Wake County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) (10-digit) Total Area 0.48

Transcription

1 STAFF REPORT Town Council, September 3, 2015 Mom's Auto Care Site Plan 14-SP-035 (PL16-019) Conduct public hearing and consider action on proposed site plan request. Speaker: Douglas Loveland From: Jeff Ulma, Planning Director Prepared by: Douglas Loveland, AICP, Senior Planner Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Town Manager Approved by: Russ Overton, Assistant Town Manager Executive Summary: The applicant has requested approval of a site plan to re-develop approximately one-half acre located on Tryon Road at Jones Franklin Road as an automotive repair use. The plan includes reductions in the width of the streetscapes required along three adjacent roadways and a reduction in the building setbacks from Tryon Road and Jones Franklin Road. SUBJECT PARCELS Property Owner Kamila Investments, LLC 326 Fairwinds Drive Cary, NC Wake County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) (10-digit) Real Estate ID Number Deeded Acreage Total Area 0.48 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Applicant s Agent General Location Land Use Plan Designation Zoning Districts Within Town Limits Staff Contact Ray Watson Watson Land Design Service, PLLC 3650 Rodgers Road Suite 245 Wake Forest, NC (919) watsonlanddesign@mindspring.com Southeastern quadrant of the Tryon Road and Jones Franklin Road intersection Commercial (COM) in the Southeast Area Plan General Commercial (GC) Watershed Protection Overlay Swift Creek Mixed Use Overlay Swift Creek Community Center Yes Douglas Loveland, AICP, Senior Planner Town of Cary Planning Department P.O. Box 8005 Cary, NC (919) douglas.loveland@townofcary.org

2 SUMMARY OF PROCESS AND ACTIONS TO DATE Pre-application Meeting The applicant attended a pre-application meeting for the site plan on December 4, Plan Submittal and Review The site plan was submitted for its initial review on May 22, 2014, and has been reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) through three review cycles. Notification and Property Posting Notice of the public hearing on the proposed site plan was mailed to property owners within 400 feet of the subject property, published on the Town s website and posted on the subject property. LIST OF EXHIBITS The following documents incorporated into this staff report are to be entered into the record for this hearing: Exhibit A: Plan Review Application (6 pages) Exhibit B: Site Plan (20 pages) Exhibit C: Applicant s Justification Statement (6 pages) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Watson Land Design Services, PLLC, on behalf of the developer and property owner, Kamila Investments, LLC, has requested consideration of a site plan to develop a 2,168-square-foot Light Vehicular Service facility on one-half acre located at the southeastern corner of the intersection of Tryon Road and Jones Franklin Road. Vehicular access to the site will be via 2 driveways onto Old Holly Springs Road. No vehicular access will be provided to either Tryon Road or Jones Franklin Road.

3 Pedestrian accommodations will be added along Jones Franklin Road and Old Holly Springs Road, with connections being provided to the site from Tryon Road and Old Holly Springs Road. No stormwater management will be provided on-site, as this redevelopment proposal does not increase the amount of impervious surface area. The building is proposed as a single-story, brick building, with a flat roof. All four building facades would be faced with red brick, and would have a cream-colored brick base. The facades would also feature two horizontal accent bands, each being a rowlock course of cream-colored brick. There are three service bay doors proposed along the southern façade, being made of glass, and three large windows on the northern façade directly opposite the service bay doors. The applicant has requested a reduction in the streetscape widths along Tryon Road and Jones Franklin Road from 30 feet to 10 feet. In addition, the applicant also requests to reduce the required 15-foot streetscape along Old Holly Springs Road to 10 feet. Corollary to the streetscape reductions along Tryon Road and Jones Franklin Road, the applicant has requested a reduction in the corresponding building setbacks to allow the proposed building to be located closer to the rights-of-way.

