AGENDA #4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Rusch Hollow - Application for Zoning Atlas Amendment
DATE: June 19, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Attached for your consideration is a proposal to amend the Zoning Atlas to change the zoning of 10,431 square feet of land located adjacent to and south of Lot 3 in the Rusch Hollow development from Chapel Hill Residential-1 (R-1) to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) zoning district. The subdivision is located northeast of the intersection of Rogers Road and Rusch Road. The proposal involves one property, identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 23, Block D, Lot 17 (PIN No. 9870-53-6794). The site is located outside of Chapel Hill’s Corporate Limits in the Chapel Hill Joint Planning Transition Area
The applicant has also applied for a Special Use Permit Modification to expand the boundary of development on the site. Please see the accompanying memorandum for information regarding the proposed Special Use Permit.
The Town Council granted expedited processing for this project. Council action on this request is scheduled for the June 26, 2006 meeting.
This package of material has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
Cover Memorandum: Summarizes the application, reviews procedures for review and offers a preliminary recommendation for Council action.
Attachments: Includes an ordinance approving and resolution denying the rezoning, advisory board recommendation on the application, and associated materials.
BACKGROUND
The Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district allows a residential density of up to 12 units per acre. Introduced as a new zoning district by the Chapel Hill Town Council in 1999, the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) zoning district was established to facilitate development of affordable housing.
On November 10, 2003, the Chapel Hill Town Council approved a Zoning Atlas Amendment and Special Use Permit for the Rusch Hollow neighborhood. The zoning changed from Residential-1 to Residential-Special Standards-Conditional and the Council authorized a multi-family development containing 12 single family dwelling units, a duplex and triplex.
On March 14, 2006, the Town of Chapel Hill received an application from Habitat for Humanity of Orange County for a Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone 10,431 square feet of land adjacent to and south of Lot 3 in the Rusch Hollow development, which is northeast of the intersection of Rogers Road and Rusch Road. The property is currently located within the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 23, Block D, Lot 17.
The applicant has requested that the site be rezoned from Residential-1(R-1) to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) zoning district. The applicant is requesting the rezoning in order to expand the boundary of the R-SS-C zoning district and create a lot with sufficient land area for the construction of an affordable triplex. The “conditional” designation means that, if the rezoning is approved, no development may occur on the property unless the Chapel Hill Town Council approves a Special Use Permit. The Town approved a Special Use Permit in November 2003 for the Rusch Hollow development which must be amended in a separate process to include the 10,431 square feet being rezoned. If a Special Use Permit issued for a Conditional Use District is abandoned, revoked, or becomes void, the conditional use zoning also becomes void and the property reverts to its previous zoning classification.
JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLAN
A Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan for Chapel Hill and Orange County was adopted in 1986. Chapel Hill has since adopted a new Land Use Plan in May 2000 which Orange County adopted as an amendment to the 1986 Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan effective October 1, 2003.
The application site is located adjacent to and south of Lot 3 in the Rusch Hollow development. The Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan as amended in this location is designated as “Low Residential”, 1 to 4 units per acre.
Although the proposed rezoning allows density greater than the density envisioned by the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, the overall density of the Rusch Hollow development will not be greater than the 17 units approved by the County Commissioners and the Town Council in 2003.
On May 11, 2006, the Orange County Commission and the Chapel Hill Town Council held a Joint Public Hearing on the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment application.
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
Zoning determines the type and intensity of uses and development that are allowed on a piece of land. A Zoning Atlas Amendment involves a change to the current zoning, and thus the permitted types and intensity of land uses. In accordance with the Town of Chapel Hill’s Land Use Management Ordinance, a rezoning may be requested in two ways: general use and conditional use rezoning requests.
A general use rezoning request is a proposal to change the zoning to a different zoning district in which any of several kinds of developments and uses are permissible. A conditional use rezoning request is a proposal to allow development and uses only with (1) specific limitations, and (2) the approval of a Special Use Permit. The Rusch Hollow rezoning application is a conditional use rezoning request. Consequently, if the Rusch Hollow conditional use rezoning request were to be approved, the applicant would still need to receive approval for a Special Use Permit application from the Town of Chapel Hill, prior to the proposed development actually occurring on the site.
The zoning designation of a property determines the range of land uses and development intensities permitted on the property. Article 4.4 of the Town of Chapel Hill’s Land Use Management Ordinance establishes the intent of Zoning Atlas Amendments by stating that, “In order to establish and maintain sound, stable, and desirable development within the planning jurisdiction of the Town it is intended that this chapter shall not be amended except:
to correct a manifest error in the chapter; or
because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally; or
to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.”
Article 4.4 further indicates:
It is further intended that, if amended, this chapter be amended only as reasonably necessary to the promotion of the public health, safety, or general welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
As related to conditional use zoning, Article 4.4 of the Land Use Management Ordinance stipulates that:
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statutes Section 160A-382, a request for rezoning to a conditional use district may be made only by application from the owner(s) of all the property included in the area proposed to be rezoned. An application for rezoning to a conditional use district may include a request by the property owner(s) to limit the uses allowed with approval of a Special Use Permit. An application for rezoning to a conditional use district may be accompanied by an application for a Special Use Permit, as provided in Section 4.5 of this Chapter, and may be reviewed concurrently with the Special Use Permit application; provided, however, that the Special Use Permit application shall be approved separately as provided in Section 4.5 of this Chapter.
The Chapel Hill Town Council has discretionary authority to approve or deny the rezoning request.
ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION
Analysis of this application is organized around the requirement of the Land Use Management Ordinance which states that the Zoning Atlas shall not be amended except a) to correct a manifest error in the chapter; or b) because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally, or c) to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
A) A rezoning is justified to correct a manifest error.
Comment: We believe the information in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
Arguments in Support: We were unable to identify any arguments in support of a manifest error.
Arguments in Opposition: The adjacent properties to the south and east of this site are located within the Residential-1 zoning district. We do not believe that the current Residential-1 zoning of this site is a manifest error.
B) A rezoning is justified because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally.
Comment: We believe the information in the record thus far can be summarized as follows:
Arguments in Support: We are unable to identify any arguments in support of changed conditions.
Arguments in Opposition: We are not aware of changed conditions in the area.
C) A rezoning is justified to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
Comment: We believe the information in the record thus far can be summarized as follows:
Arguments in Support: Arguments in support of this finding as offered in the attached applicant’s Statement of Justification can be summarized as follows:
“This project will:
Add the ability to build more units on Rusch Hollow Lot 3. The units will be affordable for 99 years to households earning at or below 50% of the area median income.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Contribute to a mix of housing in the Rogers Road community, which is already comprised of a mix of mobile homes, recently constructed Habitat for Humanity Orange County single-family homes, a number of modest older single-family homes, and a range of more expensive single-family homes.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Contribute to the revitalization of the Rogers Road community by providing attractive in-fill housing at a slightly higher density than the rest of the community.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Actively recruited public housing residents as applicants, and has successfully worked with public housing residents to overcome the barriers to homeownership.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Arguments in Opposition: No arguments in opposition have been submitted to date.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendations are summarized below. Please see the attached summary of board action and recommendations.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board considered this application on May 2, 2006, and voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the Zoning Atlas Amendment application. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation: We believe that this rezoning could be justified based on the finding that a rezoning is necessary to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. Our preliminary recommendation is that the Council adopts the attached ordinance, rezoning the property from Residential-1 (R-1) to Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C).
The attached resolution would deny the rezoning request.
ATTACHMENTS
