09-SP-030 Nelson Road
|
Town of Cary, North Carolina |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Development Plan Staff Report |
|||||||||||||||||
|
08-SP-030 – Nelson Road Industrial |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Town Council Meeting |
|||||||||||||||||
|
October 8, 2009 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
REQUEST |
Consideration of a site plan for development of approximately 38,700 square feet of warehousing and distribution and/or light manufacturing uses located on approximately 5 acres at 4980 Nelson Road. The applicant has also requested Town Council consideration of a reduction in both the required width of the western perimeter buffer and the Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer adjacent to Aviation Parkway. |
||||||||||||||||
|
4980 Nelson Road; north side of Nelson Road at west end of overpass for Aviation Parkway |
Within Town Limits |
Yes |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
Within ETJ |
N/A |
|||||||||||||||
|
Deeded Acreage |
4.98 acres |
||||||||||||||||
|
Zoning District |
Office/Research and Development (ORD) |
||||||||||||||||
|
Zoning Overlay District |
Airport Overlay |
||||||||||||||||
|
Proposed Use |
Approximately 38,700 square feet of warehousing and distribution and/or light manufacturing uses |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
SUBJECT PARCEL |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Property Owner |
Wake County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) (10-digit) |
Real Estate ID Number |
Deeded Acreage |
||||||||||||||
|
W. Glen Adams and Samuel Boyce |
0757568438 |
0336682 |
4.98 |
||||||||||||||
|
P.O. Box 464 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Raleigh, NC 27602-0464 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Total Area |
4.98 |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
Date |
Action |
|||||||||||||||
|
Planning and Zoning Board |
August 17, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||
|
Town Council Action |
October 8, 2009 |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
contact Information |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Applicant/Agent |
Bill Daniel |
||||||||||||||||
|
William G. Daniel and Associates, PA |
|||||||||||||||||
|
1150 Southeast Maynard Road, Suite 260 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Cary, NC 27511 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
(919) 467-9708 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Staff Contact |
Kevin A. Hales, Planner II |
||||||||||||||||
|
Town of Cary Planning Department |
|||||||||||||||||
|
316 North Academy Street |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Cary, NC 27513 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
(919) 462-3944 |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
PROJECT DESCRIPTION |
|||||||||||||||||
|
The proposed site plan depicts a one-story brick and concrete block building containing approximately 38,700 square feet of warehousing and distribution and/or light manufacturing uses to be located on approximately five acres at 4980 Nelson Road. The property is located on the north side of Nelson Road, in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Nelson Road and Aviation Parkway. The property to the north is vacant and zoned ORD. The property located to the west is zoned Residential 40 (R-40) and is currently used as a single-family residence and a light vehicular service business, both of which are legal, non-conforming uses. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
The site would be accessed by two drives from Nelson Road. Parking for the development would be predominantly located in front of the proposed building, with a small percentage (8%) of the spaces located along the eastern side of the building. Stormwater BMPs located on the site are proposed as bio-retention areas, which would be planted with a variety of trees and shrubs. The plans propose to reduce the western 80-foot opaque buffer to a 40-foot opaque buffer and to reduce the 100-foot Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer, adjacent to Aviation Parkway, to a 50-foot Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
SITE DATA |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Existing Land Use |
Vacant |
||||||||||||||||
|
Land Use Plan Designation |
Office and Industrial (OFC/IND) |
||||||||||||||||
|
Streams |
According to the Town of Cary’s GIS maps, there are no streams impacting the property. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Floodplain |
According to the Town of Cary’s GIS maps, there is no floodplain or flood hazard area on the property. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Wetlands |
According to the Town of Cary’s GIS maps, there are no wetlands located on the property. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Topography |
The property contains significant elevation change, descending 50 feet in elevation from west to east. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Surrounding Land Uses |
|||||||||||||||||
|
North |
Vacant ORD zoned property |
||||||||||||||||
|
South |
Vacant property owned by the RDU Airport Authority across Nelson Road |
||||||||||||||||
|
East |
Vacant ORD zoned property across Aviation Parkway |
||||||||||||||||
|
West |
Single-family residence and light vehicular service business |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Consistency with the comprehensive plan |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Land Use Plan |
The property has a land use designation of Office and Industrial (OFC/IND). This designation typically includes both office and light industrial land uses. The proposed site plan indicates the building would be used predominantly for warehousing and distribution and/or light manufacturing, which is consistent with the current land use designation. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Facility Master Plan |
The Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Facility Master Plan does not indicate any proposed recreation facilities in the vicinity of this project. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Growth Management Plan |
The Growth Management Plan contains the following Guiding Principles related to this project: |
||||||||||||||||
|
Principle R1: Ensure that adequate infrastructure and services are available concurrently with new development. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Staff Comments: There are existing water and sewer lines located along the frontage of this property within the Nelson Road right-of-way. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Principle L1: Concentrate growth near existing and planned employment centers and available and planned infrastructure to minimize costly service-area extensions. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Staff Comments: Existing water and sewer services located adjacent to the site would eliminate the need for any service-area extensions in regards to this project. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Comprehensive Transportation Plan |
Nelson Road is classified as a Collector Avenue. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Existing Section |
2-lane |
||||||||||||||||
|
Future Section |
2-lane |
||||||||||||||||
|
Sidewalks |
No existing sidewalk; future sidewalks on both sides |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bicycle lanes |
No existing facilities; future wide-outside-lanes |
||||||||||||||||
|
Transit |
No existing facilities or future plans |
||||||||||||||||
|
Status of Planned Improvements |
No capital improvements planned; the developer would be responsible for improvements along the property’s frontage. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Aviation Parkway is classified as a Major Thoroughfare. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Existing Section |
6-lane, median divided, controlled-access |
||||||||||||||||
|
Future Section |
6-lane, median divided, controlled access |
||||||||||||||||
|
Sidewalks |
No existing or future sidewalks planned |
||||||||||||||||
|
Bicycle lanes |
No existing or future facilities planned |
||||||||||||||||
|
Transit |
No existing facilities or future plans |
||||||||||||||||
|
Status of Planned Improvements |
None planned |
||||||||||||||||
|
Open Space and Historic Resources Plan |
There are no significant natural or historic resources identified in the vicinity of the proposed development by the Open Space and Historic Resources Plan. |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
CONSISTENCY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (LDO) |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Traffic |
According to the ITE trip generation calculations, the proposed development would generate 36 morning and 38 evening peak-hour vehicular trips. This is less than the threshold of 50 peak-hour vehicular trips to require a Traffic Impact Analysis, according to the Adequate Public Facilities (APF) ordinance. The trip generation for this site was calculated using ITE code 110 (Light Industrial). |
||||||||||||||||
|
Open Space |
No additional Open Space outside of the required perimeter buffers and streetscape would be required for this development. The applicant has requested a reduction of the required width of both the western perimeter buffer and the Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer along Aviation Parkway to the east. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Buffers and Streetscapes |
The proposed site plan provides a 30-foot streetscape adjacent to Nelson Road as required by the LDO. A bio-retention area would be partially located in a portion of the streetscape, resulting in the disturbance of some of the existing vegetation. Based on the tree survey contained in the site plan, no significant trees are located within the streetscape, though a small number of pines which are of significant size are located adjacent to the streetscape. |
||||||||||||||||
|
An 80-foot Type A (opaque) buffer is required along the western property line, adjacent to the residentially-zoned property. The applicant has requested Town Council consideration of a reduction in the required width of this buffer to 40 feet (see “Minor Modifications” section of this report). |
|||||||||||||||||
|
The property located to the north of the proposed site plan is currently vacant; therefore, the site plan under consideration is responsible for installing only one half of the total required buffer width. With a light manufacturing use, a 10-foot Type C (aesthetic) buffer would be required. A warehousing and distribution use requires a 12.5-foot Type C buffer. The applicant has proposed to provide the 12.5-foot Type C buffer. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Aviation Parkway is a controlled-access highway and, as such, is subject to the Town’s Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer. A 100-foot buffer is required along all controlled-access highways, with 50 feet provided along access ramps. The buffer is required to be undisturbed and must be supplemented to meet the Type A (opaque) buffer standards. The applicant has requested a reduction in the width of this buffer to 50 feet (see “Minor Modifications” section of this report). |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Architectural |
The proposed building would comply with all nine architectural design standards found in the Community Appearance Manual (CAM). The building is entirely masonry, consisting of both brick and concrete masonry units (CMU). The façades incorporate changes in materials, in colors, and in plane to divide the building into taller proportions and to create the visual impression of weight transfer down the façades. The change in material at the watertable and the scored CMU band create the impression of a relatable human scale. Windows and roll-up doors provide views into the buildings and break up the mass of the masonry façades. |
||||||||||||||||
|
