TOWN OF CARY
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN REPORT
Upchurch Pond Subdivision
Subdivision Plan Approval
04-SB-001
|
APPLICANT |
OWNER |
|
Hugh J. Gilleece and
Associates |
W & W Partners |
|
Location: Map: |
The site is located east
of Somerset Subdivision, north of Berkeley Subdivision, west of CSX
Railroad, approximately 1,460’ north of High House Road at the current
end of Sir Walker Lane. The
site would also be accessed by Connemara Lane located in Somerset
Subdivision. |
|
Development
Review Committee Recommendation: |
At the Planning and
Zoning Board meeting staff recommended denial of the plan due to the
applicant’s request to reduce the eastern 50’ opaque buffer to a 10’
common open space buffer and a 15’ landscape easement.
Following the Planning
and Zoning Board meeting, staff met with the applicant to discuss the
proposed reduction of the eastern 50’ buffer.
The
applicant informed the staff that the requested buffer reduction was based
upon trying to address the residents' request for larger overall lot
sizes, the triangular shape of the parcel and the extra land needed to
install a street design to minimize cut-through traffic.
Based on the need to address the staff and P&Z Board's concerns
with the buffer reduction, the applicant has revised their request. The applicant has
proposed to increase the common area buffer width from 10’ to 15’ and
to utilize a 10’ landscape easement along the interior side of the 15’
wide common buffer, thus providing a combined 25’ wide buffer.
Within the 15’ common buffer area, the applicant has agreed to
install a 4’ high berm, a double offset row of evergreen trees and a
6’ high board-on-board fence to be located along the eastern property
line (railroad right-of-way line). The
combination of berm, fencing and plantings within the 15’ common buffer
areas would provide an opaque screen as required.
A row of evergreen shrubs would be placed in the interior 10’
landscape easement. In consideration of
private agreements reached between the applicant and residents of Somerset
and Berkeley Subdivisions, the applicant has agreed to install two
right-angle turning movements and a cul-de-sac to lessen cut-through
traffic, and to increase the size of proposed lots which has decreased the
number of lots that can be placed on the property and the amount of area
available to provide an eastern buffer with no lot encroachment.
If the objective is to obtain larger lots, then the new eastern
buffer configuration should be considered.
Staff would prefer the eastern 25’ buffer be placed in common
open space as opposed to allowing a portion of the buffer to be on the
adjoining lots. However, the proposed buffer changes can be supported by
staff if Council
wants lot sizes to be larger to address residents' concerns. Also in consideration of
private agreements, the applicant has requested that a development
restriction be placed on the Upchurch Pond Subdivision to delay the
roadway opening between the Berkeley Subdivision and Upchurch Pond
Subdivisions until such time as 50% of all certificates of occupancy have
been issued within the Upchurch Pond Subdivision.
|
|
Planning
and Zoning Board Recommendation: |
The Planning and Zoning
Board unanimously (8-0) recommended denial of the plan, as recommended by
the staff. The Planning and Zoning
Board’s recommendation includes only consideration of staff’s original
recommendation as presented at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting of |
|
PROPOSED
SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS |
|
|
Planning and Zoning Board |
April 19, 2004 |
|
Town Council |
May 13, 2004 |
|
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION |
|
The
applicant, Hugh J. Gilleece and Associates, representing the owner, W
&W Partners, Inc., has requested approval of a subdivision plan
containing 20 single-family lots on 10.44 acres.
The proposed minimum lot size would be 10,800 square feet with a
proposed average lot size of 15,832 square feet. |
|
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION (Continued) |
|
The
plans also include a request to reduce a required 50’ opaque buffer to
ten feet along the CSX Railroad boundary, and to provide a 15’ landscape
easement adjacent to the proposed ten foot buffer. |
PARCEL
INFORMATION |
||
|
Parcel
# |
Realid
# |
Area |
|
0744.01-05-6561
(portion of) |
10.44
acres |
|
|
ZONING
AND LAND USE PLAN COMPLIANCE |
|
Current
Zoning: Residential-8
Conditional Use (R-8 CU) Town
Limits: The property is inside Cary’s town
limits. Zoning
Compliance: Excluding
the proposal to reduce the eastern 50’ opaque buffer to ten feet and to
provide a 15’ landscape easement adjacent to the proposed ten foot
buffer, the plan complies with all zoning requirements Land
Use Compliance: The Land
Use Plan allows for low density residential development (1 to 3 u\a) to
medium density residential development (3 to 8 u\a). |
|
ZONING
AND LAND USE PLAN COMPLIANCE (Continued) |
|
Adequate
Public School Facilities: The
Wake County Public School System has issued a Certificate of Adequate
Public Facilities for Schools for this subdivision.
