MEMORANDUM

 

TO:                  Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

 

FROM:            J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director

                        Gene Poveromo, Development Manager

 

SUBJECT:      Continuation of Public Hearing: Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment, Residential-Special Standards-Conditional Zoning District

 

DATE:            November 24, 2008

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Tonight the Council continues the October 27, 2008 public hearing to consider an application for a text amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance.  During the October 27, 2008 Council meeting, the Council’s discussion focused on the proposed goals and objectives. 

 

Two active multi-family applications, Residences at Grove Park and Aydan Court, are proposing to use the amended Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) district.  We anticipate that the Council will resume consideration of these proposed multi-family developments applications in January (Residences at Grove Park) and February (Aydan Court) of next year.

 

DISCUSSION

 

In addition to recommending a change to the floor area ratio, the staff’s recommendation proposes an amendment to establish an “objectives” section for the R-SS-C zoning district. The proposed change presented to the Council on October 27 included several “primary” and “secondary” objective statements describing some of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.

 

During the October 27, 2008 meeting, Council members recommended that the staff return with additional information on these goal/objective statements with respect to the following:

 

1) Consider relocating some/all of the “secondary” objectives into the “primary” objective category;

 

2) Consider deleting the phrase “neighborhood commercial/employment centers” from the healthy downtown/neighborhood commercial objective;

 

 3) Consider inserting a distance standard into the healthy downtown/ neighborhood commercial objective;

 

4)  Provide a map that identifies the downtown district and neighborhood commercial/employment areas, including a ¼ and ½ mile distance boundary;

 

5)  Consider inserting a “higher level” standard into the environmental protection objective; and

 

6) Consider requiring that an applicant comply with all primary/secondary objectives in order to obtain Council approval for a rezoning. 

 

Staff response on these six discussion point follows below.

 

1)      Consider relocating some/all of the “secondary” objectives into the “primary” objective category

 

Because the proposed amendment to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional district would create a higher density residential land use district, some Council members stated that an applicant proposing a rezoning to this district should be held to a higher standard, and therefore should demonstrate compliance with most, if not all, of the proposed “secondary” objectives.  Several Council members suggested that some, or all, of the proposed “secondary” objectives (healthy downtown/neighborhood commercial/employment centers; public/private art; protection of residential neighborhoods; protection/restoration of the natural environment) be redefined or reclassified as “primary” objectives.

 

Comment:  We believe it is appropriate that an applicant seeking the proposed Residential-Special Standards-Conditional district strive to comply with all of the primary and secondary objectives.  Therefore, we recommend that the proposed text amendment delete the “primary” and “secondary” classification.  In place of this classification, we recommend that the proposed text amendment require that an application to this zoning district demonstrate how the proposed rezoning and accompanying Special Use Permit comply with all of the proposed objectives.  While we realized, and anticipate, that some proposals to this district will demonstrate compliance to varying degrees, we still believe it is reasonable to require an applicant to articulate why the proposed higher density development can/cannot satisfy all of the objectives.

 

The revised Ordinance no longer refers to the objective statement as primary or secondary objectives.  The revised Ordinance requires that an applicant either comply with the 100% affordable housing objective or demonstrate compliance with the remaining objective statements.

 

Consideration of a rezoning application is a legislative decision by the Council.   Unlike a Special Use Permit, which is a quasi-judicial proceeding, a rezoning does not require “substantial evidence” to support it for the Council to make a series of findings in order to approve.  Therefore, we do not recommend, nor do we believe it is appropriate for the Council to consider compliance, or non-compliance, with the objectives as justification for approving or denying a rezoning proposal. 

 

2)  Consider deleting the term “neighborhood commercial/employment centers” from the healthy downtown/neighborhood objective

 

A Council member recalled that early Council discussions concerning the proposed text amendment seem to conclude that the changes to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional district could help revitalize downtown by allowing higher density residential density near the downtown district.  The Council member noted, however, that the staff recommendation included phrasing that expanded the higher density objective to “neighborhood commercial/employment centers.”  Because the inclusion of this phrase could expand the possible use of the proposed zoning district beyond the downtown district, a request was made of the staff to consider removing the phrase from the proposed text amendment.

 

Comment:  We think it is appropriate to retain the “neighborhood commercial/ employment centers” phase in this objective statement.  The potential economic, environmental, transportation and other stated benefits associated with this proposed zoning district should not be limited to the downtown district.  Because this proposed text amendment includes a list of objective statements addressing other concerns and desires of the Council and community, we think it prudent to allow the opportunity for this district to be applied in areas other than near downtown.

 

Again we do not suggest that that compliance, or non-compliance, with one or more of the proposed objectives is justification for approving or denying a rezoning proposal.  Consideration of a rezoning application is a legislative decision by the Council.   Unlike a Special Use Permit, which is a quasi-judicial proceeding, a rezoning does not require “substantial evidence” to support it for the Council to make a series of findings in order to approve or deny the application. 

