TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Rosemary Street Mixed-Use Development – Application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment
INTRODUCTION
Attached for your consideration is an application for a Zoning Atlas Amendment to rezone approximately 6,700 square feet of a 45,906 square-foot site (1.05 acres) located at the northwest corner of the West Rosemary Street and Mitchell Lane intersection. The site is located about 75 feet east of Mama Dips Restaurant. The site is currently located in the Residential-3 (R-3) and Town Center-2 (TC-2) zoning districts. The applicant requests rezoning the Residential-3 (R-3) portion of the site to Town Center-2-Conditional (TC-2-C).
The applicant has submitted an accompanying application for a Special Use Permit to construct seven, 4-story buildings with commercial space on the first floor, residential units on the upper three floors, and ground level parking. The Special Use Permit proposes a total of 58 parking spaces, including a 16-space auxiliary parking lot on Merritt Mill Road. 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, 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.
Article 20.3.9 of the Development Ordinance sets forth the procedures for a protest petition.
Article 20 states that: If a petition protesting a proposed amendment to the Zoning Atlas is filed, such amendment shall not become effective except by favorable vote of not less than seven members of the Council. In order to be valid for the above purpose, a protest petition must:
a) be signed by the owners of twenty percent or more of the land area contained in either 1) the lots included in the area proposed for rezoning, or 2) the lots within one hundred feet of either side or the rear of the area proposed for rezoning, or 3) the lots directly opposite the area proposed for rezoning and the lots within one hundred feet from the street frontage of such opposite lots;
b) be in the form of a written petition actually bearing the signatures of the requisite number of property owners and stating that the signers do protest the proposed amendment;
c) be received by the Town Clerk at least two normal working days prior to the date established for the public hearing on the proposed amendment; and
d) be on a form prescribed and provided by the Town Clerk and contain all the information requested on the form.
A public notice was sent to property owners within 1000 feet of the proposed development on April 19, 2002 (see Attachment 11). We note that the notice did not include our standard information about the protest petition process. Accordingly, we intend to mail an additional public notice that includes the protest petition information. We are recommending that the Council recess tonight’s Public Hearing until August 26. We intend to re-advertise that date along with the extra mailed notification, so that the public can have adequate time to submit a protest petition if any property owners so choose.
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.
We note that the Council has adopted a resolution regarding affordable housing. The applicant’s Special Use Permit application addresses this affordable housing objective.
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 information submitted thus far regarding the three required considerations of the Council:
A) A rezoning is necessary to correct a manifest error.
Staff Comment: We believe the information received 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: To date, no arguments have been submitted in opposition to rezoning to correct 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 received to date can be summarized as follows:
Arguments in Support: The following arguments have been made in support of changed or changing conditions in this particular area.
· “A new draft of the Development Ordinance promotes a mixed-use style of development in the downtown and immediately surrounding area.” (Applicant Statement)
· “The proposal will further the revitalization of the West Rosemary Street Community as is envisioned in the Comprehensive Plan. Recently approved successful developments near this project site have enhanced the downtown area. Some of these projects include:” (Applicant Statement)
Midway Business Center – 11/10/98
Mama Dip’s Restaurant – 11/18/97
The Warehouse Apartments – 11/24/97
The Fountains – 7/5/95
· “This parcel is part of a larger land assemblage that is associated with this development project. The immediately adjacent parcels (part of the land assemblage) are part of the Downtown Small Area Concept Plan Map. This portion of the Small Area Plan is classified as Office/Residential with small-scale retail. As supported by other recent projects in the area and by the Small Area Plan, this area is changing to in line with the Small Area Plan.” (Applicant Statement)
Arguments in Opposition: To date, no arguments have been submitted in opposition to rezoning because of changed conditions.
C) A rezoning is necessary to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment: We believe the information received to date can be summarized as follows:
Arguments in Support: Arguments in support of this finding are offered in the following excerpts from the applicant’s Statement of Justification. Please see the complete Statement of Justification in Attachment 8.
