AGENDA #2a
|
|
|
|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
|
|
|
FROM: |
J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director |
|
|
Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator |
|
|
|
|
SUBJECT: |
Public Hearing: Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment Modifications to the Permitted Land Use Intensity in the Mixed Use-Village (MU-V) Zoning District |
|
|
|
|
DATE: |
January 17, 2007 |
This Public Hearing has been called to consider an application for a text amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance to allow for a change in land use intensity standards in the Mixed Use-Village (MU-V) zoning district. The accompanying Zoning Atlas Amendment application is proposing to rezone the property from the Community Commercial (CC) zoning district to the amended Mixed Use-Village (MU-V) district as proposed by the text amendment application. Please see Attachment 1 for the text amendment application.
The attached Ordinances A and B would amend Section 3.5.1 of the Land Use Management Ordinance. We recommend that the Council enact the attached Ordinance A.
The Mixed Use-Village zoning district is a relatively new zoning district established with the enactment of the Land Use Management Ordinance in 2003. The zoning district has not been applied to any property in Town.
In the Land Use Management Ordinance, Section 3.5.1 “Mixed Use Districts” states that mixed use districts are “intended to provide for the coordinated development of office, commercial, and residential uses and their necessary support functions in the vicinity of key highway intersections and transit corridors in Chapel Hill.” They are designed to facilitate “lively, people-oriented environments.” The floor area in a Mixed Use-Village development must be devoted to at least 25 percent residential uses, and at least 25 percent office/commercial uses.
The Dimensional Matrix indicates dimensional requirements for three different types of Mixed Use-Village districts – MU-V-Arterial, MU-V-Collector, and MU-V-Local. These designations are intended to reflect levels of intensity that typically would be appropriate for development on such roadway classifications.
We believe the application to amend the Land Use Management Ordinance will encourage a greater variety and mix of uses and therefore a more urban, pedestrian-oriented and transit-oriented development. We believe that the current permitted densities in MU-V zoning district are not ideal for many mixed-use developments, or transit-oriented developments.
We recommend incorporating the text amendments as described below:
2. Increase the minimum recreation space area ratio from .015 to .046.
3. Increase maximum number of residential units per acre from 15 units per acre to 20 units per acre.
4. Increase primary building height from 60 feet to 85 feet.
5. Reduce street (10 feet), and interior (5 feet) setbacks to 0 feet.
6. Change the maximum floor area ratio from .500 to 1.2. The floor area ratio determines the allowable floor area for a development
7. Allow for an exemption to the more restricted setback and height limitation between non-residential and residential zoning districts where a public right-of-way of at least 100 feet or greater separates a non-residential use from a residential-use.
8. During staff analysis of the text amendment application, staff recognized that Section 3.5.1(d)(2) of the Ordinance states that “any application for mixed use development shall include…a Site Plan as provided in Section 4.7 of this Chapter.” We believe this reference to Planning Board approval of a Site Plan for Mixed Use development is in error, and recommend that “Site Plan as provided in Section 4.7” be replaced with “Special Use Permit as provided in Section 4.5”.
All of the above recommended text amendments to the Mixed-Use Village zoning districts changes have been incorporated into the staff’s recommendation Ordinance A.
The applicant’s proposed text amendment differs from the staff recommendation on one item. The applicant’s proposal to amend the Land Use Management Ordinance includes a proposal to adjust the minimum off street parking requirements in the Mixed-Use Village district.
The applicant’s proposed text amendment application includes a proposal to replace the word “shall” with “may” for minimum off-street parking requirements in the Mixed-Use Village district. The portion of the applicable existing Ordinance is copied below.
Off-street parking requirements shall be 50% of the minimum parking requirements listed in the Parking and Loading.
Comment: We believe that developments in the Mixed-Use Village district should attempt to reduce the number of parking spaces. We also believe that each development proposal located within a Mixed-Use Village district should be evaluated on a case by case basis with respect to the proposed minimum number of parking spaces. The staff’s preliminary recommendation, attached Ordinance A, does not recommend amending this section of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
The applicant’s proposed text amendment is provided as Ordinance B.
Analysis of this application is organized around the requirement of the Land Use Management Ordinance which states that the 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) An amendment is justified to correct a manifest error.
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.
B) An amendment is justified because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally.
Comment: We believe the information in the record thus far can be summarized as follows:
Arguments in Support: We are unable to identify any arguments in support of changed conditions.
Arguments in Opposition: We are not aware of changed conditions.
C) An amendment is justified to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
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:
“The Town’s Comprehensive Plan identifies the following planning principals in order to fulfill its purpose and objectives. These principals are designed to foster an ecologically and economically sustainable living environment that is in character with Chapel Hill. Currently, the site is zoned Community Commercial and is designated as Mixed-Use in the Town’s Land Use Plan. The following text summarizes how the development of University Village as a MU-V will better achieve these principals.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Encourage Desirable Forms of Non-Residential Development; Create and Preserve Affordable Housing Opportunities – “Affordable housing will be provided that meets and exceeds the Town’s minimum requirement. These units will be distributed throughout the various buildings and will be serviced equally with covered secure parking and equal access to all recreational facilities.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Arguments in Opposition: No arguments in opposition have been submitted to date.
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment on December 19, 2006. The Board voted 7-0 to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Ordinance A. Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action.
Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the Council enact Ordinance A to amend the text of Section 3.5.1 Mixed Use-Village of the Land Use Management Ordinance to including the following changes as described above.
If the text amendments are enacted, as recommended by staff and reflected in Ordinance A, we believe it would allow a development that more closely meets the densities of an urban environment and the typical thresholds for transit-oriented development.
Ordinance B would amend the Land Use Management Ordinance as proposed by the applicant.