Rezoning Staff Report to the Planning and Zoning Board
08-REZ-01 Kodavanti Property
Request
The
Town of
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 |
Town of |
||
|
Agent |
Town of |
||
|
Acreage |
2.51
± |
||
|
General
Location |
|
||
|
Hearings /
Meetings |
Public Hearing |
Planning & Zoning |
Town Council |
|
Land Use Plan
Designation |
Very Low Density Residential and
Commercial within part of a proposed Neighborhood Activity Center
(NAC) |
||
|
Town Limits |
The subject parcels are located
outside of the ETJ. |
||
|
Annexation |
A voluntary annexation petition,
07-A-30, has been submitted by the property owner in conjunction
with this rezoning request |
||
|
Valid Protest |
Protest petitions are not
applicable to a map amendment (rezoning) that initially zones
property that is being added to the Town’s jurisdiction by
annexation |
||
|
P&Z
Recommendation |
To be provided after the Planning
and Zoning Board Meeting |
||
|
Existing Use |
Single Family Residential |
||
|
Proposed Use |
Single Family Residential |
||
|
Final Council
Action |
To be provided after the Town
Council Meeting |
||
|
Staff Contact |
Debra Grannan,
Senior Planner
Email:
debra.grannan@townofcary.org Phone: (919)
460-4980 |
||
Public Notification:
On
Feedback at the Town Council Public Hearing:
Two citizens spoke at the public hearing voicing concerns that the
parcels might be developed commercially. Council asked if the wells on these
parcels were failing. The citizens who spoke stated that the property owners
were having issues with the wells on site for these 2 parcels. Council members
inquired if these parcels could be developed commercially. Staff stated that the
parcels are only having initial zoning established, which would prohibit
commercial development and a rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment would be
necessary to allow for commercial development.
Changes Since the Town Council Public Hearing:
None
summary
Staff has reviewed the
application and information provided prior to this meeting, and the analysis of
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 requested initial
zoning of Residential-40 (R-40) is compatible with the Wake County
Residential-40 (R-40 W) zoning district.
The applicant has submitted the following
proposed zoning conditions: None
Consistency with the
Comprehensive Plan
A. Land
Use Plan:
The governing element of the Comprehensive Plan
for the subject site is the Southwest Area Plan.
The long-range land use recommendations differ for each of the two
parcels. The larger parcel of 1.84
acres (711 Trelawney Lane) is recommended for Very Low Density Residential uses
(single family housing on lots of 1 acre or more), and thus the proposed zoning
for this property is consistent with the Land Use Plan.
The smaller parcel of 0.67
acre (
B.
Growth Management Plan:
The Growth Management Plan is not
applicable to this case.
C.
Affordable Housing Plan:
The Affordable Housing Plan is not
applicable to this case.
D.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan:
Existing Section: Approx. 64’ right-of-way, 2-3 lanes
Future Section:
2-lane with paved median
Road Improvements:
None scheduled
Sidewalks Requirements:
Sidewalk required on both sides
Bicycle Requirements:
14’ wide outside lanes required
Transit Requirements:
None
E. Parks & Greenways Master Plan:
Greenways Map
According to the approved Parks,
Recreation and Cultural Resources Facilities Master Plan there are no issues
related to this site. A recreation
payment-in-lieu will be required for residential development in accordance with
the Land Development Ordinance.
F.
Open Space and Historic Resources Plan:
Neither of the subject parcels
include any identified open space or historic resources.
Consistency with the
Land Development Ordinance
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.
G.
Environmental:
According to the Town of
H.
Buffers:
This rezoning request is to establish
an initial Town of
I.
Streetscape:
This rezoning request is to establish
an initial Town of
J. Traffic Analysis:
The existing R-40 Wake
zoning would generate 3 peak hour trips and the proposed R-40 zoning would
generate 3 peak hour trips. Currently, our threshold is 50 peak hour trips to
require a traffic study. Therefore,
no traffic study is required.
Existing and Requested Zoning District
Comparison:
|
District Regulations |
Existing Zoning
(R-40 W) |
Requested Zoning
(R-40) |
|
Maximum Gross
Density (du/ac) |
1.08 |
1.08 |
|
Minimum |
40,000 sq. ft. |
40,000 sq. ft. |
|
Minimum Width at
Building Line |
110’ |
With
septic tank/well: 150’ (160’ for corner lot) With
public sewer: 125’ (135’ for corner lot) |
|
Side Yard Setback |
15’ |
With
septic tank/well: 20’ With
public sewer: 15’ |
|
Roadway Setback |
Front and corner: 30’ |
From
thoroughfare: 50’ From
collector: 30’ From
other streets: 20’ |
|
Rear Yard Setback |
30’ |
30’ |
|
|
35’ |
35’ |
Planning and zoning
board Criteria
for Consideration in Reviewing Rezonings:
Section 3.4.1(E) of the
Land Development Ordinance sets forth the following criteria that the Planning
and Zoning Board 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;
Ordinance for Consideration
08-REZ-01 Kodavanti Property
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF CARY TO
CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 2.51 ACRES LOCATED AT
6905 JENKS ROAD AND 711 TRELAWNEY LANE
OWNED BY PRASADA R. & URMILA P. KODAVANTI
AND P&P BALAJI INVESTMENTS, INC. BY
REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL-40 WAKE COUNTY (R-40 W) TO RESIDENTIAL-40 (R-40).
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) |
|
Prasada R. & Urmila P.
Kodavanti |
0733625063 |
0062882 |
0.67 ± |
|
P&P Balaji Investments,
Inc. |
0733624001 |
0035989 |
1.84 ± |
|
Total Acres |
2.51 ± |
||
Section 2:
That this Property is rezoned from Residential-40 Wake County (R-40 W) to
Residential-40 (R-40) subject to all the requirements of the Cary Land
Development Ordinance (LDO) and other applicable laws, standards, polices and
guidelines.
Section 3:
This ordinance shall be effective on the date of adoption.
Adopted and effective:
|
|
|
|
|
Harold Weinbrecht, Jr. |
|
Date |