MEMORANDUM
|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Coordinator |
|
SUBJECT: |
Public Hearing: Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendments - Higher Density Residential Zoning Districts and Resource Conservation District Floor Area Ratios |
|
DATE: |
March 10, 2008 |
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council considers 2 possible text amendments to the Land Use Management Ordinance. The first amendment would add higher density residential zoning districts to the Use Matrix. The second amendment would adjust the floor area ratios associated with the Resource Conservation District.
Our preliminary recommendation is that the Council enact the attached Ordinances to amend the Land Use Management Ordinance in order to:
1) Create higher density residential zoning districts (Ordinance A); and
2) Adjust the Resource Conservation District floor area ratios (Ordinance B).
For some general background and discussion on this proposed change to the Land Use Management Ordinance, please refer to the attached cover memorandum from the Town Manager to the Council.
CURRENT ORDINANCE
Zoning Districts: Zoning determines the type and intensity of uses and development that are allowed on a piece of land. Zoning districts lists the various types of uses permitted within the community. One essential function of zoning is to regulate the dimensional aspects and intensity of development. Section 3.8 of the Land Use Management Ordinance establishes regulations governing the configuration and location of lots, buildings, structures and paved surfaces. This includes lot size, density, floor area intensity, lot width, and setbacks from streets and property lines. These standards (attached) are consolidated in a schedule called the Dimensional Matrix (Table 3.8-1).
Several types of zoning districts are established: residential, commercial and industrial zones. Each district establishes uses that are permitted "as of right," and uses permitted only as "special uses.” The Land Use Management Ordinance includes 11 residential zoning districts. The portion of the Dimension Matrix that includes these residential zoning districts is copied below:
Table 3.8-1: Dimensional Matrix
|
(A) |
(B) |
(C) |
(D) |
(E) |
(F) |
(G) |
(H) |
(I) |
(J) |
(K) |
(L) |
|
Zoning District |
Minimum Lot Size |
Maximum Density |
Minimum Frontage |
Minimum Lot Width |
Maximum Building Height (Primary) |
Maximum Building Height (Secondary) |
Minimum Street Setback |
Minimum Interior Setback |
Minimum Solar Setback |
Impervious Surface Ratio |
Maximum Floor Area Ratio |
|
R-LD5 |
217,800 |
0.2 |
200 |
250 |
29 |
35 |
30 |
16 |
20 |
.24/.5/.7 |
.025 |
|
RT |
100,000 |
0.4 |
160 |
200 |
29 |
35 |
30 |
16 |
20 |
.24/.5/.7 |
.031 |
|
R-LD1 |
43,560 |
1.0 |
100 |
125 |
29 |
35 |
30 |
16 |
19 |
.24/.5/.7 |
.047 |
|
R-1A |
25,000 |
2.0 |
80 |
100 |
29 |
38 |
29 |
15 |
18 |
.24/.5/.7 |
.062 |
|
R-1 |
17,000 |
3.0 |
64 |
80 |
29 |
40 |
28 |
14 |
17 |
.24/.5/.7 |
.076 |
|
R-2A |
14,500 |
3.5 |
56 |
70 |
29 |
50 |
27 |
10 |
12 |
.24/.5/.7 |
.087 |
|
R-2 |
10,000 |
4.0 |
52 |
65 |
29 |
50 |
26 |
11 |
13 |
.24/.5/.7 |
.093 |
|
R-3 |
5,500 |
7.0 |
40 |
50 |
29 |
60 |
24 |
8 |
11 |
.24/.5/.7 |
.162 |
|
R-4 |
5,500 |
10.0 |
40 |
50 |
34 |
60 |
22 |
8 |
9 |
.24/.5/.7 |
.230 |
|
R-5 |
5,500 |
15.0 |
40 |
50 |
39 |
60 |
20 |
6 |
8 |
.24/.5/.7 |
.303 |
|
R-6 |
5,500 |
15.0 |
40 |
50 |
39 |
60 |
20 |
6 |
8 |
.24/.5/.7 |
.303 |
In the Land Use Management Ordinance, Section 3.3.9, the existing “Residential District” provision states that Residential Districts are “intended to provide for residential development of appropriate intensities consonant with the suitability of land, availability of public services, accessibility to major activity centers and transportation systems, and compatibility with surrounding development.”
