TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM: J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director
Gene Poveromo, Development Manager
SUBJECT: Aydan Court, 2100 NC-54 East – Application for Zoning Atlas Amendment
DATE: February 9, 2009
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from October 20, 2008 for a rezoning application from Cazco Incorporated to rezone the 5.8 acre site from Residential-1 (R-1) to the amended Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C), located on the north side of NC-54 across from Downing Creek Parkway. The property is identified as Durham County Parcel Identifier Number 9798-03-94-6008.
An accompanying Special Use Permit application for a multi-family development was submitted by the applicant. A text amendment amending the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional district was enacted on November 24, 2008. The applicant is proposing to rezone the property to the recently amended Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district. Please see the accompanying memorandum for additional information.
At the November 24, 2008 Council meeting, the Council adopted an ordinance to amend the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district. The amendment to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district increased the permitted floor area and referenced nine goals and objective statements from the Comprehensive Plan. Please see additional information on the development objectives under the Analysis of Application section below.
At the October 20 Public Hearing an issue was raised related to whether the Aydan Court rezoning applicant would be in compliance with the amended Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district. Subsequent to the November 24 Council meeting, the applicant has submitted a revised Statement of Justification with arguments that the application complies with the amended Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district as well as a statement of compliance for the R-SS-C zoning district (Attachments 1 and 2). For additional information on this issue, please refer to the following section, Analysis of the Application.
PROTEST PETITION
A citizen or citizens opposed to this proposed rezoning may 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 from time to time.
As of the deadline specified above we did not receive a valid protest petition for the Zoning Atlas Amendment application.
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:
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:
“The Town of Chapel Hill adopted the current Comprehensive Plan in 2000. Since that time, the Council has undertaken a number of additional planning initiatives. These actions all reflect the awareness that a Comprehensive Plan is a guide for growth, but that conditions change and that the specific means and methods for implementation of the goals and objectives of that plan often respond to the changed conditions. These additional activities have resulted in:”
“The NC 54 corridor between the NC54/15-501 By-Pass and the eastern boundary of the Town of Chapel Hill is another area in which conditions have changed during the past 6 years. NC 54 is and has been for many years the primary entry to the southern areas of Chapel Hill and particularly to the campus of the University of North Carolina.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“As Chapel Hill has grown, re-development at contemporary market density for both residential and non-residential development has been proposed and approved along this NC 54 Corridor. These developments have been approved at densities and floor area intensities that resulted in zoning map and text amendments that increased the amount of activity permitted.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Meadowmont was approved in the mid 1990’s. It added office, retail, and residential development at higher intensities in the NC 54 corridor, along with public facilities such as an elementary school and public recreation facilities. Early in 2007, the Council approved a map and text amendment to increase the density of and change the mix of uses for East 54, a higher density mixed-use development.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Currently, a Special Use Permit and a Zoning Map Amendment proposal are being considered for the proposed Woodmont mixed-use development located on the south side of NC 54 near the Aydan Court proposal.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Please refer to the attached applicant’s revised Statement of Justification for additional information (Attachment 1).
C) An amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance is necessary to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
We believe the information in the record thus far can be summarized as follows:
Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant is proposing to provide 4 affordable units onsite, a $78,000 payment–in-lieu for 4.8 affordable units, and a transfer fee associated with sale-resale of properties.
Staff Comment: The Council’s affordable housing policy is that residential developments provide 15% affordable housing onsite. On January 26, the Council modified its policy statement to include an option to accept a payment-in-lieu of providing affordable housing. We believe that the applicant’s proposal, to provide a combination of affordable housing and a payment-in-lieu complies with the Council’s current affordable housing policy and the Comprehensive Plan
Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant is committed to 1) providing 20% more energy efficiency than ASHRAE90.1 standards and 2) providing water conservation and stormwater management measures thorough stormwater harvesting.
Staff Comment: We believe the applicant’s proposal complies with the Council’s current energy management/conservation policies and the Comprehensive Plan.
Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant is proposing offsite improvements to the public transportation system including facilities for vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The improvements include paired leftover lanes on NC-54, a $17,000 payment-in-lieu of transit facilities to be located on the NC-54 frontage of the site, and a proposal to extend the pedestrian/bicycle trail to be connected to the existing trail near Meadowmont.
Staff Comment: This proposal provides improvements to the Town’s, road, transit and pedestrian infrastructure. We believe the applicant’s proposal complies with this objective of the Comprehensive Plan.
Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant proposes that it has bicycle and pedestrian access via the bicycle and pedestrian trail along NC-54 as well as bicycle access on NC-54 to downtown. The applicant further proposes that Meadowmont represents a neighborhood center that is more immediately accessible.
Staff Comment: We do not believe that the proposed development is located such that is has reasonable pedestrian access to downtown. An experienced cyclist could ride a bicycle downtown in approximately 15 minutes along the greenway trail and Raleigh Road. The development also would be an approximately 10 minute walk or 3 minute bike ride to the Meadowmont village center on the extended Greenway/bicycle trail that the applicant is proposing to provide. However, we do not believe that the applicant complies with this objective of the Comprehensive Plan.
Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant is proposing that the landscape forms and developed common areas promote art in private development.
Staff Comment: We do not believe the applicant’s proposal complies with this objective of the Comprehensive Plan.
Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant notes that the proposed Aydan Court is not adjacent to any existing or proposed residential uses or neighborhoods and therefore this Comprehensive Plan goal is not applicable to this development.
Staff Comment: We believe the applicant’s proposal complies with this objective of the Comprehensive Plan.
Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant has responded that they are preserving an intermittent stream corridor, managing erosion and sediment during and after construction, protecting steep slopes, and using organic landscaping practices.
Staff Comment: This proposed development will disturb steep slopes and an intermittent stream. We do not believe the applicant’s proposal complies with these objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant has responded that they are promoting green development by proposing organic landscape practices, and limiting off-site stormwater impacts by proposing stormwater harvesting and reducing energy demand.
Staff Comment: We believe that some of the elements of the applicant’s proposal comply with this objective of the Comprehensive Plan.
Applicant’s Proposal: Regarding community character, the applicant proposes to provide a green well-screened frontage along the NC-54 entryway to Chapel Hill. The applicant proposes to fulfill the economic vitality goal by adding to the Chapel Hill tax base as well as providing the additional purchasing power of new residents. Regarding social equity, the applicant proposes an on-site affordable housing component as well as a payment-in-lieu of affordable housing.
Staff Comment: We believe that some of the elements of the applicant’s proposal comply with this objective of the Comprehensive Plan.
Arguments in Opposition: The Planning Board met on September 2, 2008 and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council deny the Zoning Atlas Amendment application for Aydan Court. The Board did not believe that the application complied with the Comprehensive Plan. For additional information please refer to the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.
Staff Comment: For additional information please refer to the Recommendation section of the memorandum and the attached Summary of Planning Board Action (Part of Attachment 5).
Additional Information: The Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, identifies this area for residential density of 3 units/acre.
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
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.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board met on September 2, 2008 and voted 8-0 to recommend that the Council deny the Zoning Atlas Amendment application for Aydan Court. The Board did not believe that the application complied with the Comprehensive Plan. For additional information please refer to the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.
Further, the Board wished to communicate to the Council their continued support for the Special Use Permit application but not the Text Amendment associated with the Zoning Atlas Amendment for Residences at Grove Park, with a 6-0 vote.
Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council approve the Resolution of denial to rezone the site from Residential-1 (R-1) to the amended Residential–Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) zoning district. We do not believe that the rezoning could be justified based on Finding C, as described above. We believe the proposed development does not comply with the following goals and objectives:
The Council could alternately find that the applicant has fulfilled these goals, allowing approval of this rezoning request.
ATTACHMENTS
[See also the Town Manager’s memorandum]