· “This development will continue to develop the downtown as a pedestrian-oriented for commercial and retail needs as well as providing living area.” (Applicant Statement)
· “This development will provide a living and working neighborhood.” (Applicant Statement)
· “This development will utilize this land in an economically optimal fashion.” (Applicant Statement)
· “Through the use of streetscape elements and architecturally interesting building facades and proportions, a human scale will be provided along both Rosemary Street and Mitchell Lane.” (Applicant Statement)
· “The proposed development will not add undue impacts to the existing public facilities.” (Applicant Statement)
· “The design of the structures with residential above first floor commercial is similar to other Chapel Hill districts.” (Applicant Statement)
In addition to the applicant’s statements, we believe that the following Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Small Area plan references argue in support of the proposed development:
· “The traditional role of the downtown as Chapel Hill’s commercial core has been fundamentally changed by automobile-oriented commercial development in suburban locations. While remarkably healthy compared to the central business districts of many other American cities and towns that have experienced the same phenomenon, the downtown will continue to be affected by economic and societal changes, as well as by the growth of UNC. Certain parts of the downtown, most notably West Rosemary Street, have underutilized parcels of land that could be redeveloped. Several of the properties along West Rosemary Street have recently been developed with new uses, enhancing the vitality of the downtown.” (Comprehensive Plan, Community Character, p. 10).
· “Encourage development of selected ‘opportunity areas’ to achieve Comprehensive Plan objectives.” (Comprehensive Plan, Strategy 8A-1, pp.65-66).
· “Encourage mixed-use development forms.” The Town Center is designated as a community-scale center serving surrounding neighborhoods that is appropriate for mixed use (Comprehensive Plan, Strategy 8A-2, pp. 66-68).
· “Develop and maintain the downtown as a pedestrian-oriented focal point for the community’s commercial and retail needs.” (Comprehensive Plan Objective, Economy and Employment, p. 44).
· “Provide opportunities to create ‘living and working neighborhoods,’ or mixed-use developments in appropriate locations.” (Comprehensive Plan, Economy and Employment Objectives, p. 44).
· “Encourage development and redevelopment of properties in the downtown area, designed in accordance with this Downtown Plan.” (Downtown Small Area Plan, Economic Vitality Objectives, p. 9).
· “Maintain existing, and encourage new, “magnets” to attract people to downtown.” (Downtown Small Area Plan, Town Character/Land Use Objectives p. 10).
· The majority of the site of the proposed mixed-use development is classified as Office/Residential with small-scale retail on the Downtown Small Area Plan Concept Map.
Arguments in Opposition: No information has been submitted indicating that this development would not be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
We believe that the following Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Small Area plan references argue in opposition to the proposed development:
· We note that this site is located on the western periphery of the Northside district, which is classified as a Residential Conservation Area in the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, there is a goal in the Downtown Small Area Plan for protecting neighborhoods bordering downtown. Descriptions from the plans are as follows:
“Chapel Hill residents believe that protecting the physical and social fabric of neighborhoods is key to maintaining the Town’s community character. Of particular concern are the neighborhoods that touch and circle the downtown and central campus. These neighborhoods are rich in history and tradition, are highly valued by residents, and are among the areas of Town that are most susceptible to change. As indicated in Figure 2, these neighborhoods are designated as Residential Conservation Areas.” (Comprehensive Plan, Community Character, p. 12).
· “Maintain a human scale in the built environment.” (Downtown Small Area Plan, Town Character/Land Use Objectives, p. 10).
· “Protect fragile residential neighborhoods bordering downtown business districts.” (Downtown Small Area Plan, Goals and Objectives – Town Character / Land Use, p. 10).
· “Buildings should be designed to be compatible, in form and proportion, with neighboring buildings.” (Downtown Small Area Plan, Design Guidelines, Key Design Objectives, p. 1).
· “Buildings should be no more than 2 stories tall where the property line abuts the sidewalk (requiring additional stories to be set back from the street building line). This lends a human scale to the street.” (Downtown Small Area Plan, Design Guidelines, Proportion and Scale, p. 2)
We note that further arguments regarding the rezoning proposal likely will be presented during tonight’s Public Hearing.