Residential-6 is the most intense residential zoning district regarding floor area, density, primary and secondary building heights, and setbacks from street, interior and solar property lines.
Resource Conservation District (Floor Area Ratios): As previously mentioned, an essential function of zoning is to regulate the dimensional aspects and intensity of development. Among other things, this includes the amount of floor area permitted on a zoning lot. Floor area is regulated by a floor area ratio (FAR) in the Land Use Management Ordinance. The FAR is a decimal fraction that, when multiplied by the gross land area of a zoning lot, determines the maximum floor area permitted on the zoning lot. The floor area ratios for the various zoning districts are in the schedule of intensity regulations (Column L Dimensional Matrix Table 3.8-1).
The Land Use Management Ordinance specifies different floor area ratios for land within the Resource Conservation District (Table 3.6.3-3: Dimensional Regulations in RCD). The Ordinance contains floor area ratios for two of the three Resource Conservation Districts stream corridor zones that are more restrictive than the underlying zoning district. A portion of Table 3.6.3-3, identifying these more restrictive floor area ratios of the RCD is copied below:
|
(A) |
(B) |
(C) |
(D) |
|
Dimensional requirement |
Stream side zone |
Managed use zone |
Upland zone |
|
Floor area ratio |
.01 |
.019 |
Same as underlying zoning district |
The lowest floor area ratio outside the Stream side and Managed use zones is .025. This ratio applies to the R-LD-5 zoning district (minimum lot size 5 acres).
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS
Two text amendments to the Land Use Management Ordinance are proposed to:
Each proposed change to the Land Use Management Ordinance is described below:
Residential-Higher Density Zoning Districts
(R-HD1-C, R-HD2-C, R-HD3-C R-HD-4-C)
The proposed text amendment to create higher density residential districts would establish the floor area, density, primary and secondary building height, and setbacks in new Residential-Higher Density-Conditional (R-HD-C) zoning districts. A summary of the proposed text amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance is provided below:
Conditional Use Districts: 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.
We recommend that the proposed higher density districts should be established as conditional use districts. A conditional use rezoning request would allow development and uses only with approval of a Special Use Permit. Applications for a conditional use zoning application are typically submitted with an associated Special Use Permit application.
Dimensional Matrix (Table 3.8-1): The proposal would expand the Dimensional Matrix by inserting four new residential zoning districts. The new districts inserted into the matrix are proposed to be identified as Residential-Higher Density-Conditional 1, 2, 3, and 4 (R-HD1-C, R-HD2-C, R-HD3-C, R-HD4-C). The following chart outlines the proposed land use intensity and density standards for each of these new districts:
|
(A) |
(B) |
(C) |
(D) |
(E) |
(F) |
(G) |
(H) |
(I) |
(J) |
(K) |
(L) |
|
Zoning District |
Minimum Lot Size |
Maximum Density |
Minimum Frontage |
Minimum Lot Width |
Maximum Building Height (Primary) |
Maximum Building Height (Secondary) |
Minimum Street Setback |
Minimum Interior Setback |
Minimum Solar Setback |
Impervious Surface Ratio |
Maximum Floor Area Ratio |
|
R-HD1-C |
NA |
NA |
40 |
50 |
40 |
60 |
10 |
6 |
8 |
.24/.5/.7 |
0.75 |
|
R-HD2-C |
NA |
NA |
40 |
50 |
50 |
75 |
10 |
6 |
8 |
.24/.5/.7 |
1.0 |
|
R-HD3-C |
NA |
NA |
40 |
50 |
50 |
90 |
10 |
6 |
8 |
.24/.5/.7 |
1.25 |
|
R-HD4-C |
NA |
NA |
40 |
50 |
50 |
90 |
10 |
6 |
8 |
.24/.5/.7 |
1.5 |
Each of these proposed land use intensities and density standards are discussed below:
Minimum Lot Size: The proposed higher density zoning districts do not include a minimum lot size requirement. Although we anticipate that requests to rezone property for developments associated with this zoning district will likely involve properties large enough for construction of a multi-family development, our preliminary recommendation does not include a minimum lot size.
