STAFF REPORT

 

Land Development Ordinance (LDO) Text Amendments (Round 10) (PL08-027b)

 

Consideration of a series of modifications and revisions to the Land Development Ordinance

 

Speaker:  Ricky Barker, AICP, Associate Planning Director

From:  Jeffery G. Ulma, AICP, Director, Planning Department and Tim Bailey, P.E., Director, Engineering Department
Prepared by:  Ricky Barker, AICP,  Associate Planning Director

Approved by:  William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by:  Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

 

Proposed Schedule for LDO Amendments:

 

Planning and Development Committee Meeting Date

March 20, 2008

Informational Meetings with Property Owners in the Conservation Residential Overlay District

April 15, 2008

Developer Focus Group Meeting

May 1, 2008

P&D staff report available for on-line commenting in Neighborhood America

May 2008

Advertisements in the Cary Connections section of The Cary News

May 14, 2008

May 21, 2008

Public Hearing

May 29, 2008

Council Work Session

July 22, 2008

Planning and Zoning Board Work Session

August 11, 2008

Advertisements in the Cary Connections section of The Cary News

August 6, 2008

August 13, 2008

Planning and Zoning Board Work Session

August 11, 2008

Planning and Zoning Board Meeting and Second Public Hearing

August 18, 2008

Final Action by Town Council

September 25, 2008*

Effective Date

October 25. 2008*

*Italicized dates are tentative.

 

 

BACKGROUND:

Introduction

The attached ordinance amendment includes changes to the Land Development Ordinance to improve its effectiveness.  These changes clarify requirements and address a variety of concerns.  A summary of the amendments can be found in the table at the end of this report.  Major amendments are numbered (1-21) in the table, while minor amendments are given a letter designation (A-GG). There are two images included in this round of proposed amendments. The table includes the relevant LDO section being modified and the purpose for the proposed amendment. 

 

The most significant changes are to the Conservation Residential Overlay District and the Residential Cluster Development regulations.  The amendments also include a number of minor clarifications to address concerns from staff, council members, a developer focus group and the public.

 

Public Involvement:

In an effort to gain feedback from those owners and developers impacted by the proposed changes, staff held two meetings prior to the May 29th Town Council public hearing.  A summary of these meetings is provided below. 

 

Conservation Residential Overlay District (CROD) Neighborhood Meeting

Staff held a public meeting on April 15th on the proposed changes to the CROD.  All the owners of property within the existing and planned Overlay District were notified of this meeting.  The property owners attending the meeting liked some of the changes, including the increases in allowable densities and reductions in the minimum lot sizes within the Very Low Density and Rural Residential areas; the requirement for no mass grading provided there are exceptions allowed for topographic issues; the requirements for open space at the entrance of developments; the requirement for lots with views of open space; and the allowance for the use of sidewalks.  The owners disliked the increase in the amount of open space required; the lower development yield than the current ordinance; the lack of any credit for floodplain areas or stream buffers even when a portion is used for a greenway; the overall change of the ordinance when it was only implemented several years ago; the expense of Low Impact Development standards which may not work well with the soils in the area; and no provision for active recreation sites counting towards open space totals.

 

Developer Focus Group Meeting

A Developer Focus Group meeting was held on May 1, 2008 to receive additional feedback on the proposed Round 10 changes. The focus group expressed concerns about the proposed Conservation Residential Overlay District amendments, the telecommunication facilities ordinance, downstream impact analysis, residential off-street parking requirements, and the phasing plan requirements.

 

The specific concerns raised by the Developer Focus Group on the proposed CROD amendments were: the net vs. gross density issue; the minimum size requirement for a conservation subdivision; defining central open space; defining small BMP’s; the prescriptive nature of the open space requirements; and the lack of flexibility for applicants to be creative. They also said that the proposed amendment results in a disincentive to provide active recreation.    

 

Representatives of the development community also expressed concerns about several other amendments included in Round 10.  Specifically, they felt that new development adjacent to existing towers should have more flexibility on the setbacks.  They also felt that the “two times the tower height setback” was too severe and was not needed for safety.  They stated that the language related to the downstream impact analysis was vague and subjective.  

 

Town Council Work Session:

At the May 29, 2008 public hearing, staff was directed to hold a Council work session to review the amendments in more detail.  Council was especially interested in the changes to the Conservation Residential Overlay District. 