4 SITE PLAN WORKSHEET A subdivision and/or site plan may be approved by the Town Council only if it satisfies the six approval criteria listed in Section 3.9.2(I) of the LDO. As part of determining whether the first criterion is satisfied, council must determine whether to grant any requested modification(s) to the Town s development standards. A roadmap of the decisions council must make is provided below: 1. Does the plan comply with all applicable requirements of the LDO, including the development and design standards of Chapters 7 and 8 as well as the dedication and improvements provisions of Chapter 8 as well as all applicable Town specifications? Applicant s Statement: The improvements contemplated by this site plan consist of a 2,168 square foot building in an area that has limited available improvement area. As indicated on the proposed plan and other materials submitted, the improvements have been designed in compliance with the requirements of the Town's Land Development Ordinance, including the development and design standards of Chapters 7 and 8 as well as the dedication and improvements provisions of Chapter 8. This request for site plan approval does include any requests for minor modifications to allow a reduction in the setbacks from Tryon Road and from Jones Franklin Road from 30 feet to 10 feet that are addressed in a separate transmittal. The site is located within the General Commercial (GC) zoning district. The proposed use, Light Vehicular Service, is permitted by-right in the GC district. This site is also located within the Swift Creek Community Mixed Use Overlay District. The DRC has reviewed the proposed site plan for compliance with the LDO and all other applicable regulations through three review cycles. There are approximately 12 remaining DRC comments out of a total of 100 comments made through the review process, meaning that approximately 88% of the comments have been adequately addressed. The applicant has requested that the council grant several modifications to the Town s development standards. These are detailed further below. Once council has made a decision on all of the modification requests, the council may then turn to the remaining site plan approval criteria. A. Request for reduction in the streetscape widths along Tryon Road, Jones Franklin Road and Old Holly Springs Road to 10 feet Section 7.2.4(C)(1) of the LDO requires the following: The width of the streetscape for non-residential uses shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet along thoroughfares and collectors designated on the Cary Comprehensive Transportation Plan or otherwise designated by the Town, as measured from the ultimate right-of-way line. Section 7.2.4(C)(5) of the LDO requires the following: Non-residential developments located on local or private streets shall provide a fifteen (15) foot streetscape. In situations where property across the street is zoned or used for residential purposes, the streetscape shall be installed in accordance with Type A standards. Town Council should consider this modification request pursuant to Section 3.19 of the LDO. Section (C)(2) of the LDO reads as follows:

5 The Town Council may initiate or approve a minor modification allowed under this section at any time before it takes action on a development application. The Town Council may approve the minor modification only if it finds, after conducting a quasi-judicial hearing, that the modification advances the goals and purposes of this Ordinance and either results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation, or relieves practical difficulties in developing a site. In determining if practical difficulty exists, the factors set forth in Section , Approval Criteria (for Variances) shall be considered. In granting a minor modification allowed under this section, the Town Council may require conditions that will secure substantially the objectives of the standard that is modified and that will substantially mitigate any potential adverse impact on the environment or on adjacent properties, including but not limited to additional landscaping or buffering. Applicant s Statement: In support of the request for the aforementioned modifications, please accept the following: 1. Section of the LDO requires that structures in non-residential districts have a thirty foot (30') minimum setback. Pursuant to Section (A) of the LDO, because Kamila is requesting a reduction of 33⅓%, Town Council approval is required. 2. Kamila submits that the site plan it has submitted otherwise meets all requirements of the LDO and applicable Town specifications. 3. Kamila further submits that compliance with the provision sought to be modified is not practicable due to physical site constraints. The development of this property is limited or restricted due to the size of the property (.49 acre), coupled with right-ofway boundaries for all four (4) lot lines. 4. Kamila contends that the modifications requested represent the least deviation required to make compliance with the LDO practicable. 5. Section (C)(2) of the LDO allow the Cary Town Council to approve the minor modifications only if it finds, after conducting a quasi-judicial hearing, that the modifications advance the goals and purposes of the LDO and either result in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation, or relieve practical difficulties in developing a site. Kamila suggests that the modifications requested for the current site plan application advance the goals and purposes of the LDO and relieve practical difficulty in developing the site; to wit, the physical restraints described in Item 3, above. 6. In determining if "practical difficulty" exists, the factors set forth in Section of the LDO, "Approval Criteria" (for Variances) shall be considered. The criteria are as follows: (A) Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. Kamila contends that requiring the full thirty foot (30') setback and the respective thirty foot (30 ) and fifteen foot (15 ) streetscapes prevents the ability to construct the facility that is being considered. (B) The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardship resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public may not be the basis for granting a variance. Kamila contends that the size and right-of-way boundaries on all four (4) sides of the property satisfy this criterion.

