to: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
from: J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director
Gene Poveromo, Development Manager
subject: Residences at Grove Park at 425 Hillsborough Street, Application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment
date: February 23, 2009
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from January 12, 2009 for a revised rezoning application from Ram Development Company. The application proposes to rezone 12.9 acres from Residential-4 (R-4) and Residential-6 (R-6) to the amended Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) district.
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 enacted 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.
The applicant has submitted a revised Statement of Justification demonstrating how the application complies with the amended Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district (attached).
Two issues were identified during the September 17, 2008 Public Hearing: 1) Protest petition; and 2) arguments in opposition to the rezoning. For additional information on these issues, please refer to the following sections on Protest Petition and Analysis of the Application.
PROTEST PETITION
The Town Clerk received a petition protesting the proposed rezoning and staff has confirmed that the petition is valid and sufficient under State Statutes.
Staff Comment: Because a valid petition protesting the proposed rezoning has been presented to the Town Clerk, State Statutes require an affirmative vote by 7 out of 9 Council Members in order to approve the Zoning Atlas Amendment.
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: 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: The information in the record thus far can be summarized as follows:
C) An amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance is necessary to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: 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).The Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district includes nine Comprehensive Plan goals and objective statements. The rezoning could be justified based on Finding C because objectives of the Comprehensive Plan as noted in the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district, are being achieved as described below:
1. Promotion of affordable housing on-site and off-site when appropriate, that complies with or exceeds the Council’s current affordable housing policy.
Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant is proposing to provide 26 bedrooms in a mix of one and two bedroom units, a payment–in-lieu of $85,000 for 13 units, and a transfer fee associated with sale-resale of properties.
Staff Comment: This proposal complies with the Town’s current policy and achieves the goal and objective in the R-SS-C district of providing affordable housing.
2. Implementation of an energy management and conservation plan that addresses carbon reduction, water conservation and other conservation measures that comply with or exceed the Council’s current energy management/ conservation policies.
Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant is proposing sub-metering for OWASA water for each individual residential building and providing 75% of parking below ground. The applicant has also committed to being 20% more energy efficient then ASHRAE90.1 standards.
Staff Comment: This proposal complies with the Town’s current energy management policy and achieves the goal and objective in the R-SS-C district of energy management.
3. Encouragement of a balanced private and public transportation system that promotes connectivity and safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians including direct and/or indirect improvements to the community’s transportation systems.
Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant has committed approximately $200,000 in off-site improvements to the public transit system, $50,000 for a pedestrian refuge on Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., and $10,000 for traffic calming measures.
Staff Comment: This proposal provides improvements to the Town’s transit and pedestrian infrastructure and achieves the goal and objective of the R-SS-C district with respect to the community’s transportation system.
4. Support of a healthy downtown district by identifying or providing reasonably accessible pedestrian/bicycle and non-vehicular access to downtown.
Applicant’s Proposal: The Residences at Grove Park is less than half a mile from the downtown district and located directly along two major bus, bicycle, and pedestrian corridors connecting it to downtown.
Staff Comment: The proposed development is locate within an area that includes reasonable pedestrian/bicycle access to the downtown and therefore achieves this goal and objective of the R-SS-C district with respect to the downtown district non-vehicular access.
5. Promotion of Art (Private or Public) in private development that is visually accessible to the public and/or providing direct/indirect opportunities for public art.
Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant is proposing a payment-in-lieu of $25,000 to the Town for art at an off-site location.
Staff Comment: The applicant’s proposal complies with the goal and objective of the Pprovision of the R-SS-C district with respect to private or public art.
6. Protection of adjoining residential uses and neighborhoods with appropriate screening/buffering and/or architectural design elements that is congruous and sensitive to the surrounding residential areas.
Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant has responded to concerns regarding the adjacent Franklin-Rosemary historic district. The Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district does not require landscape buffers along any property lines. The applicant is proposing landscape buffers along both the north and south property lines.
