AGENDA #9a, 9b
MEMORANDUM
|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
|
|
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director |
|
|
Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator |
|
|
|
|
SUBJECT: |
Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment Modifications to the Permitted Land Use Intensity in the Mixed Use-Village (MU-V) Zoning District |
|
|
|
|
DATE: |
February 26, 2007 |
|
|
|
PURPOSE
Tonight, the Council continues the January 17, 2007 Public Hearing to consider an application to amend the Land Use Management Ordinance. Enactment of the attached Ordinance would amend the Mixed Use-Village (MU-V) zoning district provisions of the Land Use Management Ordinance. The proposed zoning district would establish higher intensity standards in the Mixed Use-Village district.
Enactment of Revised Ordinance A would amend the Mixed Use-Village district as recommended by the staff. Enactment of Ordinance B would amend the Mixed Use-Village district as requested by the applicant. Please see the attachment January 17 Public Hearing memorandum for the applicant’s statement of justification and text amendment request.
CURRENT REGULATIONS
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 would typically be appropriate for development on such roadway classifications.
KEY ISSUE
Following the January 17, 2007 Public Hearing, we identified the following Key Issue.
1. Changes to Intensity Standards: A correspondence from a citizen (Attachment 1) was received following the January 17, 2007 Public Hearing. The correspondence expressed a concern with the intensity standards recommended by the proposed text amendment to the Mixed-Use Village zoning district. The citizen expressed concern with the proposed increase in:
A) Floor Area Ratio - from 0.5 to 1.2;
B) Residential density - from 15 units per acre to 20 units per acre; and
C) Primary height - from 60 feet to 85 feet.
Comment: In response to each concern we offer the following:
A) Floor Area Ratio: The proposal to increase the Floor Area Ratio from 0.5 to 1.2 supports the Comprehensive Plan goals for infill development adjacent to existing services and amenities. We continue to recommend that the Council enact an ordinance that increases the Floor Area Ratio in the Mixed-Use Village district from .0.5 to 1.2.
B) Residential Density (units per acre): The proposal to increase the maximum number of units per acre from 15 to 20 units per acre is appropriate for infill development located along major thoroughfares and transit corridors. Staff research has determined that this level of density is a recommended standard for model mixed use development ordinances as well as being within the range of what has been considered necessary to support transit.
C) Maximum Primary Height: According to some mixed use model ordinance standards, recommended maximum building height range is 38-50 feet for mixed use buildings and 35-47 feet for all other buildings. We are concerned that the applicant’s initial proposal and staff’s recommendation to increase the Mixed Use-Village primary height limit from 60 to 85 feet may be too high.
In order to accommodate the increased density proposed by this amendment, we have revised our recommendation and now recommend that the maximum primary height in the Mixed-Use Village be increased by 10 feet to 70 feet. We have received correspondence from the applicant (Attachment 2) agreeing to a maximum primary height of 70 feet.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
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:
Loading Areas
Recreation Space Ratio
2. Increase the minimum recreation space area ratio from .015 to .046.
Residential Units per Acres
3. Increase maximum number of residential units per acre from 15 units per acre to 20 units per acre.
Revised Maximum Building Height (primary)
4. Increase maximum primary building height from 60 feet to 70 feet.
Building Setback (street and interior)
5. Reduce street (10 feet), and interior (5 feet) setbacks to 0 feet.
Maximum Floor Area
6. Change the maximum floor area ratio from .500 to 1.2. The floor area ratio determines the allowable floor area for a development.
Setbacks/Height Limitation between Residential and Non-Residential Districts
7. Allow for an exemption of 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. In such a case, the exemption would allow the setback and height limitations of the underlying zoning district.
Site Plan
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.”
Signage
9. We recommend that signage in the MU-V district be regulated in the same manner as signage in the CC, NC, OI-1, OI-2, OI-3, OI-4, and Industrial zoning districts.
All of the above recommended text amendments to the Mixed-Use Village zoning districts changes have been incorporated into the staff’s recommendation Revised Ordinance A.
APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL
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 as described below.
Off-Street Parking Requirements
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 development proposals 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 recommendation, attached Ordinance A, does not amend this section of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
The applicant’s proposed text amendment is provided as Ordinance B.
ANALYSIS OF APPLICATION
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 principles in order to fulfill its purpose and objectives. These principles 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 on 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]
A copy of the applicant’s Statement of Justification is included in the attached January 17, 2007 Public Hearing memorandum (Attachment 3).
Arguments in Opposition: There were no issues raised during the January 17, 2007 public hearing regarding the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance amendment. However, an email from a citizen who asked that his comments be read into the record at that meeting is attached. For additional discussion on this subject please refer the Key Issues section in this memorandum.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment on December 19, 2006. The Board voted to recommend that the Council approve the application with the adoption of Ordinance A as attached in the January 17, 2007 Public Hearing memorandum.
Staff’s Revised Recommendation: We recommend that the Council enact Revised Ordinance A to amend the text of Section 3.5.1 Mixed Use-Village of the Land Use Management Ordinance to including the changes as described above.
If the text amendments are enacted, as recommended by staff and reflected in Revised 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.
ATTACHMENTS