TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Chapel Ridge – Application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment
INTRODUCTION
Attached for your consideration is an application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone approximately 18.3 acres of land that is generally located west of Airport Road and south of Homestead Road, from Residential-2 (R-2) and Residential-4 (R-4) to Residential-5-Conditional (R-5-C) zoning. The site is specifically located west of Northfield Drive and south of the Brookstone Apartments. Tonight’s Public Hearing has been scheduled to receive information in support of and in opposition to approval of the application.
The applicant has submitted an accompanying application for a Special Use Permit to authorize construction of a multi-family development on the site. Please refer to the accompanying memorandum for a discussion of this application.
|
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, and advisory board recommendations on the application. |
This is an application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment. The Development Ordinance requires the Town Manager to conduct an evaluation of this Zoning Atlas Amendment application, to present a report to the Planning Board, and to present a report and recommendation to the Town Council. We have reviewed the application and evaluated it against Article 20 of the Development Ordinance, we have presented a report to the Planning Board, and tonight we submit our report and preliminary recommendation to the Council.
Zoning determines the type and intensity of uses and development that are allowed on a piece of land. A rezoning involves a change to the zoning of the land. 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. 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 20 of the Development 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 20.1 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 20 of the Development 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 Article 18, 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-2 and Residential-4 zoning on that property without Council approval of a Special Use Permit. We believe it is appropriate for the Council to consider a specific Special Use Permit proposal on the application, in tandem with a conditional use zoning 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.
Our review of this application is organized around the requirement that the Development Ordinance shall not be amended except a) to correct a manifest error in the chapter; 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.
Following is a description of the evidence in the record thus far regarding the three required considerations of the Council:
A) A rezoning is necessary to correct a manifest error.
The applicant has not presented evidence that the rezoning is necessary to correct a manifest error. We also do not believe that the current Residential-2 and Residential-4 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.
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). The statement indicates that this area has changed as Chapel Hill has grown northward, with this isolated site becoming surrounded by commercial uses to the east along Airport Road, and an apartment complex to the north along Homestead Road. The statement also notes that the site is bounded on the west by the University’s Horace Williams Property, which is designated to serve as an area for future campus expansion.
Arguments in Opposition: To date, no arguments have been submitted in opposition to changing conditions in this area.
Preliminary Staff Assessment: We agree that Chapel Hill has grown northward over the last 20 years, and that there have been some recent developments in the vicinity of this site. In particular, the Better Wrench automotive repair shop has been built on Northfield Drive and the Orange County Human Services Building has been built on Homestead Road. We do not believe that these projects however, substantiate the argument that changed or changing conditions in the area justify the proposed rezoning. We note that the Council may choose to come to a different conclusion on this issue.
C) A rezoning is necessary to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
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). The Statement indicates that the rezoning is desired to achieve the number of units per acre identified in the Comprehensive Plan and is submitted in accordance with the “Development Opportunity” designation noted for the southern 13.6 acres of the site.
Arguments in Opposition: To date, no arguments have been submitted indicating that this development would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Preliminary Staff Assessment: We believe that this rezoning could be justified on the grounds that it is necessary to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, although the Council may choose to come to a different conclusion on this issue.
In accordance with the Town’s Development Ordinance, the existing R-2 zoning district (13.6 acres) allows a maximum of 4 units per acre (54 units total) and the existing R-4 zoning district (10.0 acres) allows a maximum of 10 units per acre (100 units total). Thus, the existing zoning permits a maximum of 154 dwelling units on the overall site, or a maximum of 6.5 dwelling units per acre.
We note that the Comprehensive Plan, adopted on May 8, 2000, identifies the northern 10.0 acres of this site as a high density residential land use (8-15 units per acre), while the southern 13.6 acres of the site is identified as a medium density residential land use (4-8 units per acre). The accompanying Special Use Permit application proposes 7.1 dwelling units per acre. We believe that based on the land use designations in the 2000 Comprehensive Plan, the argument could be made that a rezoning is necessary to achieve the purposes of the Plan.
