|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director David Bonk, Long Range and Transportation Coordinator |
|
SUBJECT: |
Public Hearing: Proposed Town-Initiated Zoning Atlas Amendment for a Moratorium in the Northern Area |
|
DATE: |
May 7, 2007 |
Tonight, the Council is receiving evidence in support of and in opposition to a proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment to enact a temporary moratorium on development within the Northern Study Area of Chapel Hill, excluding that portion of the area in the Joint Planning Transition Area (Map 1). The ordinance would apply to Rezoning applications, Special Use Permit applications, Major Subdivision applications and Site Plan Review applications.
A moratorium on these development applications would temporarily stop additional development proposals coming forward in the Northern Area 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.
The moratorium would terminate January 31, 2008.
Following tonight’s Public Hearing, on May 21, 2007, the Council could consider enacting an ordinance establishing a Moratorium.
On March 7, 2007, the Council held a work session to review development activity in the northern area of Chapel Hill. 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 temporary Moratorium on specific development applications for the Northern Area of the Town. Staff has conducted an evaluation of the proposal. We have presented a report to the Planning Board and tonight we submit our report and preliminary recommendation to the Council.
Public Notice
Notice was 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).
Format Tonight
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.
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.
Moratoria
A moratorium is, in effect, a Zoning Atlas Amendment for a temporary period. Given the time required to complete the procedures for enactment or amendment of development regulations or to rezone property, local governments sometimes enact moratoria on development to preserve the status quo while plans are made, management strategies are devised and reviewed, ordinances are revised, or other development management concerns addressed.
North Carolina General Statutes concerning Moratoria, G.S. 160A-381(e), states that:
“Any ordinance establishing a development moratorium must expressly include at the time of adoption each of the following:
Provision is made in the North Carolina General Statute for expedited judicial review of enacting a moratorium and the Town has the burden of showing compliance with the procedural requirements of the statute in such challenges.
The northern area of Chapel Hill includes property within different zoning districts of the Land Use Management Ordinance. Property zoning ranges from Community Commercial, which provides for the development of high-intensity commercial and service centers that serve community wide or regional commercial and service needs to Residential-1 (R-1) which is a low density residential zoning district and establishes a density cap not to exceed three units per acre.
The proposal is to enact a temporary moratorium (excepting statutory exclusions) on development within the Northern Study Area of Chapel Hill, other than the portion of the area in the Joint Planning Transition Area (Map 1). The ordinance would apply to Rezoning applications, Special Use Permit applications, Major Subdivision applications and Site Plan Review applications.
Statutory exceptions include, absent an imminent threat to public health or safety:
The following provides the status of non-single family developments and development applications in the Northern Area and identifies whether they would be stopped by a moratorium.
Current Developments Unaffected by a Moratorium:
Existing developments under construction would be unaffected by a moratorium. In addition, the following major development applications have been accepted by the Town for review, and would not be subjected to a moratorium if the Council wished to pursue one:
Concept Plan Submittals:
Concept Plans are pre-application submittals. They would not be halted by enactment of a Moratorium. The following development projects are currently being reviewed as Concept Plan Submittals. Development applications for these would be stopped by a moratorium:
Pending Rezoning:
Tonight the Council will hold a Public Hearing to consider rezoning the property between I-40 and Weaver Dairy Road and known as University Station to Residential-1. The property would be affected by a moratorium. Please refer to tonight’s separate agenda item.
Proposed Moratorium Northern Study Area of Chapel Hill, excluding that portion of the area in the Joint Planning Transition Area (Map 1)
Analysis of this proposal is organized around the requirements of the North Carolina General Statutes concerning Moratoria.
The following discussion addresses the requirements of G.S. 160A-381(e):
Development proposals are anticipated for several properties in the northern area of Town.
When considering recent proposals for new development in the area, the Council has raised concerns about the orientation, form and uses proposed and about how these proposals address the community goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Concern has been expressed about the appropriate form, density and uses within the northern area. For the development nodes and transportation corridors in the study area, the Town especially wishes to encourage transit oriented development and a mix of uses.
The Town wishes developments to be well served by alternative modes of transportation, and to make the northern area more accessible to pedestrians and bicyclists.
The Council has identified a need to provide a more detailed vision for the future of undeveloped property and property which may be redeveloped in the northern area of the Town, in particular for the development nodes and transportation corridors in the study area. The Council wishes to provide guidance for and to put regulations/standards in place to implement that vision. Time will be required to prepare, review and enact such regulations or other changes.
The following describes other actions that are being considered in lieu of a moratorium, but may not be deemed adequate.
A. Downzoning to Residential-1 (R-1)
Within the northern study area there are undeveloped properties or properties likely to be developed or redeveloped within a zoning classification other than Residential-1 (R-1). Residential-1 is the zoning district in the Land Use Management Ordinance which permits low density residential development density and some other uses.
Arguments in Support:
An action to downzone existing properties on the major transportation corridors would allow the Council to limit the scope of development without the Council first approving a rezoning. Any subsequent applications for conditional use zoning and Special Use Permit would need to be initiated by property owners, and undergo a full public review based on the Town’s Land Use Management Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. As part of the conditional zoning and permit process, the owner would have the opportunity to offer considerations for achieving the Council’s objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, including affordable housing, energy efficiency, and providing higher density residential uses and mixed-used transit-oriented developments at activity nodes and along transportation corridors.
