AGENDA #1a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Rusch Hollow - Application for Zoning Atlas Amendment
DATE: September 15, 2003
INTRODUCTION
Attached for your consideration is an application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone approximately 3.03 acres of land northeast of the intersection of Rogers Road and Rusch Road from Residential-1 (R-1) to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) zoning district. The site involves three properties, identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 23, Block D, Lots 14, 15, and 20.
The applicant has also submitted an application for a Special Use Permit to create a multi-family development on the site. Please see the accompanying memorandum for information regarding the proposed Special Use Permit.
|
This package of material has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows: ¨ Cover Memorandum: Summarizes the application, reviews procedures for review and offers a preliminary recommendation for Council action.
¨ Attachments: Includes an ordinance approving and resolution denying the rezoning, advisory board recommendation on the application, and associated materials.
|
PROCESS
We note that this site is presently located outside of Chapel Hill’s Corporate Limits, in the Town’s northern Joint Planning Transition Area (JPA). Approval of the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment will require joint approval by the Chapel Hill Town Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners. A Joint Planning public hearing of the Town Council and the Orange County Board of Commissioners is scheduled for October 15, 2003.
JOINT PLANNING AREA LAND USE PLANS
The Chapel Hill Joint Planning Transition Area (Northwest Area) is generally the land outside the Town limits and south of Interstate 40. The western boundary of the area generally follows Rogers Road. A rail line bisects the area, and a large parcel of property in the center of the area (known as the Greene Tract) is jointly owned by the Town of Chapel Hill, the Town of Carrboro, and Orange County.
The Joint Planning Agreement indicates that Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County will adopt a Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. A Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan was adopted in 1986. Also in that year, Chapel Hill adopted a Land Use Plan. We note that there are some minor differences between the land use designations in some of the areas on the two maps. For this parcel proposed to be rezoned, the property is designated as “Medium Residential” on the Chapel Hill Plan, but “Suburban Residential” on the Joint Planning Area Plan. The difference was that Chapel Hill’s designation called for 4-8 units per acre, and the 1986 Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan designation specifies 1-5 units per acre.
In May, 2000, Chapel Hill adopted a revised Land Use Plan that calls for density of 1-4 units per acre in the area of the proposed rezoning. This 2000 Land Use Plan has not been adopted by the County, and so is not yet a part of the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan.
In case of the parcel in question and the proposed rezoning (which proposes 5.2 units per acre), the proposed rezoning is generally consistent with both the Chapel Hill and Joint Planning designation.
BACKGROUND
On April 12, 1999, the Town Council created a new zoning district called Residential-Special Standards-Conditional. This new zoning district allows a residential density of up to 12 units per acre, along with additional modifications to the land use intensity regulations.
The Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district requires that a Special Use Permit application accompany each application for rezoning to this district. Please see the accompanying memorandum for information regarding the proposed Special Use Permit.
ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT
Zoning determines the type and intensity of uses and development which 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 specified uses and intensities area permitted. A conditional use rezoning request allows development and uses only with approval of a Special Use Permit. This rezoning application is a conditional use rezoning request.
The zoning designation of a property determines the range of land uses and development intensities permitted on the property. Article 4.4, page 89, 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) “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.”
As related to conditional use zoning, Article 4.4 of the Land Use Management Ordinance stipulates that:
“An application for rezoning to a conditional use district may include a request, by the property owner, to limit the uses allowed with approval of a Special Use Permit. An application for rezoning to a conditional use district may be accompanied by an application for a Special Use Permit, as provided in Section 4.5, and may be reviewed concurrently with the Special Use Permit application.”
The Council has discretionary authority to approve or deny a rezoning request. As a conditional use rezoning request, the specific proposal in the accompanying Special Use Permit application is related to the rezoning request. Approval of a conditional use rezoning for a property would mean that no development could occur other than that allowed under the previous Residential-1 zoning on that property, without Council approval of a Special Use Permit. We believe that it is appropriate for the Council to consider a specific Special Use Permit proposal in tandem with a conditional use zoning application. 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.
If the Town Council approves an application for rezoning to a conditional use district, but denies the accompanying application for a Special Use Permit, or if an application for a Special Use Permit is not considered by the Town Council, the rezoning application shall be deemed to be conditionally approved, subject to submittal and Town Council approval of an application for a Special Use Permit.
