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: March 23, 2009
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council continues the Public Hearing from October 20, 2008, December 8, 2008 and February 9, 2009 for a rezoning application from Cazco Incorporated to rezone a 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.
A text amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance, amending the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) zoning district is also being considered tonight. Also, an accompanying Special Use Permit application for a multi-family development was submitted by the applicant. Please see the accompanying memoranda for additional information.
We have identified the following issue related to this development.
Alternative Zoning District: A Council member inquired if there is an appropriate zoning district other than the proposed amended Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) district and also what other zones were considered prior to the R-SS-C zoning district?
Staff Comment: We believe that the recommended amended version of the R-SS-C zoning district is the most appropriate district for the proposed Aydan Court rezoning application. The R-SS-C zoning district has a floor area ratio of 1.1, which is able to accommodate the proposed floor area of the Aydan Court development. The proposal is considered medium density (9.9 units/acre) however, the proposed floor area is 180,170 square feet, thereby requiring a zoning district with a higher floor area ratio. The residential zoning district with the next highest floor area ratio is 0.303 in the R-6 zoning district. Please find the approximate sequence of zoning districts proposed for the Aydan Court site below.
May 14, 2007: The applicant submitted a Concept Plan indicating the likely submittal of a rezoning to the Residential-5 (R-5) zoning district.
August 31, 2007: The applicant submitted Zoning Atlas Amendment, Special Use Permit, and Land Use Management Ordinance text amendment applications for the Aydan Court development proposal. The requested rezoning was to a new Residential-Five-Affordable Housing (R-5-AH) zoning district.
December 15, 2007: The staff recommended that Aydan Court applicant consider a proposed new zoning district, Residential Higher Density-2-Conditional (R-HD-2-C) for the proposed development. The proposed zoning district text amendment was already in process.
May 5, 2008: The Council denied the requested Land Use Management Ordinance text amendment to create Residential-Higher Density-Conditional zoning districts. The Council asked that staff amend an existing zoning district that could accommodate higher density development. The staff chose the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) zoning district for this purpose.
June 30, 2008: The staff recommended that the Aydan Court applicant consider the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) zoning district for the proposed development. The R-SS-C zoning district was in the process of being amended.
November 24, 2008: The Council approved a Land Use Management Ordinance text amendment for the R-SS-C zoning district.
February 9, 2009: The Council provided guidance to the staff to return on March 23, 2009 with an additional Land Use Management Ordinance text amendment to enhance the flexibility of the R-SS-C zoning district.
March 16, 2009: The Council held a Public Hearing to consider a new Land Use Management Ordinance text amendment for the R-SS-C zoning district.
The Council will consider an ordinance to amend the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district tonight. The recommended amendment to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district changes the number of objective statements from the Comprehensive Plan that must be complied with. Please see additional information on the development objectives under the Analysis of Application section below.
The applicant has submitted a revised Statement of Justification with arguments that the application complies with the amended 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 and assumes that the Council enacts Ordinance B in the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional text amendment item before the Council tonight. 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: Arguments in support of this finding are offered below and in the attached applicant’s revised Statement of Justification (Attachment 1).
“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).
· Argument in Opposition: To date no arguments in opposition have been submitted.
text-align:left'>
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:
An applicant must demonstrate that the associated Special Use Permit application achieves the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan by complying with each of the following objectives:
· Arguments in Support: Arguments in support of this finding are offered in the applicant’s Statement of Compliance (Attachment 2). The Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district includes nine Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. They are followed by applicant proposals and staff responses. For more detailed information please refer to the applicant’s Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district Statement of Compliance.
1. Objective: 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 4 affordable units onsite, a $85,000 payment—in-lieu for 4.7 affordable units ($399,500) and a 1% transfer fee associated with sale-resale of properties.
Staff Comment: On January 26, the Council modified its policy statement to include an option of accepting a payment-in-lieu of providing affordable housing to the previous requirement to provide 15% affordable housing onsite. 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.
2. Objective: 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 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.
3. Objective: 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 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 2,000 feet 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.
4. Objective: Support of a healthy downtown district and/or neighborhood commercial/ employment centers by identifying or providing reasonable accessible pedestrian/bicycle and non-vehicular access to downtown/centers.
In support of this objective, the proposed development shall be located within a reasonable walking/cycling distance of downtown or within a reasonable walking/cycling distance of a neighborhood commercial /employment center, and include frontage along one of the following transportation corridors:
· NC 54 between Town limits and US 15-501; or
· Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. between Rosemary Street and I-40; or
· US 15-501 between I-40 and Chatham County.