Arguments Against:
Lower density (R-1) residential development is not consistent with the land use plan designations for many of these properties (Map 2 and Map 3). Further, residential-1 zoning may be inappropriate because a location may not be suited for residential use.
If the properties were to be developed under Residential-1 zoning, the initiative could result in higher housing prices and reduced housing choice. Houses on larger lots, due to land and infrastructure costs, generally are more expensive than houses built on smaller lots. The anticipated difference, however, may be marginal when comparing the total number of houses that could be built under Residential-1 zoning (1/3-acre lots) compared with Residential-2 (1/4-acre lots) zoning. The difference would potentially be more significant on property currently zoned for mixed uses.
The owners of these properties, if they desire to develop at a higher density or with different uses, would need to apply for conditional use rezoning with an accompanying Special Use Permit application. We do not know how many of the affected property owners would apply to have their property rezoned to a higher density residential or mixed-use transit-oriented district in the future. The property could be developed at the rezoned lower density. If no or few rezoning proposals result, this action has the potential to produce a different result: Lower density housing than what otherwise would have been built.
Subsequent rezoning to a higher density later would go through a full review and analysis in terms of the Land Use Management Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan.
Lower density (R-1) residential development is not consistent with the land use plan designations for many of these properties (Map 2 and Map 3).
We believe rezoning to Residential-1 (R-1) in lieu of a moratorium may not result in significant progress towards addressing the Council’s concern about the type and design of development along the Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Weaver Dairy Road and Eubanks Road corridors. We believe a preferred approach is for the Council to consider the recommendations of the Northern Area Task Force to establish a vision for the area. The Council could then provide more specific guidance on the design of development within these corridors.
B. Rezoning to Other Existing Districts
The Land Use Management Ordinance includes various residential and non-residential use districts. The Town has two zoning districts, other than the Town Center zones that promote transit-oriented development. At the March 7, 2007 work session the Council discussed zoning that would facilitate mixed uses and higher densities.
Arguments in Support:
The Land Use Management Ordinance includes a Mixed-Use-Village (MU-V) zoning district which promotes vertical mixed-use development in a transit-oriented fashion (such as the East 54 Development recently approved). The Town is in the process of developing standards for our Transit-Oriented Development District (TOD). The Council traditionally has not zoned property prior to receiving an application for development. This has afforded the Council greater flexibility and leverage when considering conditional use rezoning with an accompanying Special Use Permit application.
Arguments Against:
With the exception of the Mixed Use-Village zoning district, and the Transit-Oriented Development district, we believe that the existing, residential and non-residential use districts contained in the Land Use Management Ordinance are unlikely to achieve the vision for higher intensity mixed-used and transit-oriented development outlined by the Council in its work session March, 2007. The Town is developing a Transit Oriented Development District as part of its work to prepare a Long Range Transit Master Plan for the Town. Recommendations for transit-oriented regulations will be available later this year. The recommendations could be applied to the development nodes and transportation corridors in the study area.
Please refer to Attachment 3 for a matrix which outlines the three options that were considered by the Council: Moratorium, downzoning, and rezoning to other districts.
As proposed the moratorium would apply to Rezonings, Special Use Permit applications, Major Subdivision applications and Site Plan Review applications in the Northern Study Area. As recommended a moratorium would not apply to any permits associated with single family and two family homes, minor subdivisions (less than four dwelling units) or sign permits for example.
A moratorium on these specific development applications would temporarily stop additional development proposals coming forward 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.
The Council has directed the Northern Area Task Force to:
Date for termination of the moratorium is January 31, 2008.
We believe the duration is necessary to:
The Task Force has been directed to make its final report in October of 2007.
The following table sets out the proposed schedule of actions to be taken during the duration of the moratorium.
|
Key Steps |
Time |
|
Council Appoint Task Force |
April 23, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
- Council Public Hearing on Proposed moratorium and - Council Public Hearing to downzone University Station to Residential -1 District |
Mid May 7, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
Task Force (Tasks):
Task Force Proposals Drafted |
May to September, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
Present Task Force Report to Town Council Town Council Refer to Planning Board for Recommendation |
October 8, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
Planning Board Recommendation |
November, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
Council Public Hearing |
As early as November 12, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
Council Action |
As early as January, 2008 |
|
|
|
Recommendations are summarized below.
Planning Board Recommendation: On May 1, 2007, the Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the Zoning Atlas Amendment for a Moratorium. A Summary of Planning Board Action will be circulated at the Council Meeting.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council enact a temporary moratorium on development within the Northern Study Area of Chapel Hill, excluding that portion of the area in the Joint Planning Transition Area (Map 1). The proposed moratorium would apply to Rezonings, Special Use Permit applications, Major Subdivision applications and Site Plan Review applications in the Northern Study Area.
We believe that a moratorium 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.
We believe that the justification for the moratorium is the time required to:
Following tonight’s Public Hearing, we will complete an evaluation of the evidence submitted in support of and in opposition to this proposal. We anticipate returning to the Council May 21, 2007. If the Council determines on May 21 that a Moratorium is the appropriate action, we recommend enactment of the attached ordinance. If the Council decides not to enact the ordinance, no action would be required by the Council.