The Certificate indicates that adequate seats will be available at
designated schools (TBA) at the time of occupancy. |
|
LANDSCAPE |
|
Excluding
the proposal to reduce the eastern 50’ opaque buffer to a ten foot
buffer and a15’ landscape easement, the plan complies with all landscape
requirements. The proposed ten
foot buffer would be treated as common open space, with no lot
encroachment. However, the
15’ landscape easement would be located on each adjoining lot.
The required buffer should be treated as common open space, with no
lot encroachment. It is
staff’s opinion that in order to provide an opaque buffer, the buffer
width should be at least 25’ wide with, no lot encroachment into the
buffer area. Staff
therefore, does not support allowing the required 50’ buffer to be
reduced to a ten foot buffer and a 15’ landscape easement. |
TRAFFIC
|
|
A
Traffic Impact study was not required. |
ROADWAY
DESIGN
|
|
The plans propose
extending Sir Walker Lane from the Berkeley Subdivision and extending
Connemara Drive from Somerset Subdivision into the proposed subdivision.
No thoroughfare improvements are required or proposed as part of
this plan. The Town’s Land
Development Ordinance requires interconnection between compatible adjacent
land uses. The subdivision
plan as submitted proposes to meet this requirement. Staff has received
petitions signed by homeowners of 76 of the 83 homes in the In addition, staff has
received emails from a Somerset resident, “speaking on behalf of himself
and various neighbors”, requesting that the connection between Somerset
and Berkeley take place, stating that the connection would benefit both
neighborhoods by providing two entrance/exit choices and better emergency
response times. He further
states that entering the NC 55 traffic flow from Connemara is currently
difficult and will only get more difficult with NC 55 widening
construction and anticipated higher speeds due to the wider road. Please also refer to the
attached “Connectivity Summary” memo which was originally sent to Town
Council and the Planning and Zoning Board in July 2003 by our Planning
Department in conjunction with the rezoning request for this property.
This report provides technical information regarding the benefits
of interconnectivity as required by Town Ordinance. |
UTILITIES
|
|
This development has
access to Cary water and sewer and complies with Town utility policies and
standards. |
STORM
WATER
|
|
The plan complies with
all storm drainage requirements. |
PROPERTY
OWNER NOTIFICATION AND CONCERNS
|
|
Adjoining property owners
were notified during staff's initial review of this plan.
The staff received comments regarding the location and screening of
a storm water retention pond and access from Upchurch Pond to the
adjoining subdivisions. The storm water retention
pond was relocated to the northern area of the subdivision and out of a
landscape easement separating Somerset Subdivision from Upchurch Pond
Subdivision. The Upchurch Pond
Subdivision plans propose opaque screening along the common property line
between the two subdivisions and evergreen screening along the top of the
slope of the retention pond. . |
PROPERTY
OWNER NOTIFICATION AND CONCERNS (Continued)
|
|
The pond would be
effectively screened from off-site views. Somerset Subdivision and
Berkeley Subdivision were approved providing future access to the Upchurch
Pond Subdivision area. |

Memo
To:
Town Council
Cc:
Planning & Zoning Board
From:
Jeff Ulma, AICP, Planning Director
Date:
Re:
Connectivity Summary
Recently, during the Upchurch
Rezoning (03-REZ-05) public hearing, one of the Town Council members requested a
summary of the Town’s connectivity requirements.
This memorandum describes the requirements, the rationale for them, and
some information from other communities addressing connectivity.
Staff has used this pending rezoning case to illustrate the impacts and
benefits of the requirements.
What
are the Town’s Connectivity Requirements?
The Land Development Ordinance
requires any new subdivision to be designed to have a connectivity index of 1.2.
The index is calculated by dividing the number of street links (street
sections between intersections, including cul-de-sacs) by the number of street
nodes (intersections and cul-de-sacs). A
grid street network would yield an index of 2.0.
The ordinance also requires connections to compatible adjacent land uses
spaced no more than 1,250 to 1,500 feet apart in each direction, a requirement
that ensures a minimum level of external connectivity.
