TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM: J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director
Gene Poveromo, Development Manager
SUBJECT: Woodmont on NC 54 East– Application for Zoning Atlas Amendment (File Number 9798-04-71-8729)
DATE: September 8, 2008
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from May 12, 2008 for a rezoning application from Capital Associates to rezone 4.81 acres from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Mixed Use-Village (MU-V) and 26.86 acres from Residential-2 (R-2) to Mixed Use-Village (MU-V) on a 32.85-acre site located south of NC 54, between Barbee Chapel Road and Little John Road.
The applicant has submitted two accompanying applications for a mixed use Master Land Use Plan with 601,000 square feet of floor area and a mixed use Special Use Permit with 183,900 square feet of floor area. Please see the accompanying memoranda for additional information.
Two issues were identified during the May 12 Public Hearing: 1) Protest petition; and arguments in opposition to the rezoning. For additional information on these issues, please refer to the section on Protest Petition and the section on analysis of the 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 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. This rezoning application is a general use rezoning request and is accompanied by a Special Use Permit application for a portion of the property. The Mixed Use-Village zoning district does not have a conditional use counterpart zone.
The zoning designation of a property determines the range of land uses and development intensities permitted on the property. Article 4.4 of the 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:
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.
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 Council has discretionary authority to approve or deny a rezoning request. As with a conditional use rezoning request, the specific proposal in the accompanying Special Use Permit application is related to the rezoning request. We believe it is appropriate for the Council to consider a specific Special Use Permit proposal on that application, in tandem with a rezoning hearing. If the Council does not find the Special Use Permit proposal to be an acceptable use of the property, we would recommend that the Council not approve the rezoning request.
PROTEST PETITION
A citizen or citizens opposed to this proposed rezoning may file a protest petition. A petition protesting a proposed amendment shall be subject to the provisions of North Carolina General Statutes Sections 160A-385 and 386, as may be amended from time to time. Any petition shall:
(1) be in the form of a written petition actually bearing the signatures of the requisite number of property owners and stating that he signers do protest the proposed amendment;
(2) be received by the Town Clerk at least two (2) normal work days prior to the date established for the public hearing on the proposed amendment; and
(3) be on a form prescribed and provided by the Town Manager and contain all the information requested on the form.
As of the deadline specified above we did not receive a valid protest petition for the Zoning Atlas Amendment application. Please see attached “Evaluation of Protest Petition” letter.
At the May 12, 2008 Public Hearing, a Council member asked whether the threshold for the protest petition would be met by signers of the protest petition if the two lots that are part of the Master Land Use Plan but not part of the rezoning application were part of the rezoning application.
According to the staff’s evaluation using a hypothetical Woodmont rezoning area that includes these two lots, the protest petition as submitted would have in this hypothetical situation represented 11.3 % of the area in the pertinent 100’ buffer area. Therefore, if those two lots were part of the rezoning application, the 5% threshold for a protest petition would be met (requiring a ¾ vote from Council to approve the application).
ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION
Analysis of this application is organized around the requirement of the Land Use Management Ordinance that Article 4.4 of the 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.
a) A rezoning is necessary to correct a manifest error.
Staff 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: No arguments have been made regarding a manifest error.
b) A rezoning is necessary because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally.
Staff Comment: We believe the information in the record thus far can be summarized as follows:
Arguments in Support: No arguments have been made to date in support of changed or changing conditions in this particular area.
Arguments in Opposition: No arguments have been made regarding changed or changing conditions in this particular area.