Applicant’s Proposal: The applicant proposes that Meadowmont represents a neighborhood commercial/employment center that is immediately accessible by pedestrians or cyclists. The applicant also proposes that the proposed development has bicycle and pedestrian access via the bicycle and pedestrian trail along NC-54 as well as bicycle access on NC-54 to downtown.
Staff Comment: This proposal provides access to Meadowmont for pedestrians and cyclists, a neighborhood commercial/employment center. We believe the applicant’s proposal complies with this objective.
5. Objective: 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 to install artwork to be located within the NCDOT right-of-way along the NC-54 frontage of the site, subject to NCDOT approval. The applicant is proposing that artist and artwork be selected jointly by the developer and the Public Art Commission. The applicant is proposing to contribute $20,000 for the public art, or a payment-in-lieu thereof, including artist fee, fabrication cost, transportation, and installation cost.
Staff Comment: We believe the applicant’s proposal complies with this objective. We have included a stipulation in the accompanying Special Use Permit, Revised Resolution A, to this effect.
6. Objective: 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 noted that the proposed Aydan Court is not adjacent to 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.
7. Objective: 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: The applicant is proposing to provide $10,000 to the Town for the purpose of remediation and restoration of damaged stream corridors in Chapel Hill, as determined by the Council. The applicant is also proposing to provide organic landscape practices and stormwater harvesting for use in toilet flushing.
Staff Comment: We believe the applicant’s proposal complies with this objective of the Comprehensive Plan. We have included stipulations in the accompanying Special Use Permit, Revised Resolution A, to this effect.
8. Objective: Promotion of green and ecologically sound developments.
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. We have included stipulations in the accompanying Special Use Permit, Revised Resolution A, to this effect.
9. Objective: Encouragement of a community character that promotes economic vitality, environmental protection and social equity.
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 environmental protection see item #7 above. 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 the applicant’s proposal complies with this objective.
Please refer to the applicant’s detailed response to these objectives in Attachment 2 for additional detail.
Arguments in Opposition: Evidence in opposition to this finding has been provided by the Chapel Hill Planning Board as well as concern expressed by speakers at the public hearings. Please refer to the Recommendations Section below for more detail regarding the Planning Board recommendation.
Statements from the New Hope Audubon Society:
o “We urge the Council to reject the Rezoning Application and Special Use Permit for the Aydan Court development for the following reasons:
1) “the high density development lies directly adjacent to the Upper Little Creek Impoundment (that has been declared impaired by the NC DENR) with the Resource Conservation District buffering on part of the tract;
2) the tract is in the Lake Jordan Watershed that has also been declared impaired by the NC DENR, in part from nutrient loading and sediment runoff from Chapel Hill
3) the tract is also designated as a State Natural Heritage area;” [New Hope Audubon Society Statement]
Staff Comment: For additional information please refer to the attached statement from the New Hope Audubon Society (Attachment 4).
Statements from Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth (NRG):
o “On October 20th of last year, NRG urged the Council to reject the Rezoning Application and Special Use Permit for the Aydan Court development for the following reasons:
o “the high density development lies directly adjacent to the Upper Little Creek Impoundment (that has been declared impaired by the NC DENR) with the Resource Conservation District buffering on part of the tract;” [Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth Statement]
Staff Comment: For additional information please refer to the attached statement from the Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth (Attachment 5).
Additional Information: The Chapel Hill Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, identifies this area for parks/open space.
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
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 for the following reason:
· “The application does not meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan because it does not correspond to the ‘Open Space’ designation for this site on the Land Use Plan (as revised January 14, 2008), a component of the Comprehensive Plan.” [ Chapel Hill Planning Board]
Staff Comment: For additional information please refer to the attached Summary of Planning Board Action (Attachment 3).
Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council enact the Ordinance to rezone the site from Residential-1 (R-1) to the amended Residential—Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) zoning district, if the Council approves Ordinance A or B in the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) text amendment tonight. We believe that the rezoning could be justified based on C, as described above, associated with goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
On the other hand, if the Council chooses to take no action on the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) text amendment tonight, we recommend that the Council deny the Zoning Atlas Amendment.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Revised Rezoning Statement of Justification (p. 13).
2. Revised Statement of Compliance for Residential-Special Standards-Conditional Zoning District (p. 19).
3. Planning Board Summary of Action and Addendum, September 2, 2008 (p. 27).
4. New Hope Audubon Society Statement of Opposition (p. 28).
5. Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth Statement of Opposition (p. 30).
6. February 9, 2009 Public Hearing Aydan Court Zoning Atlas Amendment http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2009/02/09/6/
7. Rezoning Area Map http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2008/10/20/1a/1a-7-aydancourt_zaa-ph_area_map.gif
