STAFF REPORT
Town Council, May 12, 2016
Mayfair Community Activity Center Comprehensive Plan Amendment 15-CPA-10 (PL16-059b) Consider action on proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment request
From: Jeff Ulma, Planning Director Prepared by: Scott Ramage,
Approved by: Mike Bajorek, Interim Town Manager Approved by: Russ Overton, Assistant Town Manager Speaker: Scott Ramage
Executive Summary: This is a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request for two properties totaling approximately 3.61 acres located immediately north of the intersection of SW Maynard Road and Kilmayne Drive, and at the terminus of Gordon Street. The majority of the site is currently designated on Cary’s Land Use Plan Map as Commercial (COM), and as part of the Mayfair Community Activity Center (CAC). A small portion of the site is designated as Low Density Residential (LDR), outside of the Mayfair CAC. The applicant proposes to amend the Land Use Plan Map by removing the site from the Mayfair CAC, and changing the underlying land use designation for the entire site to Office/Industrial (OFC/IND).
There is a Rezoning Application (15-REZ-26) associated with this case.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: The board recommended denial of the comprehensive plan amendment request by a vote of 7-0.
Proposed Council Action: Council may take action.
NOTE: The purpose of a comprehensive plan amendment is to evaluate the appropriateness of a proposed land use and/or other issue, need, or opportunity for the subject parcel(s) of land. Technical design standards of the Land Development Ordinance are addressed during review of the site or subdivision plan and can be found at Land Development Ordinance.
SUBJECT PARCELS
Property Owner(s) County Parcel Number(s)
(10-digit) Real Estate ID(s) Deeded Acreage Pensco Trust – FBO Douglas
W. Ledson
6505 New Market Way Raleigh, NC 27615-6828
0763368020 0068780 ±3.27
0763367104 0089253 ±0.34
Total Area ±3.61
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Applicant
Jonathan Dorman, Fourstore, LLC 3630 Clemmons Rd. # 1761 Clemmons, NC 27102-9998 Applicants’ Contact
Doug Ledson
6505 New Market Way Raleigh, NC 27615-6828
Acreage ±3.61
General Location North of the intersection of SW Maynard Road and Kilmayne Drive, and at the terminus of Gordon Street. (128 SW Maynard Rd. and 202 Gordon St.)
Schedule Public Hearing January 27, 2016
Planning & Zoning Board March 21, 2016
Town Council May 12, 2016 Current Land Use Plan
Designation
The majority of the site is Commercial, within the Mayfair Community Activity Center (CAC). A small portion of the site is located outside the CAC, and designated Low Density Residential (LDR).
Proposed Land Use Plan Designation
Remove the site from the Mayfair Community Activity Center, and designate the entire site as Office/Industrial (OFC/IND).
Existing Zoning District(s) General Commercial (GC) and Residential 12 (R-12), and with 2.79 acres of the site within a Community Mixed Use Overlay District (MUOD).
Existing Zoning Conditions None
Town Limits Yes, within Cary’s Town Limits Staff Contact
Scott Ramage, Principal Planner (919) 462-3888
SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Current Use of Site: The site is currently vacant.
Adjacent Land Uses and Streams:
North: The Burtrose Subdivision, with lots averaging about 0.31 acres.
South: SW Maynard Road and two outparcels, including a Breugger’s Bagels and a multi-tenant retail/services building owned by Gru Properties. Shops and services line the opposite side of Maynard.
East: Mayfair Plaza shopping center.
West: The Burtrose Subdivision, with lots averaging about 0.31 acres.
SUMMARY OF PROCESS AND ACTIONS TO DATE
Notification
Notice of the public hearing on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment was mailed to property owners within 800 feet of the subject property, published on the Town’s website, and posted on the subject property.
