MEMORANDUM
TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM: J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director
Gene Poveromo, Development Manager
SUBJECT: Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendments Residential-Special Standards-Conditional Zoning District
DATE: October 27, 2008
INTRODUCTION
Tonight the Council continues the September 17, 2008 public hearing to consider an application for a text amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance. The amendment would; 1) increase the permitted floor area in the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district; and 2) insert text into the ordinance describing the purpose and intent of the Residential-Special Standards- Conditional zoning district.
We recommend that the Council enact the attached ordinance and amend the Land Use Management Ordinance with respect to the floor area ratio and the purpose and intent section of the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district.
The following discussion is in response to comments received at the September 17, 2008 Public Hearing.
DISCUSSION
In addition to recommending a change to the floor area ratio, the staff’s preliminary recommendation to the Council proposed an amendment to establish an objective section for the R-SS-C zoning district. The proposed change included six statements describing some of the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan focusing on: 1) affordable housing; 2) transportation; 3) healthy downtown/employment centers; 4) protecting the natural environment; 5) public art; and 6) neighborhood protection.
The staff believed that an application proposing to rezone a site to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional district, should demonstrate that the accompanying Special Use Permit application complies with one or more of the goals/objectives described in the six statements.
KEY ISSUES
During the September 17 Public Hearing, concern was expressed about the staff recommendation to add these statements to the Conditional Use District section of the Land Use Management Ordinance. Although some recognized that the inclusion of these statements could help clarify the Council’s expectations, with respect to the Council’s review of a rezoning proposal, a desire for some type of measurable standard associated with these statements was expressed. Although one Council member also expressed appreciation for the statement addressing energy management plans, a desire for protection of other natural resources was noted.
Another concern expressed at the public hearing focused on affordable housing. Several speakers recalled that one intended desire in creating the Residential-Special Standards- Condition district was to encourage developments with 100% affordable housing. Some believed that the affordable housing statement, as recommended by the staff, did not address this original intent.
A third issue pointed to the recommended number of goals/objective statements an applicant had to demonstrate compliance with. The staff’s preliminary recommendation suggested compliance with one or more of the six statements. Discussion during the public hearing ranged from support of the staff recommendation to suggestions that an applicant’s compliance with all six stated goals/objectives might be appropriate.
In response to the above concerns, the following discussion offers options for the Council’s consideration. This section will respond to concerns about measurable standards and the Council’s expectations on compliance with one or more objectives. In order to discuss the staff’s recommendation on the number/type of objectives, the term “principal” or “secondary” objective will be use. These terms do not apply to the following brief discussion on 100% affordable housing.
The six statements, as proposed at the September 17 Public Hearing, will be repeated below. Each will be follow by a comment section and revised recommendation (including strike-out for deleted text and unlined for new text). The issues associated with 100% affordable housing will also be discussed below.
Applying standards to proposed R-SS-C goal/objectives
Affordable housing: Staff offered the following text at the Public Hearing: “Promotion of affordable housing on-site (and off-site when appropriate).”
Comment: We believe the affordable housing objectives, associated with this proposed text amendment, should be presented as two separate statements. The first statement would express the Council’s desire for a rezoning proposal that has 100% of the proposed units as affordable. The statement could be worded as follows:
·
Promotion of a 100% affordable on-site housing component.
affordable housing on-site (and off-site when appropriate)
We believe achieving this 100% affordable housing objective could alone be enough for the Council to justify a rezoning, if desired.
Recognizing that 100% affordability is not practical for all developments, a section could offer an alternative option for an affordable housing component that complies with or exceeds the Council’s most current affordable housing policy, as one of several required objectives, as described below:
· Promotion of affordable housing on-site and off-site when appropriate, that complies with or exceeds the Council’s current affordable housing policy.
We believe an applicant’s compliance with this objective, should be one of three “principal” objectives, described in this section of the memorandum (including energy management and transportation), for Council consideration, when reviewing a rezoning proposal.
Energy Management Plan: The staff offered the following text at the public hearing: “Protection of the natural environment through energy management and conservation and compliance with Council resolutions addressing carbon reduction and other conservation measures” as one of several objectives that could be used to justify a zoning change.
Comment: We believe that this statement can be amended to clarify that an energy management plan must comply with the Council’s most recent policies concerning energy conservation.
·
Implementing an Protection of the natural environment through
energy management and conservation and compliance with Council resolutions
addressing plan that addresses carbon reduction, water
conservation and other conservation measures that comply with or exceed
the Council’s current energy management/conservation policies.
We believe an applicant’s compliance with this objective, should be one of three “principal” objectives, described in this section of the memorandum (including affordable housing and transportation), for Council consideration, when reviewing a rezoning proposal.
Transportation: Staff offered the following text at the public hearing: “Encouragement of a balanced private and public transportation system that promotes connectivity and safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians” as an objective when considering a zoning change to this district.
Comment: We believe that at a minimum, regardless of whether or not a proposal includes an application for rezoning to the R-SS-C district, that all Special Use Permit proposals should comply with the above statement. Additionally, for projects proposing the R-SS-C designation, we believe an application should also demonstrate a greater commitment toward transits improvement to the greater community. We believe this objective can be expressed by including the text “including direct and/or indirect improvements to the community’s transportation system” to the statement, as amended below:
· 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.