 

Therefore the revised Ordinance retains the “neighborhood commercial/employment centers” phrase in the healthy downtown objective. 

 

3)  Consider inserting a distance standard into the healthy downtown, neighborhood commercial/employment centers objective

 

Comment: The discussion section on page 4 in the October 27, 2008 staff memorandum (http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2008/10/27/7/) included the following staff comment:

 

“For development located near downtown, or a village center, in order to help promote healthy downtown or neighborhood employment centers, we believe that developments associated with the R-SS-C district should be located within a reasonable walking distance (between ¼ to ½ mile).”

 

A Council member stated that although some studies may identify up to ½ mile as a reasonable walking distance, in practical terms, some people would still be inclined to drive instead of walk when the distance is in excess of ¼ mile.  Another Council member suggested that the healthy downtown/neighborhood objective be amended to include a standard of ¼ mile or less.

 

Comment:  We do not recommend inserting a distance standard into this objective statement.  In this particular case, we believe this type of distance standard does not, in and of itself, result in desirable development proposals or projects that could revitalize commercial/employment centers. We have attached a map which illustrates this point by identifying the downtown and neighborhood commercial districts with the ¼ and ½ mile boundary. 

 

We think the proposed objective statement, without the insertion of the suggested distance standard, could allow the Council greater flexibility to consider development proposals on a case by case basis.  The revised Ordinance does not include a distance standard.  For additional information, including a map of the downtown district and “neighborhood commercial/employment centers,” please refer to the attached map and the following discussion. 

 

4)  Provide an area map that identifies the downtown district and neighborhood commercial/economic centers including a ¼ and ½ boundary

 

During the October 27, 2008 meeting a request was made of the staff to return to the Council with a map that identifies the downtown district and the “neighborhood commercial/economic centers,” including a ¼ and ½ mile boundary.

 

Comment: The attached map identifies the downtown area as well as the “neighborhood commercial/employment centers.”  

 

For the purpose of creating this particular map, the downtown district is identified as all property zoned Town Center as well as some adjacent employment/commercial use (i.e Town Hall).  The “neighborhood commercial/ employment centers” are identified as nine commercial pods (Southern Village, Chapel Hill North, Timberlyne, Rams Plaza, Eastgate, Village Plaza, University Mall, Glenwood, Meadowmont) that include:  a grocery store; and other adjacent employment and commercial uses.  A ¼ and ½ mile boundary encircled each of these areas. 

 

Although this visual exhibit could be referenced and consider in association with a proposed rezoning application, we believe in this particular text amendment proposal this standard, does not, in and of itself, identify desirable development proposals.  The revised Ordinance does not include reference to this map.

 

5) Consider inserting additional standards into the environmental protection objective

 

The October 27, 2008 staff recommendation to the Council included the following environmental 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.”

 

During the October 27 meeting, a request was made of staff to consider amending this objective and implement higher environmental standards.

 

Comment:  We believe that this objective, as initially recommended, offers opportunities for implementing some of the environmental goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.  For the Council’s consideration we believe the following strategy from the Comprehensive Plan would be an appropriate addition to this objective:

   

“Encourage private/public partnership to restore and enhance environmental resources.”

 

We think the inclusion of this statement provides greater opportunity for environmental protection within the proposed development site as well as advancing creative environment protection opportunities off site.  We recommend amending the proposed environment objective of the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional district as follows:

 

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.

 

The revised Ordinance includes this amended objective statement.

 

6)  Consider requiring compliance with all primary/secondary objectives in order to secure rezoning

 

Several Council members stated that an application proposing the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional district should demonstrate compliance with all of the objectives in order to obtain Council approval on the rezoning.

 

Comment: Although we recommend that an application to this district demonstrate compliance with all of the objectives, we do not recommend, nor do we believe it is appropriate for the Council to consider compliance with all of the objectives as justification for approving or denying a rezoning proposal.  Consideration of a rezoning application is a legislative action by the Council.  Unlike a Special Use Permit, which is a quasi-judicial proceeding, a rezoning does not require “substantial evidence” to support it for the Council to make a series of findings in order to approve.

 

The revised Ordinance does not include this requirement for rezoning approval.

 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

 

The Council recently adopted an economic development strategy paper: http://www.townofchapelhill.org/DocumentView.asp?DID=2345. We have reviewed that document with the Economic Development Officer and recommend that the Council add the following “objectives” from that strategy as potential additions to the list of objectives:

We believe it is reasonable to incorporate these economic development strategies into the revised Residential-Special Standards-Conditional district.  The revised Ordinance includes these statements.

 

SUMMARY

 

In summary we recommend that the Ordinance, as proposed on October 27, 2008 be amended as follows:

  1.  Delete the “primary” and “secondary” classifications from the objective statements.
  2. Require that all applications proposing the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional district, which are not proposing to provide 100% affordable housing, demonstrate compliance with the remaining objectives.
  3. Amend the environmental protection objective to include the phrase:
    1. Including programs that encourage private/public partnership to restore and enhance environmental resources.
  4. Add the following objectives from the Economic Development Strategy to the list of objective statements:
    1. Promotion of green and ecologically sound developments.
    2. Encouragement of a community character that promotes economic vitality, economic protection and social equity.