Failure to submit a Special Use Permit application within one year of the conditional approval of rezoning to a conditional use district or, if submitted, the withdrawal of such application without prior Town Council approval, shall void the conditional approval.
If a Special Use Permit issued for a Conditional Use District is abandoned, revoked, or becomes void, under the provisions of this Chapter, the conditional use zoning shall be void and the property shall revert to its previous zoning classification.
ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION
Analysis of this application is organized around the requirement of the Land Use Management Ordinance that Article 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.
Arguments in Opposition: The adjacent properties to this site area located within the Residential-1 zoning district. We do not believe that the current Residential-1 zoning of this site is 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 were unable to identify any arguments in support of changing conditions in the vicinity of the site.
Arguments in Opposition: The area in the immediate vicinity of the site has retained its low density development. We do not believe that conditions have changed in this area so as to warrant a rezoning to a higher intensity zoning district.
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: Arguments in support of this finding as offered in the attached applicant’s Statement of Justification, can be summarized as follows:
“This project will:
· Add 12 single-family homes and 5 rental units for disabled and/or elderly citizens. All of the units will be affordable for 99 years to households earning at or below 50% of the area median income.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “Further extend sanitary sewer in the Rogers Road community and make sewer easily accessible to the portion of the Greene Tract (approximately 18 acres) that has been designated for affordable housing.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· Contribute to a mix of housing in the Rogers Road community, which is already comprised of a mix of mobile homes, twelve recently constructed Habitat for Humanity Orange County single-family homes, a number of modest older single-family homes, and a range of more expensive single-family homes.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “Contribute to the revitalization of the Rogers Road community by providing attractive in-fill housing at a slightly higher density than the rest of the community.” [Applicant’s Statement]
· “Actively recruited public housing residents as applicants, and has successfully worked with public housing residents to overcome the barriers to homeownership.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Also we note that the Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Council on May 8, 2000, and the 1986 Land Use Plan, identify this area as low-medium density residential.
Additional arguments presented by the applicant in support of this finding are offered in the attached Rezoning Statement of Justification.
Arguments in Opposition: No arguments in opposition have been submitted to date.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendations are summarized below. Please see the attached summary of board action and recommendations.
Planning Board’s Recommendation: The Planning Board considered this application on August 5, 2003, and voted 8-0 to recommend approval of the Zoning Atlas Amendment application. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation: We believe that this rezoning could be justified based on the finding that a rezoning is necessary to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. Our preliminary recommendation is that the Council adopt the attached ordinance, rezoning the property from Residential-1 (R-1) to Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C).
The attached Resolution would deny the rezoning request.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance – Approving the Rezoning Application (p. 7).
4. Applicant’s Statement of Justification (p. 10).
5. Area Map (p. 15).
6. Legal Description (p. 16).
7. Certification of Notice to Property Owners (p. 17).
(Manager’s Preliminary
Recommendation )
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS FOR THE RUSCH HOLLOW NEIGHBORHOOD
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the application of the Habitat for Humanity Orange County Inc. to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property described below from Residential-1 to Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning, and finds that the amendment is warranted in order to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Chapel Hill Zoning Atlas be amended as follows:
That the portion of property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 23, Block D, Lots 14, 15, and 20, (PIN’s 9870424466, 9870539615, 9870536626) located on the east side of Rogers Road between Rusch Road and Purefoy Road, from Residential-1 to Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning. The description of the entire property is as indicated on the attached metes and bounds description
SECTION II
That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
This the _____ day of _________, 2003.
(Denying R-SS-C Rezoning)
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT FOR THE RUSCH HOLLOW NEIGHBORHOOD
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the application of Habitat for Humanity Orange County Inc. to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property described below from Residential-1 to Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning, and fails to find that the amendment:
a) corrects a manifest error in the chapter, or
b) is justified because of changed or changing conditions in the area of the rezoning site or the community in general, or
c) achieves the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
For the reasons that:
a) the Zoning Atlas is not in error;
b) there have not been changed conditions that would justify this rezoning; and
c) the Land Use Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, identifies this parcel for low-density residential use.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby denies the application of Habitat for Humanity Orange County Inc. to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 23, Block D, Lots 14, 15, and 20, (PIN’s 9870424466, 9870539615, 9870536626)) located on the east side of Rogers Road between Rusch Road and Purefoy Road, from Residential-1 to Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning. The description of the entire property is as indicated on the attached metes and bounds description
This the _____ day of _________, 2003.