It should be noted that these standards can be waived if meeting them
“is impractical due to topography or other natural features.”
The ordinance has been in place
since 1999 and was adopted following an extensive public involvement process.
It was also included in the recently adopted Land Development Ordinance
update. From 1999 to the present,
the Town has applied this ordinance to all new developments.
What
is the Purpose of the Connectivity Requirements?
The purposes of the ordinances
are to:
How
are other Communities Addressing Connectivity?
Last month, the American
Planning Association published a report on “Planning
for Street Connectivity.” The
Town of
Table 1: Connectivity Requirements
|
Community |
Max.
local street intersection spacing |
Are
street stubs required? |
Are
cul-de-sacs allowed? |
Max.
cul-de-sac length |
|
Metro, |
530 |
No |
No (with exceptions) |
200 |
|
|
530 |
Yes |
No (with exceptions) |
200 |
|
|
530 |
Yes |
No (with exceptions) |
200 |
|
|
600 |
Yes |
No (with exceptions) |
400 |
|
|
Uses max. block size
acreage |
Yes |
Yes, limited |
660 |
|
|
Not regulated, practice
is 300-350 feet |
Yes |
Yes, limited |
600 |
|
|
250-500 |
Yes |
No (with exceptions) |
350 |
|
|
200-1,200 |
Yes |
No (with exceptions) |
250 |
|
|
400-1,200 |
Yes |
yes |
500 |
|
|
1,500 |
Yes |
yes |
400 ft. for residential,
800 ft. for commercial |
|
|
Uses 1.4 connectivity
index |
Yes |
yes |
700 ft. or max. 30 units |
|
|
Uses 1.4 connectivity
index |
Yes |
yes |
1,000 |
|
|
Uses 1.2 connectivity
index |
Yes |
yes |
900 |
An
Example of the Application of
To illustrate the connectivity
ordinance in practice, staff conducted an analysis of the pending rezoning for
Mr. Upchurch’s property between the existing
The Town’s traffic engineer
performed an analysis of the implications of making a street connection between
the
One of the concerns expressed
by some residents was that the connection could increase the number of accidents
with pedestrians. Based on existing
town-wide data from 1998-2002, residential streets have experienced considerably
less pedestrian and bicycle accidents than thoroughfares or parking lots.
The following table summarizes this information:
|
Accident
Type |
Thoroughfares |
Parking
Lots |
Residential
Streets |
Totals |
|
# of pedestrian accidents |
33 |
47 |
21 |
101 |
|
# of bicycle accidents |
37 |
8 |
8 |
53 |
|
Totals |
70 ( 45% of total) |
55 (36% of total) |
29 ( 19% of total) |
154 |
3.
Service Delivery
An important reason for the
Town’s connectivity ordinance is efficiency benefits for solid waste,
recycling and yard waste delivery to
In the sample case, staff has
estimated that it will take approximately 10 less minutes per service pick-up
for the
Based on an analysis conducted
by the Public Works Department, connectivity also has positive impacts to public
water quality in two specific areas (hydrant flushing program and customer
service calls). From a customer
service perspective, over 30% of the residential water quality complaints come
from households on dead end lines (cul-de-sacs).
On average, it takes about 12 minutes to handle the complaint and
substantially more time if a crew needs to be dispatched to determine the
problem and correct it. One way that
the Town has responded to some of the water quality issues on dead ends has been
to institute a hydrant flushing program. Based
on the review of the case example, the dead ending of the subdivisions will add
almost 50 hours of additional hydrant flushing time per year.
In discussing the case project
with the Cary Police Department, connection of the two subdivisions (
From a Cary Fire Department
perspective, response times are also reduced with well-connected street systems.
According to the Fire Department analysis of the case project,
connectivity for
5.
Case Study Conclusions
Based on the analysis performed
by the Fire, Public Works and Utilities, Police, Engineering and Planning
Departments, providing a connection between the
While the analysis yields the
conclusion that connectivity is beneficial, the design of the connection will be
important in ensuring that connectivity is made in a manner that reduces
convenience for non-neighborhood related traffic.
There are numerous ways to address the design of the linkage including
some of the options that consultant Walter Kulash discussed at this year’s
retreat. Staff is working with the
applicant to address the design during the rezoning and subdivision processes.
Please feel free to contact me
if you need further information.
JU/jp