The applicant also states that the proposed buildings along Hillsborough Street are to be constructed with building heights compatible to building heights in the adjacent historic district. The facades of the proposed buildings along Hillsborough Street are also proposed to contain similar architectural elements and building features as nearby structures in the adjacent historic district.
Staff Comment: The applicant’s proposal, with respect to building heights and architectural features, is an attempt to comply with the goal and objective of the R-SS-C district, with respect to neighborhood protection. To provide greater certainty that the applicant’s intent will be realized, we recommend that the Special Use Permit include a stipulation concerning building elevations along Hillsborough Street.
We recommend that the Community Design Commission review and approval of these structures be undertaken with the goal that: 1) the building heights be compatible to building heights in the adjacent historic district; and 2) the facades of the proposed buildings also contain similar architectural elements and building features as nearby structures in the adjacent historic district.
Evidence presented during the Council’s consideration of the Special Use Permit described unwelcome pedestrian movements between the Townhouse development and the adjacent neighborhoods. For additional information on this subject please refer to the Discussion section in the associated Special Use Permit memorandum.
7. Protection/restoration of the natural environment by implementing program(s) addressing stream restoration, wildlife habitat, woodland, meadow restoration, steep slope protection, and exotic invasive vegetation management, including programs that encourage private/public partnership to restore and enhance environmental resources.
Applicant’s Proposal: Along with the North Carolina Botanical Garden, the applicant proposes to remediate the Resource Conservation District portion of the site by removing invasive exotic plant material and replanting the area with native species.
Staff Comment: The applicant’s proposal, to work with the North Carolina Botanical Garden, complies with the goal and objective of the R-SS-C district as it relates to restoration of the natural environment.
8. Promotion of green and ecologically sound developments.
Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant is proposing to “use environmental best practice measures as well as design changes to ensure materials are recycled, procured, extracted and produced locally to minimize our initial carbon footprint.”
Staff Comment: The applicant’s proposal, to preserve several rare oak tree, manage invasive exotic plant growth, incorporate 20% more energy efficiency features into building construction, and provide a greenway easement complies with the goal and objective of the R-SS-C district as it related to green and ecological developments.
9. Encouragement of a community character that promotes economic vitality, environmental protection and social equity.
Applicant’s Proposal: Regarding economic vitality, the applicant proposes to increase the value of the property. For environmental protection, the applicant proposes to moderate existing man-made, steep slopes, remove invasive exotic plants and replant with native plants. Regarding social equity, the applicant proposes an on-site affordable housing component along with a payment-in-lieu.
Staff Comment: The applicant’s proposal, as described in the above statement complies with the goal and objective of the R-SS-C district as it related to this objective of the Economic Development Strategy.
In addition, at the September 17, 2008 Public Hearing, a citizen spoke about concerns with public water impacts and a second citizen spoke about concerns with traffic congestion.
Staff Comment: For additional information please refer to the Recommendation section of the memorandum and the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.
Additional Information: The Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, identifies this area for residential density of 8-15 units/acre.
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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board met on August 19, 2008 and voted 4-2 to recommend that the Council deny the rezoning application. The Planning Board stated a concern that the proposed text amendment to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional district and rezoning application may set a precedent for creating special zoning districts for individual projects.
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 enact the attached Ordinance, rezoning the site from Residential-4 (R-4) and Residential-6 (R-6) to the Residential–Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) zoning district. We believe that the rezoning could be justified based on Finding C, as described above, associated with goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
The attached Resolution would deny the rezoning request.
1. Revised Statement of Justification (p. 9).
2. Citizen Email (p. 16).
3. Planning Board Summary Action from August 19, 2008. http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2008/09/17/3/3-4-pb_action_20080818.htm
4. Metes and Bounds Rezoning Map. http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2008/09/17/3/3-10-rezoning_boundary_exhibit.pdf
5. Rezoning Area Map. http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2008/09/17/3/3-11-area_map_grove_park.gif
6. Protest Petition. http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2008/09/17/3/3-3-protest_petition.pdf
7. September 17, 2008 Public Hearing Residences at Grove Park Zoning Atlas Amendment http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2008/09/17/3/3-staff_memo.htm