For illustrative purposed we have included two examples of existing and previous residential development on lots less than 3 acres. The first example is The Warehouse on W Rosemary St (between the Fountains and Breadmans Restaurant). The second example is the old Village Apartments, recently converted to the Condominiums, on E. Franklin S (located between the University Presbyterian Church and the Kappa Delta Sorority). The following table includes land use intensity information.
|
Project |
Lot size |
Floor area |
No. stories |
No units |
Units per acre |
Floor Area Ratio |
|
The Warehouse on W Rosemary St |
65,340 sq. ft. (1.5 acres) |
72,871 sq. ft. |
4 stories |
56 |
37 |
1.1 |
|
Village Apartments on E Franklin St (redeveloped as The Condominiums)
|
19,040 sq. ft. (.43 acres) |
22,852 sq. ft. |
3 stories |
38 |
86 |
1.2 |
Attached to this report are aerial photos of the two sites.
Although we realized that these examples may not comply with all of the Town’s present day development standards (stormwater management, impervious surface for example), we believe that they reflect what is possible on small lots, including redevelopments, with higher density.
We continue to believe that the proposed higher zoning districts are similar in some respects to other existing zoning districts (Town Center, Residential Special Standards, Mixed-Use Office/Institutional and Mixed-Use Residential) that do not provide a minimum lot size. Our preliminary recommendation for the higher density zoning districts does not include a minimum lot size. For additional discussion on this topic, please refer to the section under Planning Board Recommendation in this memorandum.
Maximum Density: The proposed higher density zoning districts do not include a maximum density for dwelling units. The Dimensional Matrix includes several zoning districts that do not specify a maximum density cap for dwelling units (Town Center, Residential Special Standards, Office/Institutional-2 and -3, Mixed Use Office/Institutional and Mixed-Use Residential). We believe that the proposed higher density zoning district is similar in some respects to the residential land use intensities associated with these zoning districts and therefore our preliminary recommendation does not include a maximum density for dwelling units. Without a density restriction, development intensity is regulated primarily through floor area restrictions. We believe that not providing a maximum density standard could result in a greater number and variety in the types and sizes of dwelling units, including affordable dwellings.
Minimum Frontage and Minimum Lot Width: The proposed zoning districts include minimum frontage and minimum lot width similar to the Residential-4, Residential-5 and Residential-6 zoning districts. We believe this standard is also appropriate for the proposed higher density zoning districts; however there may be some situations (near Town Center for example) where this standard cannot be met. In these circumstances a modification to the regulations may be appropriate.
Primary and Secondary Building Heights: The proposed zoning districts include primary and secondary building heights that are greater that the Residential-6 height limits. The recommended height limits for the proposed zoning districts and the R-6 height limits are compared below.
|
Zoning District |
Primary Building Height |
Secondary Building Height |
|
R-6 |
39 |
60 |
|
Proposed Districts and Building Heights |
||
|
R-HD1-C |
40 |
60 |
|
R-HD2-C |
50 |
75 |
|
R-HD3-C |
50 |
90 |
|
R-HD4-C |
50 |
90 |
Due to the mid-rise development (four to eight story buildings) we anticipate if the Council chooses to apply the proposed higher density zoning districts, we believe the above recommended building heights are reasonable and appropriate for each of the zoning districts.
For sites located within a proposed higher density district that are adjacent to residentially zoned property, our preliminary recommendation is that the Transitional Control for building heights (Section 3.8.4) of the Land Use Management Ordinance apply. The Transitional Control standards are briefly discussed later in this memorandum.
Minimum Street, Interior, Solar Setbacks: Our preliminary recommendation is for street, interior and solar setbacks of 10, 6, and 8 feet respectively. We believe this standard is appropriate for the proposed higher density zoning districts; however there maybe some situations where this standard can not be met. In these circumstances a modification to the regulations maybe appropriate.
For properties that may be located within the proposed higher density districts that are adjacent to residentially zoned property, our preliminary recommendation is that the Transitional Control for setbacks (Section 3.8.4) of the Land Use Management Ordinance apply. The Transitional Control standards are briefly discussed later in this memorandum.
