant is proposing
to increase the total number of residential units, remove the ownership
requirement for the multi-family units, and increase the overall density within
the PDD. The current Highland Village PDD was approved for a total of 258
residential units, comprised of 60 condominiums, 48 townhouses and 150
apartments. The overall densities approved in the current PDD document ranges
from 6.69-24.52 dwelling units per acre. The applicant is requesting an increase
in the total number of units to 278, comprised of 48 townhouses and 230
multi-family units. Due to the requested increase in the total number of units,
the overall densities would increase to 9-28.3 dwelling units per acre.
Town Council Criteria for Consideration in Reviewing Rezonings and
PDD’s:
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;
6.
The proposed
zoning classification is suitable for the subject property;
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).
Other Reference
Information
Schools***
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 |
20th Day Enrollment* |
Permanent
Seat |
Average |
Projected Range of Additional |
|
Turner Creek
Elementary |
841 |
772 |
109% |
1-7 |
|
|
1025 |
1071 |
96% |
0-5 |
|
|
1890 |
2217 |
85% |
0-4 |
|
Total Projected
range of additional students |
1-16 |
|||
* Current Enrollment and Building Capacity is based on the 20th 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.
***Although the applicant
has indicated in the statement of justification and has added a statement to the
PDD document that the units are age restricted for senior citizens, Staff is
reviewing the enforceability of the PDD condition as proposed, which is why the
school information is being provided. Also, the projected range of additional
students has been calculated based upon the increase in units the applicant is
proposing.
Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted
(
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
1.
Any issues with the size of the tract?
See Justification Statement attached.
2.
How is the request compatible with the comprehensive plan (i.e. Land Use,
Transportation, Open Space and Historic Resources)?
See Justification Statement attached.
3.
What are the benefits and detriments to the owner, neighbors and the community?
See Justification Statement attached.
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?
See
Justification Statement attached.
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.
See Justification Statement attached.
Attached Justification Statement
To Whom It May Concern:
We are requesting that the Town of
The follow specifically address Application Par
6:
1. There are no issues with the size of the
tract.
2. The request is compatible with the
Comprehensive Plan. Land Use continues the residential use at
3. The proposed senior product benefits the
owner by providing a use that is in high demand in
4. The proposed use continues the same charm of
5. This PDD amendment requires no modifications
to the Land Development Ordinance.
Ordinance for Consideration
07-REZ-35
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF CARY TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY
16.65 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF HIGH HOUSE ROAD BETWEEN OLD APEX ROAD AND WEST
CHATHAM STREET OWNED BY DHIC,
HIGHLAND VILLAGE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, HIGHLAND MANOR APARTMENTS, INC., AND
HIGHLAND SENIORS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FROM HIGHLAND VILLAGE PDD TO
HIGHLAND VILLAGE PDD AMENDMENT.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN
COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
Section 1:
The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended by rezoning the area described
as follows:
|
PARCEL & OWNER INFORMATION |
|||
|
Property Owner(s) |
|
Real Estate ID(s) |
(Acres) |
|
DHIC |
0764002682
0764001249
0764004485
|
0086980
0300144
0300145
|
5.79
3.03
1.23
|
|
Highland
Village Limited Partnership |
0764009543 |
0300146 |
3.28 |
|
Highland Manor
Apartments, Inc. |
0764100220
|
0300147
|
1.31 |
|
Highland
Seniors Limited Partnership |
0764006245
|
0300143
|
2.01
|
|
Total Acres |
16.65 ± |
||
Section 2:
That this Property is rezoned from Highland Village PDD to Highland
Village PDD Amendment subject to the
individualized development conditions set forth within the Highland Village PDD
Amendment, 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
Highland Village 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.
Section 4:
This ordinance shall be effective on the date of adoption.
Adopted and effective:
|
|
|
|
|
Harold Weinbrecht, Jr. |
|
Date |