STAFF REPORT

Planning and Development Committee, September 18, 2008

Corridor Transition Zoning District Ordinance Amendments (PL09-010)
Consideration of ordinance amendments to certain requirements for properties in the Walnut Street Corridor that are zoned Corridor Transition

Speaker:  Ms. Debra Grannan

From: Jeffery G. Ulma, Planning Director
Prepared by:  Debra Grannan, Senior Planner
Approved by:  William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by:  Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Background

On January 24, 2008 the Town Council directed staff to convene a task force to evaluate the Corridor Transition (CT) Zoning District.  This district applies to certain properties on Walnut Street between the Cary Town Center Mall and Kingston Ridge Road.

The Current District regulations provide for the reuse/redevelopment of residential properties that front Walnut Street to non-residential use provided certain requirements are met.

On April 2 and May 12, 2008 Planning Department staff met with representatives from the Town Council, the Planning and Zoning Board and a number of residents who live inside and adjacent to the CT District in order to review the zoning requirements.  Staff invited participants who were recommended by Town Council or the Town Manager’s office, and extended the invitation to several property owners adjacent to completed development projects in the district.  A total of approximately 20 people attended each of these two meetings.

Initial Findings

The initial meeting identified a broad range of concerns and complaints, most notably traffic congestion.  The second meeting narrowed the focus and identified a number of common goals.  Ultimately, the task force concluded that this stretch of Walnut Street is still not an ideal location for residential use and supported the opportunity to increase the potential for non-residential development within the district.  However, the task force also recognized that development within the district must have regulations that ensure protection for the adjoining neighborhoods.  Ensuring adequate buffering was noted as especially important.

Other key task force findings from the two meetings are as follows:

1.      The current requirement for a 6- to 8-foot tall masonry wall between new development in the district and adjacent residential neighborhoods is necessary.  Although the cost of a high quality wall has presented a challenge for some developers, owners in the district recognized that this was an important condition to adjacent property owners to enhance separation of uses, sound buffering, security and appearance.

2.      With the wall in place, the team suggested that the minimum buffers for the Redevelopment and Infill Areas could possibly be considered for a reduction from a 40-foot-wide to a 25-foot-wide opaque buffer.  To require both a wall and a buffer exceeds typical LDO standards and is especially burdensome for these small properties.

3.      Some participants felt that uses such as medical office buildings would be more feasible if allowed to be 10,000 to 15,000 square feet in size.  Depending on location in the CT District and lot size, the current ordinance limits buildings to between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet.  The task force proposed removing those limits and allowing building size to be governed by criteria already established in the Land Development Ordinance such as height limits and limits on the amount of impervious surface.  The task force agreed that the current architectural requirements for compatibility with adjacent residential neighborhoods should also be preserved.

4.      The task force recognized that expanding uses to allow free-standing retail stores or restaurants within the District may create a negative impact on adjacent properties unless these uses have specific restrictions.

Community Meeting

On August 4, 2008 staff presented the task force findings to the broader Walnut Street community in an open house style public meeting to which all property owners in the CT district and within 400 feet of the district were invited.  Letters were mailed to 259 properties.  Approximately 30 residents attended the meeting and surveys were returned by an additional 37 citizens who were not present.

With only a few exceptions, property owners adjacent to the district did not want to see rules relaxed and several citizens asked for stricter regulations.  A group of citizens presented a petition signed by owners of 16 properties on Doylin Drive opposing any changes to the CT district.  Several property owners were angry that changes were being considered and two property owners expressed vehement opposition to any changes.

Although resistance from adjacent property owners is not uncommon with any relaxation of zoning conditions, the level of anger and opposition expressed in this situation is worth mentioning.

After consideration of the feedback received at the meeting and from surveys, staff believes that it will be unrealistic to expect complete consensus on many of the issues.

However, staff believes that changing some of the current ordinance regulations could provide more incentive for non-residential development in the district.  Changes may also enable those residents interested in selling their property along Walnut Street and relocating an opportunity to do so.

Amendment Considerations

Staff is prepared to draft ordinance text amendments to consider the following:

• Retain the requirement to provide a masonry wall between new development and the adjacent residential districts.  Enhance the language to require materials such as brick, stone and other high-quality masonry products and to allow for wall openings to provide access for maintenance.

• Remove predetermined square footage limits on individual buildings but keep a 35-foot building height limit. Building size would be further limited by ordinance requirements for buffers, streetscapes, impervious surface area limits and parking requirements.

• Reduce the buffer from 40 feet to 25 feet for the Redevelopment Areas.

• Add an opportunity for free-standing retail or restaurant, only with a Special Use Permit, for properties within the Redevelopment Area and the first 300 feet of Infill Area.  Retain the use-specific standard that prohibits drive-up windows, outside amphitheater, stage or other provision for live or recorded acoustic or amplified entertainment outside of the building.  Further expand the use-specific criteria to limit items such as maximum floor space per building and certain use categories.

Fiscal Impact: Work would be completed by Town staff, generating administrative costs associated with mailings and public notification of meetings.

Staff Recommendation: Staff is requesting direction from Council as to whether or not to proceed with the actual preparation of text amendments for the above mentioned standards.  If Council directs staff to proceed with the proposed changes, the detailed ordinance amendment language would be presented to the Planning and Development Committee at the November 13, 2008 meeting and a public hearing would be scheduled in December 2008.