AGENDA #10

MEMORANDUM

TO:                  Mayor and Town Council

FROM:            W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager

SUBJECT:      Rusch Hollow- Application for Special Use Permit Modification

DATE:            June 26, 2006

INTRODUCTION

Tonight, the Council continues the Public Hearing from June 19, 2006, regarding the Special Use Permit Modification to expand the boundary of the Rusch Hollow residential development. The proposed boundary expansion would encumber an additional 10,431 square feet of land area. The proposed site is adjacent to and south of Rusch Hollow Lot 3. The proposal will not increase the number of lots or residential units beyond the land development intensity authorized by the Town Council in 2003.

The site is located on the south side of Zieger Lane, approximately 130 feet east of Rogers Road. The site is located in Orange County, in the northern Joint Planning Transition Area (JPA), outside the Town Limits of Chapel Hill, and is identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 23, Block D, part of Lot 17.

Accompanying this request is an application to rezone the site from Residential-1 (R-1) to Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C).

This package of materials has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:

• Cover Memorandum: Provides background on the development proposal and the Town’s review process, and offers recommendations for Council action.

• Attachments: Includes resolutions of approval and denial, and a copy of the Public Hearing memorandum and its related attachments.

BACKGROUND

On September 15, 2003, the Chapel Hill Town Council approved a Zoning Atlas Amendment and Special Use Permit for the Rusch Hollow neighborhood.  Council action changed the zoning from Residential-1 to Residential-Special Standards-Conditional and also authorized a multi-family development containing 12 single family dwelling units, a two unit structure and a three unit structure.

On March 14, 2006, the Town of Chapel Hill received an application from Habitat for Humanity to rezone approximately 10,431 square feet of land, adjacent to the Rusch Hollow neighborhood, from Residential-1(R-1) to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) zoning district.  In addition to the Zoning Atlas Amendment application, Habitat for Humanity also submitted an application to modify the Rusch Hollow Special Use Permit boundary. 

A public hearing was held on June 19, 2006, to consider this item.

PROCESS

This is an application for a Special Use Permit Modification.  The Land Use Management Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Special Use Permit Modification application, to present a report to the Planning Board, and to present a report and recommendation to the Town Council.  We have reviewed the application and evaluated it regarding its compliance with the standards and regulations of the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance; we have presented a report to the Planning Board; and on June 19, 2006, we submitted our report and recommendation to the Council.

EVALUATION OF THE APPLICATION

The standard for review and approval of a Special Use Permit Modification application involves consideration of four findings of fact that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit Modification.  Based on the evidence that is accumulated during the Public Hearing, the Council will consider whether or not it can make each of the four required findings for the approval of a Special Use Permit.

If, after consideration of the evidence submitted at the Public Hearing, the Council decides that it can make each of the four findings, the Land Use Management Ordinance directs that the Special Use Permit Modification shall then be approved.  If the Council decides that the evidence does not support making one or more of the findings, then the application cannot be approved and, accordingly, should be denied by the Council.

Tonight, based on the evidence presently in the record thus far, we provide the following evaluation of this application based around the four findings of facts that the Council must consider for granting a Special Use Permit.

Finding #1:  That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare.

Staff Comment:  We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:   

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #1, as offered in the attached applicant’s Statement of Justification, can be summarized as follows:

• The increase in lot size will “allow Habitat to choose an attractive design for the triplex that will fit in with the existing single-family homes now constructed in Rusch Hollow.”  [Applicants Statement]

• The rental units will “serve the elderly and disabled, with priority given to current residents of the Rogers Road community.”  [Applicants Statement]

Additional arguments presented by the applicant in support of this finding are offered in the attached Statement of Justification.

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #1.  Evidence in opposition may be presented at tonight’s meeting.

Finding #2: That the use or development complies with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3, and 5, the applicable specific standards contained in Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6), and with all other applicable regulations.

Staff Comment:  We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #2, as offered in the attached applicant’s Statement of Justification, can be summarized as follows:

“The proposed subdivision will”

• “Complies with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance, including all applicable provisions of Articles 3, and 5, the applicable specific standards contained in Supplemental Use Regulations (Article 6), and with all other applicable regulations. The applicant is making a rezoning request to incorporate an additional 10,000 square feet in to the original approved design, so that one of the lots within that subdivision can more reasonably accommodate a triplex.”  [Applicants Statement]

Additional arguments presented by the applicant in support of this finding are offered in the attached Statement of Justification.

Evidence in opposition:  We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #2.  Evidence in opposition may be presented at tonight’s meeting.

Finding #3:  That the use or development is located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property, or that the use or development is a public necessity;

Staff Comment:  We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #3, as offered in the attached applicant’s Statement of Justification, can be summarized as follows:

• “The homes that Habitat for Humanity has already built on the site are attractive and blend in well with the surrounding residences.”  [Applicants Statement]

• New Homestead Place, an 11-home subdivision constructed on Rogers Road by Habitat a few years ago, is a quality neighborhood that Chapel Hill and this community can be proud of… This latest habitat for Humanity project will have a similar positive impact on the neighborhood.” [Applicants Statement]

Additional arguments presented by the applicant in support of this finding are offered in the attached Statement of Justification.

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #3.  Evidence in opposition may be presented at tonight’s meeting.

Finding #4:  That the use or development conforms with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in this chapter and in the Comprehensive Plan.

Staff Comment:  We believe the evidence in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

Evidence in support: Evidence in support of Finding #4, as offered in the attached applicant’s Statement of Justification, can be summarized as follows:

“This project will:

• “Add… rental units for low income, disabled and elderly citizens. The modification will allow for better design of the triplex that will provide three of the rental units.” [Applicant’s Statement]

• ”Help move the Town closer to its goal of providing quality, affordable housing for all residents of Chapel Hill.”  [Applicant’s Statement]

Additional arguments presented by the applicant in support of this finding are offered in the attached Statement of Justification.

Evidence in opposition: We have not identified any evidence offered in opposition to Finding #4.  Evidence in opposition may be presented at tonight’s meeting.

KEY ISSUE

At the June 19, 2006 Public Hearing, no key issues were identified.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations are summarized below.  Please see summaries of board actions and recommendations in the attachments. 

Planning Board Recommendation: On May 2, 2006, the Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council approve this application with the adoption of Resolution A.  

Transportation Board Recommendation: On May 16, 2006, the Transportation Board voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve this application, with the adoption of Resolution A.

Community Design Commission Recommendation: On May 17, 2006, the Community Design Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the Council approve this application with the adoption of Resolution A.  

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation:  On May 23, 2006, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve this application, with the adoption of Resolution A.

Manager’s Recommendation:  Based on our evaluation of the application, our conclusion is that, with the stipulations in Resolution A, the application complies with the standards and regulations of the Land Use Management Ordinance. 

If the Council makes the required findings for approval of a Special Use Permit Modification, we recommend that the application be approved with the adoption of Resolution A. 

Resolution B would deny the application.

ATTACHMENTS

1. June 19, 2006 Memorandum and its related attachments (begin new page 1).