Building Envelope: Our preliminary recommendation is that the height of a structure located in the residential high-density district may exceed the primary height limitation established in the dimensional matrix provided that for each foot the height of such structure exceeds the primary height limitation, the minimum street and interior setbacks applicable to that portion of the structure exceeding the primary height limitation shall be increased by one foot, and the minimum solar setback applicable to that portion of the structure exceeding the primary height limitation shall be increased by one and seven-tenths (1.7) feet.
This dimensional standard is also applicable in the town center, mixed use zoning districts, office/institutional-3, and office/institutional-4 zoning districts.
Impervious Surface Ratio: We recommend the impervious surface ratios of 0.24 (low density option), 0.5 (high density option) and 0.7 (mixed-use outside the Watershed District) that currently apply to zoning districts also apply to the proposed higher density districts.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio: Maximum floor area ratio and maximum density for the current residential zoning districts is shown in the below table:
|
Zoning District |
Maximum Floor Area Ratio |
Maximum Density (per acre) |
|
R-LD5 |
.025 |
0.2 |
|
RT |
.031 |
0.4 |
|
R-LD1 |
.047 |
1.0 |
|
R-1A |
.062 |
2.0 |
|
R-1 |
.076 |
3.0 |
|
R-2A |
.087 |
3.5 |
|
R-2 |
.093 |
4.0 |
|
R-3 |
.162 |
7.0 |
|
R-4 |
.230 |
10.0 |
|
R-5 |
.303 |
15.0 |
|
R-6 |
.303 |
15.0 |
As the maximum density and floor area ratio increases from district to district, the relationship between the floor area ratio and density in each district remains at an approximate ratio of 1 to 4 (floor area ratio to density). In proposing the higher density residential zoning districts, our recommendation is to consider floor area ratios that would hypothetically respect this 1 to 4 relationship if each district was subject to the density limits as show in the table below.
|
Proposed Zoning District |
Proposed Maximum Floor Area Ratio |
Hypothetical Maximum Density (per acre) |
|
R-HD1-C |
0.75 |
30 |
|
R-HD2-C |
1.0 |
40 |
|
R-HD3-C |
1.25 |
55 |
|
R-HD4-C |
1.5 |
65 |
We believe that the creation of new residential zoning districts, with floor area ratios greater than 1.0 is reasonable. As evident by the handout presented during the Planning Board meeting (attached), the lower floor area ratios may not provide an adequate amount of residential floor area to accommodate the desired unit density for these zoning districts, if larger units are proposed.
Although we do not recommend maximum density standards for the higher density districts, we believe the above example illustrates an approach to recommending floor area ratios that is compatible with the current residential zoning intensity standards.
Other Changes to the Land Use Management Ordinance: In addition to the proposed changes to the Dimensional Matrix, we also recommend the following changes to the Land Use Management Ordinance (with respect to these proposed higher density residential districts):
We believe that these intensity standards described are appropriate for the proposed higher density districts. We believe the application of Transitional Control standards will help mitigate development impacts on existing residentially zoned districts. We also believe that the urban streetscape and architectural design typically associated with higher density residential development provides sufficient justification to not mandate suburban-style landscape buffers along arterial and collector roads. Parking lot screening requirements would apply.
Removal of Reduced Floor Area Ratio from Resource Conservation District
This proposed text amendment would remove the Resource Conservation District floor area ratio intensity standards from Table 3.6.3-3 (Dimensional Regulations in RCD). The reduced floor area ratios in the RCD, as show in the table below, would revert to that of the underlying zoning district.
|
(A) |
(B) |
(C) |
(D) |
|
Dimensional requirement |
Stream side zone |
Managed use zone |
Upland zone |
|
Floor area ratio |
.01 |
.019 |
Same as underlying zoning district |
The proposal would allow the floor area ratio associated with the underlying zoning district to be the applicable ratio. This floor area ratio intensity is what currently applies to the RCD Upland Zone.