We also note that this area is also designated as a “Development Opportunity” site in the Comprehensive Plan. The Town’s Land Use Plan and supporting strategies of the Comprehensive Plan identify areas that are appropriate for development or redevelopment to achieve one or more Comprehensive Plan objectives, such as supporting alternative transportation (transit, walking, and biking), providing housing choice, and preserving open space. The accompanying Special Use Permit application seeks to provide multi-family residential housing and to preserve a dedicated 5.3 acre open space area. We believe that based on the definition of a “Development Opportunity” site, the argument could be made that a rezoning is necessary to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
Finally, we note that the applicant has indicated the intention of renting the dwelling units proposed in the accompanying Special Use Permit application to students. In this event, the argument could be made that this development will provided needed student housing in close proximity to a major bus route, and take pressure off of existing neighborhoods near campus. This would support the Comprehensive Plan Goal of preserving the character of existing neighborhoods. As proposed however, we note that no stipulations are associated with the accompanying Special Use Permit application that would guarantee the proposed dwelling units are rental units and/or are only available to students.
We note that further arguments regarding the rezoning proposal will be presented during tonight’s Public Hearing.
On March 6, 2000, the Town Council passed a resolution to increase the availability of affordable housing for low and moderate income households in the Town of Chapel Hill. The adopted Council policy states the expectation that any rezoning requests with a residential component incorporate a 15% affordable housing feature into their plans with mechanisms to assure ongoing affordability.
The applicant has proposed to rent the proposed dwelling units, by the bedroom, to students. The applicant has also noted that the at least 15% of the bedrooms will be available at rental rates affordable to an individual making less than 80% of the median income for a single person. We note that 80% of the median income for a single person in the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill MSA is $34,900 (based on 2000 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development information).
Presently however, there is no mechanism included in the accompanying Special Use Permit that would require the applicant to rent by the room or to guarantee the affordability of rental rates. There is no mechanism included in the accompanying Special Use Permit that would prevent the applicant from choosing to sell the dwelling units as condominiums. We note that in the context of a Conditional Use Zoning and a Special Use Permit approval process, the applicant can propose restrictions on uses that may serve to better address the Council’s affordability policy.
Recommendations are summarized below. Please see the attached summaries of board actions and recommendations.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board considered this application on September 5, 2000, and voted 9-0 to recommend approval of the Zoning Atlas Amendment application. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.
Community Design Commission Recommendation: The Community Design Commission considered this application on August 16, 2000, and voted 8-1 to recommend approval of the Zoning Atlas Amendment. Please see the attached Summary of Community Design Commission 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-2 (R-2) and Residential-4 (R-4) to Residential-5-Conditional (R-5-C) zoning.
The attached Resolution would deny the rezoning request.
ATTACHMENTS
ORDINANCE
(Rezoning to R-5-C)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS FOR THE CHAPEL RIDGE DEVELOPMENT (Chapel Hill Tax Map Number 24, Lots 38A and 41G)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the application of Ponikvar & Associates, Inc. Architects to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property described below from Residential-2 and Residential-4 to Residential-5-Conditional zoning, and finds that the amendment is warranted due to changing conditions in the area, and 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 the site identified as now or formerly Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 41G, that is currently zoned Residential-4, located south of Brookstone Drive, shall be rezoned to Residential-5-Conditional zoning.
That the portion of the site identified as now or formerly Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 38A, that is currently zoned Residential-2, located west of Northfield Drive, the northern 8.3 acres shall be rezoned to Residential-5-Conditional zoning.
The description of the portions of this site to be rezoned are indicated on the attached map.
SECTION II
That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
This the _____ day of _________, 2000.
(Denying R-5-C Rezoning)
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT FOR THE CHAPEL RIDGE DEVELOPMENT (Chapel Hill Tax Map Number 24, Lots 38A and 41G)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the application of Ponikvar & Associates, Inc. Architects to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property described below from Residential-2 and Residential-4 to Residential-5-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 Ponikvar & Associates, Inc. Architects to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lots 38A and 41G, located south of Brookfield Drive and west of Northfield Drive from Residential-2 and Residential-4 to Residential-5-Conditional zoning. The description of the entire property is as indicated on the attached map.
This the _____ day of _________, 2000.