Additional Information: This rezoning request is for a small portion of one parcel in a five parcel land assemblage. The entire assemblage is the subject of the accompanying Special Use Permit application. The only part of the assemblage that does not have the appropriate zoning (R-3) for the proposed uses is the part that is the subject of this rezoning request unlike the rest of the assemblage that has the appropriate Town Center-2 (TC-2) zoning.
Additionally, the subject parcel of the rezoning request is within the boundaries of the Downtown Small Area Concept Plan Map is identified as medium density residential on the adopted Land Use Plan, part of the Comprehensive Plan adopted by Council May 8, 2000. We also note that this parcel that is the subject of this rezoning request lies outside the Downtown Small Area Plan boundary, whereas the bulk of the assemblage is located within the boundary and designated for Office/Retail use.
Recommendations are summarized below. Please see the attached summaries of board actions and recommendations.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board considered this application on May 7, 2002, and voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the Zoning Atlas Amendment application. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.
Transportation Board Recommendation: The Transportation Board considered this application on May 7, 2002, and voted 8-1 to recommend approval of the Zoning Atlas Amendment. Please see the attached Summary of Transportation Board Action.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Recommendation: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board considered this application on May 28, 2002, and voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the Zoning Atlas Amendment. Please see the attached Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action.
Community Design Commission Recommendation: The Community Design Commission reviewed this application on May 15, 2002 and voted 7-0 to recommend approval of the Zoning Atlas Amendment. Please see the attached Summary of Community Design Commission Action.
Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation: The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this application on March 27, 2002, and voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application without reference to a specific Resolution. Please see the attached Summary of Parks and Recreation Commission Action.
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation: We believe that this rezoning could be justified based on the finding that the rezoning would achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. Our preliminary recommendation is that the Council adopt the attached Ordinance, rezoning the portion of the property requested from Residential-3 (R-3) to Town Center-2-Conditional (TC-2--C) zoning.
The attached Resolution would deny the rezoning request.
ATTACHMENTS
3. Summary of Planning Board Action, ZAA (p. 11).
4. Summary of Transportation Board Action, ZAA (p. 12).
5. Summary of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Action, ZAA (p. 13).
6. Summary of Community Design Commission Action, ZAA (p. 14).
7. Summary of Parks and Recreation Commission Action, ZAA (p. 15).
ORDINANCE
(Rezoning to TC-2-C zoning)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS FOR THE ROSEMARY STREET MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (Chapel Hill Tax Map Number 85, Block A, Lot 9)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the application of Thomas Tucker to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone the portion of the property described below from Residential-3 (R-3) to Town Center-2-Conditional (TC-2-C) 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 the site identified as now or formerly Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 85, Block A, Lot 9, that is currently zoned Residential-3 (R-3), located at the northwest corner of the West Rosemary Street and Mitchell Lane intersection, shall be rezoned from Residential-3 (R-3) to Town Center-2-Conditional (TC-2-C) zoning.
That the portion of the site identified as now or formerly Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 85, Block A, Lot 9, that is currently zoned Town Center-2 (TC-2) located at the northwest corner of the West Rosemary Street and Mitchell Lane intersection, shall remain unchanged with Town Center-2 (TC-2) 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 _________, 2002.
RESOLUTION
(Rezoning to TC-2-C zoning)
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT FOR THE ROSEMARY STREET MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (Chapel Hill Tax Map Number 85, Block A, Lot 9)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the application of Thomas Tucker to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property described below from Residential-3 (R-3) to Town Center-2-Conditional (TC-2-C) 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 Thomas Tucker to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone the property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 85, Block A, Lot 9, located at the northwest corner of the West Rosemary Street and Mitchell Lane intersection from Residential-3 (R-3) to Town Center-2-Conditional (TC-2-C) zoning. The description of the entire property is as indicated on the attached map.
This the _____ day of _________, 2002.