 

PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT

 

The proposed changes to the Land Use Management Ordinance would: 1) increase the floor area ratio in the Residential-Special Standards- Conditional zoning district; and 2) create text focused on the purpose and intent of the zoning district.  We recommend the following changes to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district:

 

1.      Increase Floor Area Ratio:  The proposed text amendment to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district would amend the .40 floor area ratio to 1.10.

 

Comment:  We believe this adjustment is appropriate to allow the Council’s consideration of more compact residential development.

 

2.      Conditional Use Districts: Residential-Special Standards-Conditional Use District:  The following text would be added to the Conditional Use District section of the Land Use Management Ordinance in order to define the Council’s expectation with respect to application of this zoning district:

Residential development and the recreational, open space, and other urban amenities associated with such development when located within the Residential- Special Standards-Conditional district shall, to the extent practical, comply with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 

Zoning Atlas Amendment applications, proposing to rezone a site to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional district shall comply with A or B below:

A.    An applicant must demonstrate that the associated Special Use Permit application complies with the following objective:

 

1.      Promotion of an 100% affordable on-site housing component.

Or

 

B.      An applicant must demonstrate that the associated Special Use Permit application complies with each of the following objectives:

 

  1. Promotion of affordable housing on-site, and off-site when appropriate, that complies with or exceeds the Council’s current affordable housing policy.
  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.
  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.
  4. Support of a healthy downtown district and/or neighborhood commercial/ employment centers by identifying or providing reasonably accessible pedestrian/bicycle and non-vehicular access to such districts/centers.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  8. Promotion of green and ecologically sound developments. 
  9. Encouragement of a community character that promotes economic vitality, economic protection and social equity.

Comment: We believe the addition of the above text offers opportunities for implementing some of the primary goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 

 

ZONING AMENDMENT

 

Article 4.4 of the Land Use Management Ordinance establishes the intent of Zoning  Amendments (including both atlas and text amendments to the Ordinance) 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 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.

 

Each of these requirements, with respect to the proposed text amendments, is discussed below:

 

A) An amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance (text amendment) is necessary to correct a manifest error in the chapter.

 

Staff Comment: We believe the information in the record to date can be summarized as follows:

B) An amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance (text amendment) 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:

C) An amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance (text amendment) is justified to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.

 

Staff Comment: We believe the information in the record thus far can be summarized as follows:

RECOMMENDATIONS

Planning Board:  The Planning Board considered the text amendments on August 19, 2008.  The Board voted 4 to 2 to recommend that the Council deny enactment of Ordinance A, as attached to the August 19 staff memorandum.  Planning Board members provided the following justification:

 1) Board members noted that the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional district was initially intended to apply only to developments that proposed 100% affordable housing;

2) Members indicated that the proposed change to increase the floor area ratio from 0.4 to 1.1 did not maintain the spirit and intent of this affordable housing district;

 3) Board Members stated that the creation of a district that permits higher density residential development should be coordinated with the Council committee’s discussion to implement several small area studies along the Town’s major corridors; and  

4) Members stated that the creation of this district appeared to be in direct response to the proposed Residences at Grove Park developments and therefore may not be well suited for other areas of Town.

A copy of the Planning Board Summary is attached to the September 17, 2008 Council memorandum.  http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2008/09/17/2/

Comment:  Although the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district was originally developed to promote affordable housing objectives, we believe there is a variety of Comprehensive Plan objectives that the Council may wish to promote.  We think the insertion of an intent section for the amended zoning district helps describe Council’s desires with respect to some of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.  We also believe this proposed amendment provides an additional tool for the Council to encourage desirable development.

Because the zoning district is a conditional district, the Council will not consider applying the zone without an accompanying Special Use Permit.  Application of the amended zoning district to a specific property would be a legislative decision within the control of the Council.

Staff’s Revised Recommendation:  We recommend that the Council enact the attached revised Ordinance to 1) increase the floor area ratio in the Residential-Special Standards- Conditional zoning district; and 2) create text describing the purpose and intent of the zoning district as described in the Proposed Text Amendment section of this memorandum.

Although we believe that an application to this district shall demonstrate compliance with all of the objectives we do not recommend, nor do we think it is appropriate, that the Council consider compliance or non-compliance with the objectives, as justification for approving or denying a rezoning proposal.  Consideration of a rezoning application is a legislative decision by the Council.   Unlike a Special Use Permit, which is a quasi-judicial proceeding, a rezoning does not require “substantial evidence” to support it for the Council to make a series of findings in order to approve. 

 

ATTACHMENTS

  1. Town Center, neighborhood employment centers map (p. 15).
  2. October 27, 2008 memorandum http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2008/10/27/7/

[See also Manager’s memorandum.]