Town Council Public Hearing of January 27, 2016
Both the applicant and the potential site developer spoke in favor of the request. Six other people spoke in support of the request, and one spoke in opposition. Two of those in support stated that they would prefer the site to remain wooded, but failing that they supported the amendment. One person in support stated that he preferred having a mini storage use on the site as opposed to a proposal for a senior living facility that the owner shared with the neighbors a year or so prior. One person in support expressed concerns about property value impacts. The person who spoke in opposition to the amendment felt that there would be greater benefit to nearby property values by developing the site as commercial, under the current plan and zoning designations. He felt that an adequate buffer could be provided between a commercial use and the 6-7 home lots that abut the site.
Council asked staff to clarify what types of uses might be consistent with the proposed Office/Industrial (OFC/IND) land use designation. Staff replied that the range of uses would generally be those possible under the Town’s Office and Institutional (OI), Office, Research, and Development (ORD), and Industrial (I) zoning districts. Examples of such uses might include office, warehousing, storage, manufacturing, heavy vehicle repair, and others.
Planning and Zoning Board Public Hearing of March 21, 2016
Doug Ledson, property owner and applicant, spoke in favor of his amendment request. No citizens spoke at the plan amendment hearing.
Board Discussion: Board members asked staff for clarification regarding whether they needed to vote the same way on both this plan amendment case, and on the associated rezoning case. Staff clarified that the board was free to act independently on the two cases. A board member asked whether the
motivation for the request to pull the site out of the activity center was that most light industrial uses are not permitted in an activity center. Staff confirmed this was the case.
Board Recommendation: The Planning Board recommended denial of the comprehensive plan
amendment request by a vote of 7-0. During discussion of the motion to deny, one board member felt it was important to consider the long-term interests and greater good of the entire town when determining the optimal use for the site, rather than reacting to a short-term opportunity. Another board member felt that since redevelopment of aging shopping centers such as Mayfair was a high priority in the Imagine Cary comprehensive plan update, that the amendment was premature, and the Town should wait until the amendment can be guided by the final version of the new Cary Community Plan.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUMMARY
Townwide Land Use Plan
Existing Plan Recommendations
For this site, the governing land use element of the Comprehensive Plan is the Townwide Land Use Plan.
The Land Use Plan Map designates 2.79 acres of the total 3.61-acre site as being Commercial (COM), and located within the Mayfair Community Activity Center (CAC). The remaining 0.82 acres are designated Low Density Residential (LDR), outside of the Mayfair CAC.
These land use categories are defined as follows:
• The Commercial (COM) land use category refers to typical retail, services, dining, and entertainment uses. However, since the entire COM portion of the site is also located within the Mayfair CAC, the
COM portion could also develop as housing or office. The preferred use would depend on site suitability, transitions, and the overall mix of uses within the center. (Activity Centers are defined as physically and aesthetically unified, concentrated mixed-use areas containing commercial, office, institutional and residential uses, arranged in a walkable and compact manner.)
• The Low Density Residential (LDR) land use category refers to single-family detached residential uses at densities of between approximately one and three dwellings per acre, and typically having lot sizes between about 8,000 and 40,000 square feet.
Proposed Amendment to the Land Use Plan
The applicant proposes to remove the Commercial (COM) portion of the site from the Mayfair Community Activity Center, and then designate the entire site as Office/Industrial (OFC/IND). The OFC/IND land use category encompasses industrial and light industrial uses as well as office and research facilities.
Planning History for the Site
At the time the townwide Land Use Plan Map was adopted in 1996, the Map indicated the same base land use designations as currently exists.
Staff Analysis
Staff’s case evaluation is provided later in this report, under “Staff Analysis: Land Use Considerations”
Growth Management Plan
The Growth Management Plan includes the following Guiding Principles which are relevant to this case:
• Guiding Principle A1: Increase permitted densities in preferred growth areas to encourage desired forms of development.
Observation: Given its location within a community activity center, the majority of the site is, by definition, part of a preferred growth area. Removal of the site from the CAC may run counter to this Principle.
• Guiding Principle L1: Concentrate growth near existing and planned employment centers and available and planned infrastructure to minimize costly service-area extensions.
Observation: The Mayfair CAC is a large employment area, and includes half a million square feet of office space, and over 290,000 square feet of retail. The multimodal transportation infrastructure serving the site includes four fixed route bus lines, ample sidewalk connections, and both the Kildaire Farm and Maynard Road thoroughfares.