The Land Use Management Ordinance limits development, land disturbance, and impervious surface area within the Resource Conservation District. We believe that these protective measures adequately safeguard the environmentally sensitive nature of the stream corridors within the Resource Conservation District. We do not anticipate that the recommendation to replace the above RCD floor area ratio with the floor area ratio of the underlying zoning district will negatively impact the RCD. This recommended change to the floor area ratio in the RCD would permit allowable floor area to be transferred from the environmentally sensitive portion of the property to the buildable portion of the property rather than penalize properties that have some portion in the RCD by artificially reducing the allowable floor area on the overall site.
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 two 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:
Arguments in Support: The applicant offered the following in support of this finding. (please see attached Statement of Justification). Portions of the applicant’s Statement of Justification are copied below:
“Maintain the Urban Services Area/Rural Buffer Boundary – By redeveloping a Downtown site rather than challenging the buffer with additional suburban track development, the Residences at Grove Park project alleviates suburban sprawl by providing a significant choice for new residential development on one of the few remaining sites where such development (R-HD1-C, R-HD2-C, and R-HD3-C ) is encouraged and appropriate. Additionally, this new opportunity for healthy density is created with little additional infrastructure required since the utilities and base services are already present.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Conserve and protect existing neighborhoods - Since the area inside the Urban Services Area is approximately 94% built out, one of the few remaining opportunities for Chapel Hill to accommodate the nearly 50% population growth forecast in the 2035 Long Range Plan is to seek out sustainable urban redevelopment sites like 425 Hillsborough St. With developments like Grove Park handling the new growth, the character and nature of Chapel Hill’s historic neighborhoods can be protected.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Create and preserve affordable housing opportunities – This proposal includes 26 new 2-bedroom affordable condominiums on-site to support the Council’s Inclusionary efforts.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Work toward a balanced transportation system - By design, the Residences at Grove Park bring more residents to the walkable Downtown environment. The proximity of these new residents to downtown should reduce overall automobile trips as well as providing the necessary density to properly support the growing bus system provided by Chapel Hill. More directly though, the improvements Grove Park brings to the pedestrian connections already on our site and the bus corridors it borders will encourage pedestrians, bikes, and bus ridership through out the area and be a model for other developments along the Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. transit corridor.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Complete the bikeway/greenway/sidewalk system – The new pedestrian and bicycle amenities provided by the Grove Park design are built specifically to provide connectivity to Downtown and encourage its revitalization. Along with the Downtown connections and our RCD improvements, we are dedicating a greenway easement to improve connectivity to the Bolin Creek Greenway system and other established pathways for the Town.” [Applicant’s Statement]
“Provide quality community facilities and services – From the well-lit and secure subterranean parking decks to the expansive green spaces and active recreation areas enjoyed by all our residences, the Grove Park project will improve the RCD and the currently clear-cut site to make it a model community for sustainable infill and renewal.” [Applicant’s Statement]
Arguments in Opposition: We have received a statement (presented to the Planning Board on February 19th) opposing the proposed adjustment to the Resource Conservation District floor area ratios (attached).
We believe the justification of the text amendment applications is to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan particularly as it relates to redevelopment of properties in a manner that encourages a balanced transportation system, promotes a healthy downtown, and protects the natural environment.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Board: The Planning Board considered the text amendments at the February 19, 2008 and the March 4, 2008 meeting. Planning Board recommended that the Council enactment of Ordinance A, creating four residential higher-density zoning districts, including the following:
Comment: The first three bulleted items above have been incorporated into the attached preliminary Ordinance A. With respect to the recommendation for a minimum lot size of 3 acres, we anticipate having a recommendation for Council’s consideration on this issue when this item returns for Council action.
The Planning Board also recommended that the Council enact Ordinance B to adjust the floor area ratios in the Resource Conservation District.
We anticipate distributing a copy of the Planning Board’s recommendation from March 4 during tonight’s Council meeting
Staff’s Preliminary Recommendation: Subsequent to the Planning Board meeting on March 4, we have incorporated the following changes into proposed Ordinance A:
We recommend that the Council enact: 1) attached Ordinance A to create four higher density residential zoning districts; and 2) attached Ordinance B, adjusting the Resource Conservation District floor area ratios.
ATTACHMENTS
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (March 10, 2008)
