|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director David Bonk, Long Range and Transportation Coordinator Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator |
|
SUBJECT: |
Public Hearing: Northern Area – Proposed Zoning Atlas Amendments for Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3 (File No. 9870-88-7284) |
|
DATE: |
November 12, 2007 |
INTRODUCTION
This Public Hearing has been called for consideration of Zoning Atlas Amendments for areas composed of multiple lots in the northern area of Town, as indicated on the attached map (Attachment 1), from Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) to the Mixed Use-Village (MU-V) zoning district. The Council may also consider changing the zoning in each area to Residential-1A (R-1A), or Residential-1 (R-1), or Residential-2A (R-2A), or Residential-2 (R-2). Rezonings are one of the options being considered by the Council related to closure of the temporary moratorium in the Northern Area. The temporary moratorium will conclude on or before January 31, 2008.
There are two accompanying proposals before the Council tonight regarding the Northern Area. Please see the accompanying memoranda and the attached cover memorandum from the Town Manager for additional information.
The areas under consideration for rezoning are composed of multiple lots and are identified as Area 1: Orange County Parcel Identifier Numbers 9880-08-4202 and 9870-88-7284; Area 2, Orange County Parcel Identifier Numbers 9880-56-2680, 9880-36-9150, 9880-36-6173, 9880-36-8223, 9880-36-4239, 9880-36-5077, 9880-36-3057, 9880-36-3122, 9880-35-2934, 9880-35-6911, 9880-35-3993, 9880-35-6747, 9880-35-4739, and 9880-35-2871; and Area 3, Orange County Parcel Identifier Numbers 9880-35-0595, 9880-24-8576, 9880-25-8495, 9880-25-9324, 9880-35-0055, 9880-34-1963 and 9880-24-9982.
DISCUSSION
The Northern Area Task Force Report included a vision statement, goals and objectives to shape the type of development envisioned for the Northern Area and included recommendations for future development in focus areas within the Northern Area. The focus area recommendations generally outline the preferred form and density of development and redevelopment. As part of the work of the Task Force, the Town engaged consultants to prepare concepts for the development and redevelopment of the focus areas. The consultants worked with the Task Force in two work sessions to discuss and revise concepts for the future development in the area. The Task Force included the conceptual plans as an addendum to their report for illustrative purposes.
We identified strategies at the October 8, 2007 Council meeting as appropriate actions to conclude the Northern Area moratorium and to begin implementation of the Northern Area Task Force recommendations. The recommended strategies for concluding the moratorium included:
This discussion will focus on recommendation 3, rezoning selected properties. The other two recommended initial strategies are discussed in detail in the accompanying memoranda.
Mixed Use-Village: Assuming the changes to Mixed Use-Village zoning discussed in the preceding agenda item are enacted, the Council could consider rezoning Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3 from Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) to Mixed Use-Village (MU-V) as indicated on the attached map and table (Attachments 4 and 5). We believe that the Mixed Use-Village (MU-V) zoning district could further the mixed use and transit oriented objectives of the Council. The existing Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) zoning district has not been successful in ensuring integrated mixed use development and has resulted in suburban style development. The existing Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) zoning district would permit a mix of office and commercial development without residential for example, whereas the higher intensity, Mixed Use-Village (MU-V) zoning district promotes a vertical mix of office / commercial and residential. We therefore believe that rezoning undeveloped and underdeveloped properties from Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) to Mixed Use-Village (MU-V) could better ensure the implementation of the recommendations of the Northern Area Task Force Report and associated Transit Oriented Development Concept Plans. The Mixed Use-Village zoning incorporates many of the design and development principles needed to support transit oriented development. We have identified properties the Council may consider for rezoning on the corresponding map and table identifying the lots (Attachments 4 and 5).
Low-Density Residential: Alternatively, some Council members expressed interest in rezoning Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3 from Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) to either Residential-1A (R-1A), or Residential-1 (R-1), or Residential-2A (R-2A) or Residential-2 (R-2) zoning district rather than Mixed Use-Village (MU-V). We understand this option is viewed as maintaining maximum legislative authority and leverage when reviewing development proposals.
We note that the same proposed rezonings are not required to apply to all three areas but may, for example, apply to one or two of the three areas. Finally, each of the three areas may be rezoned to different zoning districts, such as Area 1 being rezoned to Residential-1 (R-1) and Areas 2 and 3 being rezoned to Mixed Use-Village (MU-V)).
