MEMORANDUM
|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator |
|
SUBJECT: |
Public Hearing: Residences at Grove Park - Zoning Atlas Amendment: Conditional Rezoning Application (File No. 9788-39-4841) |
|
DATE: |
March 10, 2008 |
PURPOSE
The purpose of this public hearing is to consider an application from Ram Development Company for a conditional use rezoning for Residences at Grove Park. We recommend that the Council enact the attached Ordinance amending the zoning atlas as proposed by the applicant.
DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
Zoning determines the type and intensity of uses and development that are allowed on a piece of land. An application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment for rezoning involves a change to the current zoning, and thus the permitted types and intensity of land uses.
The application proposes to rezone a 12.9-acre site from Residential-4 (R-4) and Residential-6 (R-6) to the proposed Residential-Higher Density 3-Conditional (R-HD3-C). The applicant has also submitted an accompanying application for a Special Use Permit to construct a multi-family development with 346 units and 580 parking spaces. Please see the accompanying memoranda for information regarding the proposed Residential – Higher Density Zoning Districts, and proposed Special Use Permit.
The site is located between Hillsborough Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. at 624 and 626 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. and at 425 and 429 Hillsborough Street. The site includes four parcels and is identified as Parcel Identification Numbers 9788-49-1706, 9788-49-4924, and portions of 624 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. (9788-39-4841), and 626 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. (9788-39-4857).
CONDITIONAL USE REZONING REQUEST
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. The applicant, Ram Development Company, has submitted a Conditional Use Zoning application and a Special Use Permit application.
With respect to conditional use rezoning requests, the Council has adopted two Resolutions (attached) stating the Council’s expectations associated with the accompanying Special Use Permit application. The first Resolution outlines the Council’s desire for the submission of an energy management plan with the Special Use Permit application associated with a rezoning. The second Resolution states the Council’s desire that the Special Use Permit associated with a rezoning application include an affordable housing component. For additional information on the applicant’s response to these expectations, as adopted by the Council, please refer to the Affordable Housing and Energy Management section in the Staff Report attached to the Residence at Grove Park Special Use Permit memorandum.
PROTEST PETITION
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 Town Council. Copies of protest petition forms and additional information are available from the Planning Department or the Town Clerk. A copy of the signed statement certifying mailed notice and posted sign verification is attached.
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. 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, 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.
ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION
Analysis of an application to amend the zoning atlas is organized around the requirement of the Land Use Management Ordinance as stated in Article 4.4 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. Article 4.4 states that the Land Use Management Ordinance (including the zoning atlas) 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.
Each of these requirements, with respect to this proposed rezoning application, is discussed below:
A) An amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance (rezoning) is necessary to correct a manifest error in the chapter (zoning atlas).
Staff Comment: We believe the information in the record to date can be summarized as follows:
· Argument in Support: The applicant has not offered any arguments to support this circumstance. We are unable to identify any arguments in support of a manifest error.
· Argument in Opposition: To date no arguments in opposition have been submitted.
B) An amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance (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: The applicant has not offered any arguments to support this circumstance. We are unable to identify any arguments in support of a manifest error.
· Arguments in Opposition: To date, no arguments in opposition have been submitted.
C) An amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance 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 (please see attached Statement). Portions of the applicant’s Statement of Justification are copied below:
“Maintain the Urban Services Area/Rural Buffer Boundary – By redeveloping a Downtown site rather than challenging the buffer with additional suburban track development, the Residences at Grove Park project alleviates suburban sprawl by providing a significant choice for new residential development on one of the few remaining sites where such development (R-HD1, R-HD2, and R-HD3) is encouraged and appropriate. Additionally, this new opportunity for healthy density is created with little additional infrastructure required since the utilities and base services are already present.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Conserve and protect existing neighborhoods - Since the area inside the Urban Services Area is approximately 94% built out, one of the few remaining opportunities for Chapel Hill to accommodate the nearly 50% population growth forecast in the 2035 Long Range Plan is to seek out sustainable urban redevelopment sites like 425 Hillsborough St. With developments like Grove Park handling the new growth, the character, and nature of Chapel Hill’s historic neighborhoods can be protected.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Create and preserve affordable housing opportunities – In cooperation with Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, we will provide our 15% affordable housing requirement with 52 affordable bedrooms in a mix of one and two bedroom condominiums in order to provide a flexible affordable housing opportunity that meets the needs of the community. ” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Work toward a balanced transportation system - By design, the Residences at Grove Park brings more residents to the walkable Downtown environment. The proximity of these new residents to downtown should reduce overall automobile trips as well as providing the necessary density to properly support the growing bus system provided by Chapel Hill. More directly though, the improvements Grove Park brings to the pedestrian connections already on our site and the bus corridors it borders will encourage pedestrians, bikes, and bus ridership through out the area and be a model for other developments along the Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. transit corridor.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Complete the bikeway/greenway/sidewalk system – The new pedestrian and bicycle amenities provided by the Grove Park design are built specifically to provide connectivity to Downtown and encourage its revitalization. Along with the Downtown connections and our RCD improvements, we are dedicating a greenway easement to improve connectivity to the Bolin Creek Greenway system and other established pathways for the Town.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Provide quality community facilities and services – From the well-lit and secure subterranean parking decks to the expansive green spaces and active recreation areas enjoyed by all our residences, the Grove Park project will improve the RCD and the currently clear-cut site to make it a model community for sustainable infill and renewal.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Arguments in Opposition: To date, no arguments have been submitted indicating that this development would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Additional Information: The Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, adopted on May 8, 2000, identifies this area for residential density of 8-15 units/acre.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board tabled this application to the March 4, 2008 meeting. We anticipate handing out the Planning Board’s recommendation on this application at tonight’s meeting.
Staff Preliminary Recommendation: We recommend that Council enact the attached Ordinance, rezoning a 12.9-acre assemblage of two lots and portions of two other lots from Residential-4 (R-4) and Residential-6 (R-6) to Residential-Higher Density 3-Conditional (R-HD 3-C). We believe that the rezoning could be justified based on finding C as described above.
ATTACHMENTS
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (March 10, 2008)