Analysis: Removal of the site from the Mayfair CAC may be counter to Guiding Principles A1and L1.
Affordable Housing Plan
The Affordable Housing Plan includes the following goals that may be relevant to this case:
1. Provide for a full range of housing choices for all income groups, families of various sizes, seniors, and persons with special challenges.
2. 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.
Analysis: Inclusion of the COM portion of the site within the Mayfair CAC means that the site could be developed with a variety of uses, including residential, office, or commercial. Given the lack of
thoroughfare frontage for most of the COM area, residential uses are probably more likely than
commercial or office. The proposed CPA removes the possibility for housing, and thus runs counter to the above-listed housing goals.
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
SW Maynard Road is designated as a Major Thoroughfare
Existing Section: Varying 58 feet to 71 feet back-of-curb to back-of-curb in a varying 88-foot right-of- way
Future Section: 4-lane median-divided, 78 feet back-of-curb to back-of-curb in a 100-foot right-of-way Sidewalks: Required on both sides
Bicycle Lanes: 14-foot-wide outside lanes required Status of Planned Improvements: N/A
Gordon Street is designated as a Local Road
Existing Section: Approximately 2 feet back-of-curb to back-of-curb in a 50-foot right-of-way Future Section: 27 feet back-of-curb to back-of-curb in a 50-foot right-of-way
Sidewalks: Required on one side Bicycle Lanes: Not required
Status of Planned Improvements: NA
Transit Service: Fixed-route transit service is available along Maynard Road adjacent to the site, via C- Tran Routes 1 and 2, and Go Triangle Route 301. C-Tran Route 5 runs along Kildaire Farm Road, about 800 feet east of the site.
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Resources
According to the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Facilities Master Plan this parcel is adjacent to the existing Rose Street Park. No additional greenways or park land is proposed on this site.
According to the Town’s inventory of natural resource areas, the site did not include any significant natural resources.
Historic Preservation Master Plan
There are no historic resources associated with this site.
STAFF ANALYSIS: LAND USE PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
1. Current Mix of Uses within the Activity Center
The table below summarizes the projected buildout of the Mayfair CAC, exclusive of the subject site, and compares those figures to the development metrics recommended in Chapter 6 of the Land Use Plan.
Land Use Plan Metric Projected Buildout of CAC
Recommended Amounts per Land Use Plan Commercial/retail floor space (sq. ft.) 293,582 250,000 to 600,000 Office/Institutional floor space (sq. ft.) 558,340 250,000 to 650,000 office share of total nonresidential floor
space 62.6% 30 – 70%
No. of residential units per 1,000 sq. ft.
of nonresidential space 0.19 0.5 to 3.0,
w/ ideal min. of 1.25
Number of dwelling units: 129 250 - 3,750
As shown, the center is well-supplied with commercial and office uses. However the CAC is deficient in residential units, with the projected number of dwellings being less than half the recommended minimum.
2. Observations on Site Suitability for Infill
Absent the inclusion of this site in a larger redevelopment effort that might include the adjacent shopping center or the Breugger’s Bagels and Gru Properties outparcels, the site lacks usable frontage along
Maynard Road, making the site less tenable for many types of retail, dining, services, and office uses.
Nevertheless, some types of commercial or office uses might be tenable on the site, despite the hampered visibility. Examples might include some types of boutiques, commercial indoor recreation, a club or lodge, neighborhood office, or trade school.
Another highly tenable use for this site, given its excellent location adjacent to the Mayfair Plaza shopping center and the presence of four bus routes serving the site, would be infill housing, such as small-lot single-family, patio homes, or townhomes. This would also conform to the center’s need for housing, described above. The advantages associated with infill housing at this location include:
a. New infill housing could be at a higher price point than the average for the adjacent Burtrose Subdivision. New construction could help inject investment into the neighborhood, and help raise residential property values (the current average assessed value in Burtrose is about $195,000).