6 (C) The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship. Kamila has taken no actions to reduce the size of the property or to cause the boundaries of the property to consist of dedicated rights-of-way. (D) The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the LDO, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. Kamila feels that the site plan it has submitted satisfies this criterion in all respects. Based upon the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request the modifications as requested be approved. Tryon Road and Jones Franklin Road are classified as thoroughfares, therefore, the LDO requires a 30-foot streetscape along these roads. Old Holly Springs Road is a local street requiring a 15-foot streetscape along the frontage of this street per the LDO. The property is 0.49 acres in size, is of an irregular shape, and has street frontage on all four sides of the property. The buildable area on the site is severely impacted by the full application of the required streetscape widths prescribed by the LDO. It is likely that some amount of relief from the required streetscape widths would be required for reasonable use of the property to occur. The proposed development is small in scale, consisting of a 2,168-square-foot building with eight parking spaces. The overall size of the proposed development is generally consistent with the small property size and reduced buildable area of the site. The property tapers toward a narrow width in the eastern third of the site, which renders that portion of the property unsuitable for development, even for the placement of parking. As such, the western portion of the site, which contains the only area of a reasonable size and shape for most prospective buildings, must also contain any required parking and drive aisles. There is additional room for plantings at the eastern end of the site that, if planted, would create conforming streetscapes on that portion of the property. Staff recommends the consideration of a condition of approval requiring such additional landscaping on the unimproved remainder (eastern portion) of the site. Town development standards require that buildings address the intersection, and that parking not be located between the building and the Tryon Road or Jones Franklin Road rights-of-way. These requirements result in the building placement in the northwest corner of the site, and significantly reduce the flexibility in site design. The proposed light vehicular service use results in a site design that may not be as compact as a site design for an office or similar low-traffic generating use with a similar building size. The three proposed vehicular service bays require maneuvering area within the parking lot that other uses may not require.

7 Section 7.1.1(A) of the LDO states that one purpose of the landscaping requirements of the LDO is to encourage the proper use of the land by promoting an appropriate balance between the built environment and the preservation of open space and natural environmental resources. The applicant s proposal to construct a new building (which meets the architectural requirements of the Community Appearance Manual) on an abandoned commercial site may be considered proper use of the land, despite the requested modification to the streetscape widths. Furthermore, given the small size and irregular shape of the site, the requested reductions in the streetscape widths may represent an appropriate balance between the built environment and the natural environment, especially considering that there is no existing vegetation worth preserving, and that approval of this project would result in the planting of landscaping where none currently exists. B. Request for reduction in the roadway building setback from the Tryon Road and Jones Franklin Road rights-of-way from 30 feet to 10 feet Table of the LDO requires the following: Minimum Setback from Street Right-of-Way (feet) 30 Town Council should consider this modification request pursuant to Section 3.19 of the LDO. Section (C)(2) of the LDO reads as follows: The Town Council may initiate or approve a minor modification allowed under this section at any time before it takes action on a development application. The Town Council may approve the minor modification only if it finds, after conducting a quasi-judicial hearing, that the modification advances the goals and purposes of this Ordinance and either results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation, or relieves practical difficulties in developing a site. In determining if practical difficulty exists, the factors set forth in Section , Approval Criteria (for Variances) shall be considered. In granting a minor modification allowed under this section, the Town Council may require conditions that will secure substantially the objectives of the standard that is modified and that will substantially mitigate any potential adverse impact on the environment or on adjacent properties, including but not limited to additional landscaping or buffering. [Staff note: The applicant submitted a single justification statement to address all the requested modifications. While the same statement is above, it is provided here as well for the reader s convenience.] Applicant s Statement: In support of the request for the aforementioned modifications, please accept the following: 1. Section of the LDO requires that structures in non-residential districts have a thirty foot (30') minimum setback. Pursuant to Section (A) of the LDO, because Kamila is requesting a reduction of 33⅓%, Town Council approval is required. 2. Kamila submits that the site plan it has submitted otherwise meets all requirements of the LDO and applicable Town specifications. 3. Kamila further submits that compliance with the provision sought to be modified is not practicable due to physical site constraints. The development of this property is limited or restricted due to the size of the property (.49 acre), coupled with right-ofway boundaries for all four (4) lot lines. 4. Kamila contends that the modifications requested represent the least deviation required to make compliance with the LDO practicable. 5. Section (C)(2) of the LDO allow the Cary Town Council to approve the minor modifications only if it finds, after conducting a quasi-judicial hearing, that the modifications advance the goals and purposes of the LDO and either result in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation, or relieve