c) A rezoning is necessary to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: We believe the information in the record thus far can be summarized as follows:
Arguments in Support: Arguments in support of this finding are offered in the applicant’s Statement of Justification. Portions of the applicant’s Statement of Justification are copied below:
To support the objectives of the NC 54 East Entryway Goals (a component of the Comprehensive Plan) – “Streets and parking should be designed to promote easy, safe pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and to inhibit fast traffic in both residential and retail/office segments of neighborhoods.” The main spine road through the site is purposefully narrow with on-street diagonal parking to discourage fast traffic. Additionally, the Woodmont development plan includes a network of pedestrian trails within the site, a significant portion of which will be constructed with Phase One of the development, and four loaner bicycles and bicycle racks at the Phase One office buildings. Shower facilities will be included in all of the larger Woodmont office buildings, including Building E in Phase One.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Promote transit facilities, including preserving the potential for regional transit in this corridor. These Objectives encourage expansion of the service to outlying areas, and promotion of transit-orientated land use patterns. Woodmont is within ½ mile of a future light rail station. The development is committed to assist in extending the CHT existing routes eastward to serve the Woodmont area. Woodmont plans call for a Chapel Hill Transit route along its spine road, with bus stops appropriately located within the development. An important related point: The proposed density of development on this site will foster public transit use, whereas development of this site exclusively as medium density residential properties would not.” [Applicant’s Statement]
To support the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan – “Encourages desirable forms of non-residential development. Phase One of Woodmont will help provide additional high quality office space that will complement and help balance the mix of uses within the larger Meadowmont mixed use zone of which it is geographically a part. Currently, the larger Meadowmont mixed use zone is heavily weighted toward residential and retail uses…” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Support of start-up businesses. The numerous small businesses and restaurants at Medowmont Village will benefit significantly from the addition of density on the Woodmont site… Within Woodmont, office space will be available for both mature businesses and young businesses… Included will be corporate office space in the larger buildings and office space for smaller, newer, tenants in the smaller buildings.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Retain existing businesses. Recent experience has shown that native firms of significant size have in some cases moved out of Chapel Hill due to lack of suitable Class A office space.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Work with housing providers to develop affordable housing in Chapel Hill. Capital Associates and OCHLT have committed to partner to include high quality residential units that meet the workforce affordable housing goals suggested by the Comprehensive Plan and specified by the Town Council. Capital Associates has also committed to work with the OCLT to address long term maintenance and affordability issues. The workforce affordable units will compromise 15% of the total residential condominiums units and will include a mix of one and two-bedroom units.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Implement a comprehensive parking strategy. One of the key elements of this objective calls for structured parking where feasible. Woodmont plans to provide a significant amount of under-building parking, much of which is to be on two levels, to eliminate “sprawl” parking and reduce impervious surface… Woodmont also intends to develop only 90% of its ultimate potentially-needed parking initially. Any portion of the remaining 10% would be constructed only if, and when, there is demonstrable demand for those additional spaces, on a building-by-building basis. With a successful transit plan, ridesharing promotions, shuttles to connect to Meadowmont, it is hoped and expected that none of the last 10% of parking will have to be built.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Increase the Town’s tax base in a manner that supports community values. At completion, Woodmont’s initial phase will as over $35 million (in 2007dollars) to the tax base… This Comprehensive Plan objective also calls for analysis of projected net revenues as part of the land use decision making process. We will be pleased to work with the Town to produce this analysis.” [Applicant’s Statement]
To support the objectives of the NC 54 East Entryway Goals (a component of the Comprehensive Plan) – “Streets and parking should be designed to promote easy, safe pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and to inhibit fast traffic in both residential and retail/office segments of neighborhoods.”: “The NC 54 East Entranceway Goals clearly enumerates that proposed projects should “avoid placing driveways on the main collector road (ie, NC 54). Since the applicant intends for the main entrance to Woodmont to be a major intersection on NC 54 East, the applicant’s plan is in direct conflict with the second stipulation 10 of the Attachment 2 from the Planning Department staff.” [Citizen Statement]
Promote transit facilities, including preserving the potential for regional transit in this corridor: “The applicant provides no evidence that Chapel Hill Transit has any plans or funding to extend service to the applicant’s proposed project. In fact, no plans or funding are available in the Chapel Hill Transit budget for service extension.” [Citizen Statement]
Support of start-up businesses. “This is a hypothetical justification, and no evidence is presented that supports the purported benefits to Meadowmont business. To the contrary, few, if any, start-up businesses immediately lease Class A space. Class A space is typically utilized by mature businesses. The architecture of Class A office structures always prioritizes design and visual appeal over cost, and sometimes over practically – a Class A building can be considered a monument and a testament to the success and power of its tenants. In most areas, Class A office space typically commands the highest rents for office space in a community.” [Citizen Statement]
Retain existing businesses. “The applicant offers no evidence or foundation to support such a claim.” [Citizen Statement]
Work with housing providers to develop affordable housing in Chapel Hill. “The most recent proposal for Woodmont offers far too few residential units for a project that can truly be considered MU-V, much less a significant contribution to affordable housing.” [Citizen Statement]
Increase the Town’s tax base in a manner that supports community values. “The analysis has not been submitted into evidence. To the contrary, this community desires to retain the character of a village, not of a city. Extremely large, Class A office space does not match the overall community values of Chapel Hill.” [Citizen Statement]
Additional Information: We note that the Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted on May 8, 2000, identifies a portion of the site as Low Residential (1-4 units/acre), and a portion of the site as Medium Residential (4-8 units/acre). The site presently contains non-residential use and a portion is zoned for non-residential uses.
The recommendation of the Planning Board is summarized below.
Planning Board Recommendation: On April 1, 2008 the Board recommended denial of the rezoning application. At the May 6, 2008 meeting the Board upheld its decision to recommend denial. The Summary of Action for the April 1, 2008 meeting is attached.
Staff Recommendation: We believe that the rezoning could be justified based on finding (c), as described above supported by various objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Our recommendation is that the Council enact the attached ordinances, rezoning 4.73 acres of the property from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to Mixed Use-Village (MU-V) and 26.75 acres from Residential-2 (R-2) to Mixed Use Village (MU-V).
The attached Resolution B would deny the rezoning request.
ATTACHMENTS