Additional residential next to Mayfair Plaza will also help to increase its client base, and to sustain the economic viability and attractiveness of the center.
b. Nonresidential uses on the subject site would be unlikely to confer any property value benefit to the adjacent neighborhood.
c. There is precedence for residential infill within this activity center: In 2000, fifteen small-lot homes were built on Medcon Court (at 4.4 units/acre), adjacent to the established Greenwood Forest neighborhood (at 2.3 units/acre). In 1998, eleven small-lot homes were built on East Cornwall (at 6.9 units/acre), adjacent to the existing Claridge Place and Burtrose subdivisions (at 2.6
units/acre).
3. Observations on Site Suitability for Activity Center Redevelopment
Mayfair Plaza is one of Cary’s older shopping centers, but at a prime location. The loss of the K-Mart anchor was a major blow to the center. If the center were to be redeveloped into a more intense mixed- use project, the subject site would have much greater potential than if developed as an isolated infill site.
However, at present staff is not aware of any plans to redevelop Mayfair Plaza.
4. Conformance with the Purpose and Intent of Activity Centers
The purpose and intent of activity centers is given in Section 6.2.1 of Chapter 6 of the Townwide Land Use Plan, and include:
• Improving the quality of life by placing daily conveniences, shops, and employment within walking distance of homes;
• Facilitating auto, pedestrian, and bicycle travel between the center and surrounding neighborhoods.
The light industrial uses proposed by the amendment would not necessarily help support the purpose and intent of the Mayfair Activity Center.
5. Conformance with Policies for Land Use Transitions
A recurring design principle throughout the Town’s Land Use Plans is that appropriate transitions should be provided between adjacent land uses. In terms of land use transitions, a typical transitional use on this site (located between a single-family neighborhood and a shopping center) would be either medium- density residential or office uses, rather than the proposed light industrial use. However, it is possible that a reasonable transition for a light industrial use could be provided using other means, such as vegetated buffers, separation and setbacks, and/or building architecture.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION STATEMENT
The applicant did not complete the Justification Statement for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment on the application form.
CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATION IN REVIEWING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
Section 3.2.2(B) of the Land Development Ordinance states that proposals to amend the Comprehensive Plan shall be evaluated based upon whether the amendment is necessary in order to address conditions including, but not limited to, the following:
1. A change in projections or assumptions from those on which the Comprehensive Plan is based;
Analysis: No changes have been identified.
2. Identification of new issues, needs, or opportunities that are not adequately addressed in the Comprehensive Plan;
Analysis: The supply of land for light industrial uses continues to diminish in eastern Cary, south of I-40, and east of Cary Parkway.
3. A change in the policies, objectives, principles, or standards governing the physical development of the or any other geographic areas addressed by the Comprehensive Plan; or
Analysis: While the current draft of the new Community Plan does express new policies, they are not yet officially adopted, and in general tend to support the existing recommendations for the subject site, rather than the proposed amendment.
4. Identification of errors or omissions in the Comprehensive Plan.
Analysis: No errors or omissions have been identified.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary Observations
1. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the recommended future land use as specified in Cary’s adopted Land Use Plan. In addition, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the purpose and intent for mixed use activity centers, as defined in the Land Use Plan.
2. The proposed amendment is inconsistent with two Guiding Principles from the Growth Management Plan and two goals from the Housing Plan. The Mayfair Activity Center is currently under-supplied with supportive housing, and removal of the site from the activity center would remove future housing potential.
3. The optimal type of transitional land use for a site such as this, located between a shopping center and a single-family neighborhood, would be either neighborhood office or medium-density housing, rather than the proposed Office and Light Industrial (OFC/IND) uses. Infill housing of the types described in this report would likely confer greater property value benefits to the adjacent neighborhood than would OFC/IND uses.
4. The proposed amendment may limit future options for the future redevelopment of Mayfair Plaza.
Recommendation
Taking into account the diverse and competing considerations that bear on this case, staff recommends against approval of the proposed Land Use Plan amendment.
History:
05/12/16 Town Council