8 practical difficulties in developing a site. Kamila suggests that the modifications requested for the current site plan application advance the goals and purposes of the LDO and relieve practical difficulty in developing the site; to wit, the physical restraints described in Item 3, above. 6. In determining if "practical difficulty" exists, the factors set forth in Section of the LDO, "Approval Criteria" (for Variances) shall be considered. The criteria are as follows: (A) Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the ordinance. It shall not be necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property. Kamila contends that requiring the full thirty foot (30') setback and the respective thirty foot (30 ) and fifteen foot (15 ) streetscapes prevents the ability to construct the facility that is being considered. (B) The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardship resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public may not be the basis for granting a variance. Kamila contends that the size and right-of-way boundaries on all four (4) sides of the property satisfy this criterion. (C) The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance shall not be regarded as a self-created hardship. Kamila has taken no actions to reduce the size of the property or to cause the boundaries of the property to consist of dedicated rights-of-way. (D) The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the LDO, such that public safety is secured, and substantial justice is achieved. Kamila feels that the site plan it has submitted satisfies this criterion in all respects. Based upon the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request the modifications as requested be approved. The reduction of the buildable area imposed by the required building setback is similar to the imposition placed upon the site by the required streetscape widths; therefore, the observations and potential justifications regarding the requested relief are also similar. One of the primary purposes of the LDO in requiring a roadway setback is to provide adequate open space for light, air and fire safety. In this instance the need for 30-foot roadway setbacks to achieve these open space provisions is reduced, as the proposed building is not adjacent to, nor crowding, any other building or structure, and is not otherwise denying provision for light, air and fire safety to an adjacent property. The applicant s proposal would actually increase the setback provided from Tryon Road by the existing building, which is less than 3.5 feet from the Tryon Road right-of-way; 6.5 feet closer to that right-of-way than the proposed building.