We believe an applicant’s compliance with this objective, should be one of three “principal” objectives, described in this memorandum (including affordable housing and energy management), for Council consideration, when reviewing a rezoning proposal.
Downtown: Staff offered the following text at the public hearing: “Promotion of a healthy downtown and healthy neighborhood commercial and employment centers” as an objective to justify a zoning change to this district.
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); or have opportunities to access these areas via non-vehicular means (greenways, trails, sidewalks, etc.). We believe this desire can be expressed by including the following phrase “by identifying or providing reasonably accessible pedestrian/bicycle and non-vehicular access to such districts/centers” to the statement as amended below.
·
Supporting Promotion of a healthy downtown district
and/or healthy neighborhood commercial/and employment centers by
identifying or providing reasonably accessible pedestrian/bicycle and
non-vehicular access to such districts/centers.
In addition to complying with the three principal objectives, we recommend that an applicant also comply with this “secondary” objective, or one of the other four secondary objectives (public art, neighborhood protection, natural environment), as described in this section of the memorandum.
Public Art: The staff offered the following text at the public hearing: “Promotion of Art (Private or Public) in private development that is visually accessible to the public.”
Comment: We believe this statement could be amended to encourage an applicant to consider committing to improving/supporting public art in a manner that offers greater benefit to the community. We believe that including the phrase “providing direct/indirect opportunities for public art” would improve options for public art.
· 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.
In addition to complying with the three principal objectives, we recommend that an applicant also comply with this “secondary” objective, or one of the other four secondary objectives (downtown, neighborhood protection, natural environment), as described in this section of the memorandum.
Neighborhood Protection: The staff offered the following text at the public hearing: “Protection of adjoining residential uses and neighborhoods.”
Comment: We believe that including the phrase “with appropriate screening/buffers and or architectural design elements that are congruous and sensitive to the surrounding residential area” provide a measurable standard for the Council’s consideration.
· 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.
In addition to complying with the three principal objectives, we recommend that an applicant also comply with this “secondary” objective, or one of the other four secondary objectives (public downtown, public art, natural environment), as described in this section of the memorandum.
Natural Environment: Supplementing the objective for an energy management plan, we recommend adding a new statement that focuses on the protection/restoration of natural resources/environments. For the Council’s consideration we offer the following statement:
· 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.
In addition to complying with the principal objectives we recommend that an applicant also comply with this “secondary” objective, or one of the other four secondary objectives as described above.
In summary we recommend the following standards be added to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional Zoning District:
·
Promotion of a 100% affordable on-site housing component.
· Promotion of affordable housing on-site and off-site when appropriate, that complies with or exceeds the Council’s current affordable housing policy.
· Implementing 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.
· Encouraging 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.
· Supporting 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.
· 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.
· 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.
· 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.
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.
1. Increase Floor Area Ratio: The proposed text amendment to the Residential Special Standards District zoning district would amend the .40 floor area ratio to 1.10.
We believe this adjustment is appropriate to allow the Council’s consideration of more compact residential development.
2. Conditional Use Districts: Residential Special Standards 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.
Atlas amendment applications, proposing to rezone a site to the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional district, must demonstrate that the associated Special Use Permit complies with the following objective the Comprehensive Plan:
· Promotion of an 100% affordable on-site housing component
Or an atlas amendment to a Residential-Special Standards-Conditional Zoning District must demonstrate that the associated Special Use Permit complies with each of the three below principal objectives:
· Promotion of affordable housing on-site and off-site when appropriate, that complies with or exceeds the Council’s current affordable housing policy.
· Implementing 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.
· Encouraging 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.
And one of the following secondary objectives:
· Supporting 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.
· 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.
· 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.
· 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.”
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:
· Argument in Support: We are unable to identify any arguments in support of a manifest error.
· Argument in Opposition: To date no arguments in opposition has been submitted.
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:
· Argument in Support: We are unable to identify any arguments in support of changed conditions.
· Argument in Opposition: To date no arguments in opposition has been submitted.
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 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]
During the September 17 public hearing the Council also received a statement in support of the proposed text amendment. A copy of the statement is attached.
· Arguments in Opposition: On August 19, 2008, the Planning Board recommended that the Council deny the enactment of the proposed Ordinance. For additional information please refer to the Recommendation section of this memorandum.
Comment: We believe the justification of the text amendment application is to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan particularly as it relates to development and redevelopment of properties in a manner that encourages a variety of objectives including affordable housing, a balanced transportation system, promotes a healthy downtown, protection of the natural environment, and promotion of public art in development.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Board: The Planning Board considered the text amendments on August 19, 2008 and voted 4 to 2 to recommend that the Council deny the enactment of Ordinance A. 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.
Comment: Although the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district was originally developed to promote affordable housing objectives, we believe there are a variety of Comprehensive Plan objectives that the Council may want to promote. The provision of a clear intent section for the amended zoning district 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 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.
ATTACHMENT