The eastern façade would not satisfy the transparency requirement if reviewed as a stand alone façade. However, staff has consistently allowed up to 25% of the required glazing area to be transferred from a third side with public visibility in order to encourage transparency of façades other than the two that are required to have windows by the design standards. This is not an unusual practice and the eastern façade easily satisfies the transparency requirement with 87 additional square feet of glazed area (14% of the required 607 square feet) being transferred from the western façade. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
REQUESTED MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Per Section 3.19.1 of the LDO, the applicant has requested Town Council consideration of approval for the following Minor Modification to the development standards of the LDO. If Town Council feels that the modification advances the goals and purposes of the LDO and either results in less visual impact or more effective environmental or open space preservation, or relieves practical difficulties in developing a site, Minor Modifications may be approved. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
The applicant has requested to reduce the western perimeter 80-foot Type A (opaque) buffer to a 40-foot Type A buffer. The outer 30 feet of the 40-foot Type A buffer would remain undisturbed, with the interior ten feet of buffer being graded and replanted to a Type A planting standard. This request is based on the fact that the adjacent R-40 parcel is designated for Office and Industrial land uses and that residential uses are prohibited by the Airport Overlay District, in which both parcels are located. Additionally, the proposed development is located approximately ten feet lower in elevation than the adjoining western property. This difference in elevation would increase the effectiveness of the proposed buffer by allowing proposed landscaping to screen a larger proportion of the building façade than otherwise could be achieved. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
There is a single-family residence located on the adjacent R-40 parcel, which existed prior to the adoption of the Airport Overlay District. In addition to the single-family residence, a light vehicular service business is being operated as a legal, non-conforming use in the R-40 zoning district. The fact that both uses currently on the site are legal, non-conforming uses combined with the land use designation of Office and Industrial would preclude future redevelopment of the property for residential uses and would encourage redevelopment of the property for office or light industrial uses. Any redevelopment of the site for office or light industrial uses would require only a 20- to 25-foot Type C (aesthetic) buffer. The applicant’s proposal for a 40-foot Type A (opaque) buffer would protect both the adjacent home and business, while recognizing that the existing residence is a non-conforming use that will eventually redevelop into a use similar to that proposed by this site plan. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Per Section 4.4.4(D) of the LDO, the applicant has requested Town Council consideration of the following reduction to the required width of the Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer. Such reductions, to a minimum of 30 feet, may be approved by the Town Council, taking into consideration: the topography of the area; surrounding land uses, particularly residential uses; the actual location of the corridor; the size and shape of land parcels affected by the buffer; and whether the buffer requirement would render the entire property unusable. In reducing the width of the buffer strip, the Town Council shall ensure that the applicant will provide appropriate landscaping meeting the requirements of an Opaque Type A buffer. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
The applicant has requested a reduction in the width of the Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer (TCB) along Aviation Parkway from the required width of 100 feet to a width of 50 feet. The requested reduction is based on the grading required to address a significant change in elevation across the site. As mentioned previously, the elevation changes approximately 50 feet between the western property line and the eastern property line. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
The finished floor elevation of the building is approximately 40 feet above the grade of Aviation Parkway. This difference in elevation will significantly reduce the visibility of the building to vehicles utilizing Aviation Parkway. Additionally, the applicant has agreed to reforest the fill slope associated with the building pad and construction of the bio-retention area with pine seedlings. This, coupled with the plantings required in the bio-retention area, has an effect similar to averaging the 100-foot TCB. Averaging of buffer widths is a commonly used option; however, the TCB does not have the option of averaging as do other buffers, resulting in the request to reduce the width of the TCB to 50 feet. The additional reforestation would occur outside of the reduced TCB, increasing the “effective width” of the TCB, especially in the southeastern corner of the site. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
CONSISTENCY WITH THE CARY DESIGN GUIDELINES |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Create Human Scale |
The proposed site plan includes several features that create a sense of human scale. Many of these are architectural in nature and are requirements of the architectural design standards. These include the requirement for two horizontal elements at a scale of 12 inches or less within the first ten feet of building height and the requirement that façades be divided into segments that are taller than they are wide. The proposed building meets the required standards, creating a strong sense of human scale. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Create a Sense of Place |
