|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director David Bonk, Long Range and Transportation Coordinator |
|
SUBJECT: |
Public Hearing: University Station – Proposed Town-Initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment (File No. 9880-56-2680) |
|
DATE: |
May 7, 2007 |
Tonight, the Council is receiving evidence in support of, and in opposition to, a proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone a 42.64-acre site from Mixed Use Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) and Residential-3 (R-3) to the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district. The vacant site is located on the north side of Weaver Dairy Road, south of 1-40 between University Station Road and Carol Woods Retirement Center. The site is identified as Orange County Parcel Identifier Number 9880-56-2680. Please see Map 1 (Location Map).
Following tonight’s Public Hearing, on May 21, 2007, the Council could consider enacting an ordinance to rezone the property to the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district.
This package of material has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
On February 19, 2007, the Council reviewed a Concept Plan for a multi-family development of the property. The project proposed 374 dwelling units with approximately 374,000 square feet of floor area.
At the review, citizens raised concerns about the proposed use, density, proximity to I-40, and traffic generation. Council members raised concerns about suitability for residential use, referring to health, safety and welfare issues that had been brought up by citizens, as well as concerns related to adjacent property values, stormwater issues, noise and environmental health issues, parking, and traffic. Council members commented that the concept was inappropriate for the property.
On March 7, 2007, the Council held a work session to review development activity in the northern area of Chapel Hill, which includes this property. Issues raised included:
On March 26, 2007, the Council considered a follow-up report outlining alternatives to address the issues raised at the work session (Attachment 2). The Council took the following actions:
The Town Council has proposed a Zoning Atlas Amendment. The Land Use Management Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of the proposal, to present a report to the Planning Board, and to present a report and recommendation to the Town Council. We have presented a report to the Planning Board, and tonight we submit our report and preliminary recommendation to the Council.
On April 23, 2007, notice of this public hearing was sent to the property owner and owners of property within at least 1,000 feet of the properties proposed for rezoning (please see Attachment 3). Notice was also published in the Chapel Hill News on Sunday April 22, 2007 and Sunday, April 29, 2007. Copies of the agenda materials on this proposal are available in the Clerk’s office and in the Public Library, and are also available on the Town’s website (www.townofchapelhill.org).
The Council tonight is holding a public hearing to receive public comment on the proposed rezoning. Typically, the Council refers comments made at the hearing to the Manager and Attorney for a follow-up report. We anticipate returning to the Council with a follow-up report for Council consideration on May 21, 2007.
By law, formal “Protest Petitions” may be filed against this rezoning. A formal Protest Petition meeting legal requirements would increase the votes needed to enact this rezoning. The notice mailed to property owners and owners of property within 1,000 feet of the subject property included a statement that information on protest petitions was available from the Planning Department. If a protest petition is submitted and determined sufficient, a three-fourths vote by Council would be required to enact the new zoning. The deadline for filing protest petitions was at 5 p.m. Wednesday, May 2, 2007. We will report at tonight’s Public Hearing regarding any valid protest petitions that have been submitted.
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 Chapel Hill, a rezoning may be requested in two ways: general use and conditional use rezoning requests. A general use rezoning request is 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 to allow development and uses only with approval of a Special Use Permit. The University Station rezoning proposal is a general use rezoning proposal. Consequently, if the general use rezoning proposal was enacted, a property owner would still need to receive Council approval for a Subdivision of more than 4 lots or a Special Use Permit application prior to major 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 Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance establishes the intent of Zoning Atlas Amendments by stating:
“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:
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.
The site is presently zoned Mixed Use Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1), which allows single and two family dwellings and non residential uses, and Residential-3 (R-3), which allows residential units up to 7 units per acre.
The proposal is to rezone the property from Mixed Use Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) and Residential-3 (R-3) zoning to the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning district. Residential-1 (R-1) is a low density residential zoning district. The Residential-1 zoning district requires a 17,000 square-foot minimum lot size, establishes a floor/area ratio of 0.076, and establishes a density cap not to exceed three units per acre.
Analysis of this Council initiated rezoning is organized around the requirement of the Land Use Management Ordinance that Article 4.4 of the Land Use Management Ordinance 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. Only one justification needs to be met in order for the Council to approve a rezoning.
Following is staff comment regarding the three required considerations of the Council:
Staff Comment: We do not believe that the current zoning of this site is a manifest error. The zoning districts reflect the Land Use Plan designations for this location.
Staff Comment: The property was annexed into the town limits in 1981. Developments have occurred on adjoining property and background traffic has grown. We are not aware of any changed conditions.
Staff Comment: This is an undeveloped site. The Land Use Plan (Map 3) identifies the property as mixed use and medium density residential (4-8 units per acre). The Comprehensive Plan states (p. 63) that:
“Undeveloped or partially developed sites that are suitable for non-residential development are designated mixed-use, with the objective of integrating office, commercial, and residential development to the greatest extent possible.”
Article 4.4 of the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance states:
“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.”
We believe it can be argued that the location of multi-family housing or single family housing in close proximity to the Interstate may be contrary to public health, safety, or general welfare. We believe that non residential uses may be more appropriate at this location. Also tonight, the Council is scheduled to consider enacting a moratorium that would temporarily stop development on the property while the Northern Area Task Force prepares recommendations for the future development of the Northern Area, including this property. We believe that the Council should delay any consideration to rezone the property until after the Northern Area Task Force has completed its tasks. The Task Force has been directed to complete its work by October 2007.
Enacting Ordinances or new guidelines to implement the Task Force recommendations would be a possible follow-up action. We believe that a moratorium, rather than rezoning to Residential-1 (R-1), is an appropriate action to maintain the development status quo during the time required for the Task Force to provide recommendations, and for the Council to consider and enact any changes to the Comprehensive Plan, the Design Guidelines and/or the Land Use Management Ordinance, which may result from the work of the Task Force. We believe that such a process could be completed by the end of January 2008.
Recommendations are summarized below. Please see the attached summary of recommendations from the Planning Board.
Planning Board Recommendation: On May 1, 2007, the Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment if the Council does not enact a Moratorium for the Northern Area. A Summary of Planning Board Action will be circulated at the Council Meeting.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: We believe that the rezoning is not required at this time. We recommend that the Council delay any consideration to rezone the property until after the Northern Area Task Force has completed its tasks. Our preliminary recommendation is that the Council not enact the attached Ordinance, rezoning the site from Mixed Use Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) and Residential-3 (R-3) to Residential-1 (R-1). Please note if the Council decides to enact a Moratorium for the Northern Area, a Moratorium on development applications would temporarily stop additional development proposals coming forward in the Northern Area, including this property, until the Council has established a vision for the area and considered development regulations, design standards, and appearance guidelines to shape the form, intensity and orientation of future development in the area.
If the Council agrees with this recommendation not to approve the rezoning, no action is required by the Council.
If the Council decides to proceed with the rezoning, following tonight’s Public Hearing, we will complete for Council consideration on May 21, 2007 an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this application. The attached draft Ordinance would rezone the property to Residential-1 (R-1).