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 initiative is a general use rezoning proposal.
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 legislative discretionary authority to approve or deny a rezoning proposal. Ordinance A would approve these rezonings from Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) to the Mixed Use-Village (MU-V) zoning district. Ordinance B would approve these rezonings from Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) to either Residential-1A (R-1A), or Residential-1 (R-1), or Residential-2A (R-2A) or Residential-2 (R-2) zoning district.
Opportunity for a protest petition to a proposed amendment to the Zoning Atlas is provided for under North Carolina Statutes. If a sufficient protest petition is filed with the Town Clerk at least 2 business days prior to the date of the Public Hearing, the proposed rezoning(s) shall not become effective except by favorable vote of not less than three-fourths of the Council. Copies of protest petition forms and additional information are available from the Planning Department or the Town Clerk.
ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSAL
Analysis of this application 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.
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.
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: We believe that changed or changing conditions in the particular area would support the proposed rezonings to MU-V. A number of development proposals in the approved, proposed, and concept plan stages of review have been submitted to the Town for the Northern Area of Town. We believe that these development proposals, in conjunction with existing and recently completed development constitute changed conditions and could justify the proposed rezonings from Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) to either Mixed Use-Village (MU-V) zoning district or one of the low density zones. Recent development proposals include the following:
Approved Applications
Accepted Development Applications:
Concept Plan or Pre-Application Submittals:
Arguments in Opposition: To date, no evidence has been submitted indicating that this proposal would not be based on changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally.
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: If the Comprehensive Plan is amended to include the Final Report of the Chapel Hill Northern Area Task Force as well as the associated Transit Oriented Development Concept Plans, we believe the identification of Areas 1, 2, and 3 for transit-oriented development could be used to justify rezoning the Areas to the amended Mixed Use-Village (MU-V) zoning district.
Arguments in Opposition: To date, no evidence has been submitted indicating that this proposal would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Additional Information: We note that the Comprehensive Plan, adopted on May 8, 2000, identifies these areas as mixed use/office emphasis and mixed use/office-commercial emphasis, in the adopted Land Use Plan, an existing component of the Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendations are summarized below.
Planning Board: The Planning Board will meet on November 20, 2007. We will provide a Summary of Planning Board Action when it is available.
Transportation Board: The Transportation Board met on October 25, 2007 and did not make a recommendation on the proposed rezoning.
A copy of the Transportation Board Summary Action is attached to the memorandum.
Community Design Commission: The Community Design Commission met on October 24 and voted 9-0 to recommend that the Council adopt Ordinance B to rezone the areas composed of multiple lots, including Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3, from Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) to Residential-1 (R-1).
A copy of the Community Design Commission Summary Action is attached to the memorandum.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee met on September 25, 2007 and voted 8-0 and October 23, 2007 and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council adopt Ordinance B to rezone the areas composed of multiple lots, including Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3, from Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) to Residential-1 (R-1).
Copies of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Summary Action are attached to the memorandum.
Preliminary Recommendation: We believe that the rezoning to Mixed Use-Village could be justified based on findings B and C, as described above. Our preliminary recommendation is that the Council enact the attached Ordinance A, rezoning the areas composed of multiple lots, including Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3, from Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) to the Mixed Use-Village (MU-V) zoning district, as amended.
Ordinance B would rezone the areas composed of multiple lots, including Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3, from Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) to either Residential-1A (R-1A), or Residential-1 (R-1), or Residential-2A (R-2A) or Residential-2 (R-2) zoning district.
Northern Area Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments
DIFFERENCES AMONG ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
|
ISSUES |
Staff Preliminary |
Planning Board |
Transportation Board |
Comm. Design Commission |
Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Board |
|
Rezone Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3 from Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) to the Mixed Use-Village (MU-V) zoning district.
|
Yes |
Recommendation to Come, Will Vote November 20, 2007 |
* |
No |
No |
|
Rezone Area 1, Area 2, and Area 3 from Mixed Use-Office/Institutional-1 (MU-OI-1) to either Residential-1A (R-1A), or Residential-1 (R-1), or Residential-2A (R-2A) or Residential-2 (R-2) zoning district.
|
No |
Recommendation to Come, Will Vote November 20, 2007 |
* |
Yes, Rezone to Residential-1 (R-1) |
Yes, Rezone to Residential-1 (R-1) |
*Did not make a recommendation on this item.
ATTACHMENTS