This development would be the first in the area and, as such, would set a tone for surrounding facilities in the future. Adjacent development would be required to demonstrate some level of architectural compatibility with, but not necessarily be identical to, the proposed facility. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Connect Uses |
The nature of the proposed development does not lend itself to providing connections to adjacent properties. The rear portion of the site would be fenced in for security purposes, precluding a connection to the adjacent property to the north of the development. An access easement and necessary slope easements have been provided through the buffer along the western property line in-lieu of a physical stub in order to preserve the integrity of the buffer and to better protect the existing single-family residence until such time as the property redevelops. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Provide Transitions |
The proposed site plan includes landscape buffers along all of the property lines, as discussed above. Though reductions in the width of these buffers have been requested, the topography of the site would increase the effectiveness of the remaining buffer width by allowing the typical buffer plantings to screen more of the building façades than would typically be expected. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Reduce Parking Impacts |
The parking requirements for warehousing and distribution and/or light manufacturing uses are significantly less than would be required for an office or commercial development of similar square footage. A small portion (8%) of the proposed parking would be located to the side of the building; however, the remaining parking would be arranged in only a two- to three-bay layout in front of the building. Where parking would be located in front of the building, landscaping has been provided to soften the view into the parking lot. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Plan for Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Transit Users |
The proposed site plan includes sidewalk connections to the public sidewalk that would be installed along the property’s Nelson Road frontage. Due to the nature of the proposed use, no bicycle parking would be required, though wide-outside-lanes are included in the typical cross-section for Nelson Road to facilitate use by bicyclists. No transit needs have been identified for this area of Cary. |
||||||||||||||||
|
Provide Open Space |
Open space for this project would be provided through the required perimeter buffers. Additional open space, though not required, would eventually be provided by the reforestation of the fill slopes along the eastern side of the property and by portions of the bio-retention area located adjacent to and outside of the streetscape along Nelson Road. |
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
APPROVAL CRITERIA FOR SITE AND/OR SUBDIVISION PLANS |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Section 3.9.2(I) of the LDO establishes certain criteria that must be considered in reviewing Site and/or Subdivision Plans: |
|||||||||||||||||
|
1. The plan is consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
2. The plan complies with all applicable requirements of this Ordinance, including the development and design standards of Chapters 7 and 8 as well as the dedication and improvements provisions of Chapter 8 (Note: Plans within Planned Developments may be subject to different requirements based on approval). |
|||||||||||||||||
|
3. The plan adequately protects other property, or residential uses located on the same property, from the potential adverse effects of the proposed development. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
4. The plan provides harmony and unity with the development of nearby properties. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
5. The plan provides safe conditions for pedestrians or motorists and prevents a dangerous arrangement of pedestrian and vehicular ways. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
6. The plan provides safe ingress and egress for emergency services to the site. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Staff Recommendation |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Staff is not generally supportive of reductions to perimeter buffers or to other buffers for new development projects. However, given the topographical constraints of the site and the fact that the adjacent R-40 parcel contains legal, nonconforming uses that could not be re-established in the future, staff is supportive of the request to reduce the width of the western perimeter buffer and the Thoroughfare Corridor Buffer along Aviation Parkway. Additionally, the significant changes in elevation, coupled with the applicant’s proposal to reforest the fill slope along the eastern side of the property, enhance the performance of the plant material that would be located within the reduced buffers. Overall, staff feels that the proposed site plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, with the Land Development Ordinance, and all other applicable plans and policies. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the proposed site plan as presented in this report, including the following Minor Modifications: |
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD Recommendation |
|||||||||||||||||
|
The discussion among the Planning Board centered on the applicant’s justification for the requested Minor Modifications; the provision of an access and construction easements in lieu of constructing a cross-access to the western property; and the shift in financial responsibility associated with that provision. Concerns were expressed by the Board in relation to the adjacent property owner’s understanding of the implications of the provision of an easement in lieu of constructing a drive connection to the western property; and in relation to the reduction of buffers as a matter of principle. The Board voted 7-1 to forward the development plan to Town Council with a recommendation for approval. |
|||||||||||||||||