 

At its July 22, 2008 work session, Town Council provided the following direction/feedback on the proposed amendments:

 

  1. Clarify how an historic sign is defined;
  2. Clarify what is meant by roll-out dumpsters;
  3. Merge the Rural sub-district into the Very Low Density Residential sub-district and leave the density at 1.5 units per acre; 
  4. Concern of some Council members that 15,000 square-foot lots in the Very Low Density sub-district within the Conservation Residential Overlay District (CROD) is too small (should be 20,000);
  5. Concern of some Council members that the standards for open space within the CROD are too prescriptive;
  6. Provide no additional credit for required open space to gain additional lots within the CROD; and
  7. Provide no credit to gain additional lots for private recreational centers within the CROD (Instead, evaluate this issue town-wide to determine if credit for the required parks and recreational payment-in-lieu should be provided).

 

Staff has made changes to the proposed ordinance amendments to address items 1 through 3.  For items 4 through 5, staff is seeking recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Board.  Staff has included some alternative language for the open space standards within Section 4.4.3. (I) that allows more flexibility for designing these types of subdivisions. 

 

In addition, staff has made the following changes to the proposed ordinance:

  • Reduced the minimum acreage needed for a CROD subdivision from 20 to 10 acres; and
  • Clarified the regulation on the appearance of signs to provide some flexibility in background materials.

 

Fiscal Impact:  The implementation of these proposed changes should not have any fiscal impact.  It is anticipated that the work associated with implementing these requirements can be absorbed by the existing staff.

 

Staff Recommendation:  Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Board forwarding the proposed ordinance amendments to Town Council with its recommendation for approval.  

 

Summary of Amendments

Item #

LDO Heading

LDO Section

Amendment Purpose

Page #

MAJOR AMENDMENTS

1

Application Materials & Town Council Review and Approval Process

3.9.2(B), (F) & (H)

Adds language clarifying when the plan associated with a Special Use permit application needs to go before P&Z, a reference correction, and to correct an application reference

 

2

Adequate Public Facilities Planning and Development for Roads

3.23

Removes conflicting Ordinance language and clarifies study area distances and adequate mitigations

 

3

Conservation Residential Overlay

4.4.3

Implements changes recommended by Council and clarifies the district requirements

 

4

Day Care

5.2.2(B)

Establishes the type of dwelling units and minimum lot sizes were Large Home Day Cares are permitted

 

5

Telecommunication Facilities

5.2.4(D)

Provides information about requesting a reduction of the setback for telecommunication facilities and basing setbacks on use rather than zoning.

 

6

Accessory Uses and Structures Allowed

5.3.4

Adds requirement requiring food preparation or catering businesses to comply with County and Building Code regulations & removes the requirement for a pool, hot tub, or spa to receive Planning Director approval

 

7

Temporary Uses and Structures

5.4

Clarifies that temporary classroom facilities requires site plan approval

 

8

Table 6.1-2: Table of Density and Dimensional Standards-Town Center District

Table 6.1-2

Revisions to some subdistrict height limits and clarifications of some dimensional standards in Town Center subdistricts

 

9

Trash Containment Areas

7.2.8(C)

Changes to clarify screening requirements and when screening is required

 

10

Establishing General Urban Transition Buffers

7.2.14(B)

Revisions to meet current North Carolina requirements and grammar corrections

 

11

Table 7.2-6 Town of Cary General and Specialized UTBs

Table 7.2-6

Provides clarification relative to the Town’s UTB Ordinance

 

12

Peak Runoff Control

7.3.3

Aims to protect citizens who live adjacent to near or proposed development from Stormwater run-off

 

13

Computation of Off-Street Parking Requirements & Required Off-Street Parking Spaces

7.8.2(C) & (D)

Removes residential garages from counting towards the parking space requirements and provides references to LDO section which discusses off-street parking in Town Center

 

14

Subdivision and Site Plans-General Provisions, Subdivisions & Uses Requiring Site Plans

8.1, 8.2 & 8.3

Provides phasing plan requirements for subdivision and site plans and places the requirements applicable to both subdivisions and uses requiring site plans into the general provisions section

 

15

Alternative Development Option: Cluster Housing

8.4

Revisions to provide appropriate incentives and to clarify requirements

 

16

Flexibility within the Town Center, Mixed Use Overlay Districts, National Register Historic Districts, and Certain Developments

9.1.2(C)

States that Town Center Signage applies to Mixed Use Overlay Districts based upon previous Council direction and also initially introduces that flexible signage regulations for National Register Historic Districts exist

 

17

Computations

9.1.5

Allows signs located on entry monuments within Town approved area plans to more flexibility when the interior angle of the double sided sign was more than 60 degrees and 90 degrees or less when calculating the permissible square feet of signage.

 

18

Conditions

9.3.2

Proposes to eliminate clutter at voting centers, provides flexibility for businesses under going a façade renovation, and providing a third ground sign in certain situations

 

19

Signs in Town Center, Mixed Use Overlay Districts, and National Register Historic Districts