9 The proposed site plan has received preliminary approval from the Fire Code plan reviewer. The site plan and building plans will be required to meet all applicable Fire Code requirements prior to final approval. 2. Does the plan adequately protect other property, or residential uses located on the same property, from the potential adverse effects of the proposed development? Applicant s Statement: This property has been vacant for many years and has deteriorated to the level of becoming an eyesore. Due to the restricted size of the parcel, as much landscaping as is practicable is being incorporated into the plan. Internal to the site, requirements for vehicular surface areas are satisfied. The developer submits that the proposed plan adequately protects other property from the potential adverse effects of the proposed development. This is currently an abandoned commercial site, with a single unoccupied building located on the property. The approval of this request would allow for the redevelopment of the site in a manner that conforms to current Town requirements in all aspects except for the modifications being requested. An active commercial site is likely to have fewer adverse effects on adjacent properties (even with the requested modifications) then the property has in its current state. The proposed landscape plan indicates that approximately 20 upper story trees would be planted on the site, as well as approximately 30 understory trees. These numbers would increase slightly if council adopts the condition regarding additional landscaping on the eastern portion of the property. The applicant would also provide evergreen shrubs to screen the parking area and waste enclosure if the proposal is approved. The site is currently clear of almost any vegetation, other than ground cover. The proposed development requires the construction of a sewer line along the eastern edge of the Jones Franklin right-of-way. Installation of this proposed line will result in the removal of a portion of the streetscape in front of Swift Creek shopping center, including a 27-inch and a 30- inch tree. The applicant will plant evergreen shrubs in the disturbed area to replace the removed vegetation, as the location of the sewer line would prevent the replanting of trees. There are no residential uses, existing or proposed, on this property. 3. Does the plan provide harmony and unity with the development of nearby properties? Applicant s Statement: As indicated, the Site Plan is highly harmonious and provides unity of development with nearby properties. As an initial matter, the site is zoned for the proposed use, thus creating a presumption as a matter-of-law that the use is harmonious with the area within which it is to be located. Moreover, the site plan provides harmony in that it is very similar to sites that have been developed in this area and provides small vehicle repair and maintenance services in an area contemplated for the same. The use is harmonious with the development of adjacent properties. The proposed use is permitted within the General Commercial zoning district. There are several automobile-related uses in the immediate vicinity of this site, being a light vehicular service facility to the south, and a convenience store with fuel pumps to the west.

10 The design of the proposed building will share some architectural characteristics with the buildings on the north side of the Tryon Road, notably the use of red brick highlighted with lightcolored horizontal bands. There is additional room for plantings at the eastern end of the site that, if planted, would create conforming streetscapes on that portion of the property. Staff recommends the consideration of a condition of approval requiring such additional landscaping on the unimproved remainder (eastern portion) of the site. The adjacent property to the west (across Jones Franklin Road, being an existing convenience store with fuel pumps) has a non-conforming streetscape along Tryon Road which is approximately four feet in width. The existing streetscape along the Jones Franklin Road frontage, while wider, also appears to be non-conforming. The property across Tryon Road to the north (an existing retail store) does provide the required 30-foot-wide streetscape along Tryon. 4. Does the plan provide safe conditions for pedestrians or motorists and prevent a dangerous arrangement of pedestrian and vehicular ways? Applicant s Statement: The plan includes sidewalks to ensure safe conditions for pedestrians and motorists. Crosswalks are provided on Old Holly Springs Road at Jones Franklin Road and Campbell Road with a 24" stop bar at both locations. The access to the site from Tryon Road was eliminated with the widening of Tryon Road. One-way driveway access is proposed at two (2) locations on Old Holly Springs Road. This proposal provides more efficient and safer traffic flow to the parking and service bays proposed on the property. All required right-of-way improvements or modifications are incorporated into the plan to bring it, in all respects, in compliance with all Town requirements. The vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems on the site are generally consistent with the Town s LDO requirements and the Standards and Specifications Manual. There is an existing sidewalk located along the Tryon Road frontage of the site. The applicant will construct sidewalk along the remaining street frontages per LDO requirements. There will be pedestrian access into the site from Tryon Road and Old Holly Springs Road. The driveways providing vehicular ingress and egress to and from the site are from a local street with low traffic volume. 5. Does the plan provide safe ingress and egress for emergency services to the site? Applicant s Statement: The plan is easily accessible for emergency vehicles. Access has been designed with sufficient radii to ensure safe ingress and egress for emergency vehicles. The vehicular and pedestrian circulation systems on the site are generally consistent with the Town s LDO requirements and the Standards and Specifications Manual. The site has access to Old Holly Springs Road via two one-way driveways.

11 Emergency service providers in the Town have been made aware of the proposed project and have, at this time, expressed no concerns about the proposed improvements shown on this plan. 6. Does the plan provide mitigation for traffic congestion impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the project? Applicant s Statement: The plan complies with the traffic study that was prepared for the entire development and the traffic as contemplated for the site fall within the usage allowed pursuant to the traffic study. The Town has not received a traffic study for this site at the time this report was written. The applicant will provide the following roadway improvements: o Modification of an existing traffic island at the intersection of Old Holly Springs Road and Jones Franklin Road o Pavement markings at either end of Old Holly Springs Road (painting a stop bar and turn arrow).

