AGENDA #12a
|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator |
|
SUBJECT: |
Homestead Twin Towns – Application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment |
|
|
(File Number 9870-64-8194) |
|
DATE: |
May 21, 2007 |
Enactment of the attached Ordinance would rezone a 21.5-acre site from Residential-2 (R-2) to Residential-4 (R-4). The site is located on the south side of Homestead Road just west of Seawell School Road and is identified as Orange County Parcel Identifier Numbers 9870-61-8194, a portion of 9870-61-8593, a portion of 9870-70-1770, and 9870-71-3197.
The applicant has submitted an accompanying application for a Special Use Permit. The Special Use Permit application proposes a multi-family development with 72 units and 139 parking spaces. Please see the accompanying memorandum for additional information.
This package of material has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
We note that this site is located outside of Chapel Hill’s corporate limits, in the Town’s northern Joint Planning Transition Area (JPA). Approval of the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment will require joint approval by the Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners. A Joint Planning Public Hearing of the Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners was held on April 26, 2007.
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 at the southwest corner of the intersection of Homestead Road and Seawell School Road. The Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, as amended, in this location is designated as “Low Residential,” one to four units per acre. The Residential-4-Conditional (R-4-C) zoning district allows a residential density of up to 10 units per acre. The accompanying Special Use Permit application calls for a density of approximately 3.3 units per acre.
On April 17, 2007, the Council held a public hearing to receive comments on the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment. A copy of the April 17, 2007 memorandum is attached. On April 26, 2007 the Orange County Commission and the Council held a Joint Public Hearing on the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment application.
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 conditional rezoning request and is accompanied by a Special Use Permit application.
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:
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.
There were no issues raised during the April 17, 2007 public hearing regarding the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment 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) 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.
b) 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: To date, no arguments have been submitted in opposition to changed or changing conditions.
c) 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 (Attachment 4), which provides several references to the Comprehensive Plan. Portions of the applicant’s Statement of Justification are copied below:
“The area of Chapel Hill surrounding the proposed “Homestead Twins” has received a new park, a social and community services center, senior center, and a new fire station and will in the near future be home of the University of North Carolina’s next public-private campus. The proposed Homestead Twins will place homes within walking distance or a short commute to all of these existing services. This will further the goals of the Comprehensive Plan by reducing automobile traffic, encouraging walking and biking and directing the development of housing where infrastructure already exist.” [Applicant Statement]
“The proposed community is located within walking distance to Seawell Elementary, Smith Middle School, and Chapel Hill High School. As part of our proposed plan, we will construct a sidewalk along Seawell School Road to connect the community with the schools. It has become clear that there are significant advantages to having our children walk to school. It is safer, healthier, and less costly than riding a bus, kids get to know their fellow students and neighbors, it frees up traffic and congestions around schools at drop off and pick up times, and it is simply better for the environment.” [Applicant Statement]
Arguments in Opposition: To date, no arguments have been submitted indicating that this development would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Citizens opposed to this proposed rezoning could 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. Any petition shall:
We did not receive any protest petitions for the Zoning Atlas Amendment application.
Recommendations are summarized below. Please see the attached summary of recommendations from the Planning Board, Community Design Commission, Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, Transportation Board, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Greenways Commission.
Planning Board Recommendation: On April 3, 2007, the Planning Board voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the Zoning Atlas Amendment application.
Staff Recommendation: We believe that the rezoning could be warranted based on finding (c), as described above. Our recommendation is that the Council enact the attached ordinance, rezoning the property from Residential-2 (R-2) to Residential-4 (R-4). The rezoning would not be effective until the County Commissioners take a similar action.
The attached Resolution would deny the rezoning request.