12 SITE PLAN WORKSHEET The following actions are required of Town Council for this site plan, which should be taken in the order described: 1. Action on the applicant s requested modification(s) A. Reduction in the streetscape widths along Tryon Road, Jones Franklin Road and Old Holly Springs Road to 10 feet B. Reduction in the roadway building setback from the Tryon Road and Jones Franklin Road rights-of-way from 30 feet to 10 feet. 2. Action on site plan 14-SP-035 (Mom s Auto Care) Staff has prepared a concise summary of approval criteria for each item, as well as provided suggested motions and conditions as follows: SUMMARY OF APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR MODIFICATION A 1. Does the request for a reduction in the required streetscape widths advance the goals and purposes of this Ordinance? 2. Does the request for a reduction in the required streetscape widths result in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation or relieve practical difficulties in developing a site? SUMMARY OF APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR MODIFICATION B 1. Does the request for a reduction in the required setbacks from adjacent roadways advance the goals and purposes of this Ordinance? 2. Does the request for a reduction in the required setbacks from adjacent roadways result in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation or relieve practical difficulties in developing a site? SUMMARY OF APPROVAL CRITERIA 1. Does the plan comply with all applicable requirements of the LDO, including the development and design standards of Chapters 7 and 8 as well as the dedication and improvements provisions of Chapter 8 as well as all applicable Town specifications? 2. Does the plan adequately protect other property, or residential uses located on the same property, from the potential adverse effects of the proposed development?

13 3. Does the plan provide harmony and unity with the development of nearby properties? 4. Does the plan provide safe conditions for pedestrians or motorists and prevent a dangerous arrangement of pedestrian and vehicular ways? 5. Does the plan provide safe ingress and egress for emergency services to the site? 6. Does the plan provide mitigation for traffic congestion impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the project? SUGGESTED MOTIONS FOR MODIFICATION REQUESTS MOTION TO APPROVE ALL MODIFICATION REQUESTS For the reasons discussed, I move that we APPROVE the modification requests made by the applicant, as the requests meet all of the approval criteria of the applicable sections of the LDO. This approval is conditioned upon the following: OR 1. [insert any additional conditions necessary to bring the project into compliance with the LDO or other standards] MOTION TO APPROVE OR DENY INDIVIDUAL MODIFICATION REQUESTS: For the reasons discussed, I move that we APPROVE (Alt: DENY) modification request(s) letter(s) made by the applicant as the request(s) meet (Alt: do not meet) all the approval criteria of the applicable sections of the LDO. This approval is conditioned upon the following: OR 1. [insert any conditions necessary to bring the project into compliance with the LDO or other standards] MOTION TO DENY ALL MODIFICATION REQUESTS For the reasons discussed, I move that we DENY the modification requests made by the applicant, as they do not meet all of the approval criteria of the applicable sections of the LDO. SUGGESTED MOTIONS FOR SITE PLAN

14 MOTION TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN For the reasons discussed, I move that we APPROVE the proposed site plan with conditions as stated below (ALT: without condition), as it meets all of the approval criteria set forth in Section 3.9.2(I) of the LDO. This approval is conditioned upon the following: 1. The applicant must satisfactorily address all remaining Development Review Committee comments on the master plan set submitted for signature. 2. The applicant shall landscape the portion of the site east of the waste container enclosure with canopy trees spaced no more than 40 feet on-center and ornamental trees spaced no more than 20 feet on-center. 3. [insert any conditions necessary to bring the site plan into compliance with the LDO or other standards] OR MOTION TO DENY THE SITE PLAN For the reasons discussed, I move that we DENY the proposed site plan, as it does not meet all of the approval criteria set forth in Section 3.9.2(I) of the LDO.