MEMORANDUM

TO:	Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM:	J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director Gene Poveromo, Development Manager
SUBJECT:	Public Hearing: Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendments, Revised Residential-Special Standards-Conditional Zoning District
DATE:	March 16, 2009

INTRODUCTION

Tonight the Council considers text amendments to the Land Use Management Ordinance. The amendments would adjust the purpose and intent section of the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional zoning district.

The attached ordinances would amend the Residential-Special Standards-Conditional district to provide more flexibility in where the zone might be applied. Two ordinances are provided for consideration. Each amends the existing zoning district in different ways:

Ordinance A is similar to the first R-SS-C zoning amendment that we brought to the Council in September. It offers flexibility regarding which goal statements are targeted with a proposed development. Ordinance A does not require that all objectives be addressed with the rezoning, at the discretion of the Council. Text is added to include proximity to neighborhood centers in addition to downtown and to provide that any property proposed to be rezoned beyond the downtown must also be located on particular major transportation corridors. Although all objectives would not have to be met, as a conditional zoning district, any development proposal would be approved as a Special Use Permit which includes a finding that the project conform with the Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance A is provided as Attachment 1.

Ordinance B is provided in response to comments staff heard at the March 3 Planning Board meeting. Although the Planning Board recommended denial of the changes to the zoning district, we have incorporated some of their ideas into Ordinance B. Ordinance B provides a more limited adjustment to the zoning district. All nine objective statements must be met. The nine objective statements remain but the objective regarding proximity to downtown is expanded to include neighborhood commercial districts and to provide that any property proposed to be rezoned beyond the downtown must also be located on particular major transportation corridors. Ordinance B is provided as Attachment 2.

BACKGROUND

A proposal to amend the Land Use Management Ordinance to extend the range of residential zoning districts to include several higher density zoning districts was denied on May 5, 2008. Following consideration of higher density residential zoning districts, the Council requested that an existing zoning district be amended to accommodate higher density/intensity residential development.

The Residential-Special Standards-Conditional (R-SS-C) district was initially enacted by the Town Council in 1999. On November 24, 2008, the Council amended provisions of the R-SS-C district. The amended ordinances increased the floor area ratio and added purpose and intent statements to the zoning district. The amended zone is intended for developments that are 100% affordable or developments that meet nine objective statements. A copy of the November 24, 2008 amended ordinance can be viewed at the following link: http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2008/11/24/7/2008-11-24_o4_amended.htm

In November, the focus of the R-SS-C district was expanded to address developments that were in close proximity to the downtown. One of the nine objective statements indicates that an associated development proposal must be in close proximity to the downtown. Following the 2008 amendment to the R-SS-C district ordinance, the Council considered two multi-family development proposals: Residences at Grove Park and Aydan Court. Both development proposals included a Zoning Atlas Amendment application to rezone the proposed development sites to the amended R-SS-C district.

On February 9, 2009, during the Council’s consideration of the Aydan Court R-SS-C Zoning Atlas Amendment, several Council members noted that the amended R-SS-C district did not appear to be appropriate for this proposed development. One reason referenced was that the development is not in close proximity to the downtown. On February 9, 2009, the Council requested that that staff initiate options for consideration by the Council that would amend the R-SS-C district to offer increased flexibility including accommodation of projects beyond the downtown area.

DISCUSSION

Ordinance A is similar to the first R-SS-C zoning amendment that we brought to the Council in September. It offers flexibility regarding which goal statements are targeted with a proposed development. The Ordinance continues to provide an option that the associated development be either 100% affordable or that it meet other objective statements. Ordinance A references the Comprehensive Plan but does not require that all objective statements be addressed with the rezoning, at the Council’s discretion. The objective regarding proximity to downtown is expanded to include neighborhood commercial districts and frontage on particular major transportation corridors.

The proposed language of Draft Ordinance A is provided below with strike through of text proposed to be deleted and underline of new text:

An applicant must demonstrate that the associated Special Use Permit application complies with the following objective:
1. Promotion of a 100% affordable on-site housing component.

An applicant must demonstrate that the associated Special Use Permit application achieves the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan by complying with some or all ~~complies with~~ ~~each~~ of the following objectives as determined appropriate by the Town Council:
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 reasonable accessible pedestrian/bicycle and non-vehicular access to downtown/centers.
5. In support of this objective, the proposed development shall be located within a reasonable walking/cycling distance of downtown or within a reasonable walking/cycling distance of a neighborhood commercial /employment center, and include frontage along one of the following transportation corridors:
  - NC 54 between Town limits and US 15-501; or
  - Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. between Rosemary Street and I-40; or
  - US 15-501 between I-40 and Chatham County.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Promotion of green and ecologically sound developments.
10. Encouragement of a community character that promotes economic vitality, ~~economic~~ environmental protection and social equity.

Further, regarding proposed Ordinance A, we note that because this is a conditional zoning district, any development proposal would be approved as a Special Use Permit which includes a finding that the project conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. Ordinance A also corrects a typographical error in statement #9. Ordinance A is provided as Attachment 1.

Ordinance B is provided in response to comments staff heard at the March 3 Planning Board meeting. Although the Planning Board recommended denial of the changes to the zoning district, we have incorporated some of their ideas into Ordinance B. Ordinance B provides a more limited change to the zoning district. All nine objective statements must be met. The nine objective statements remain but the objective regarding proximity to downtown is expanded to include neighborhood commercial districts and frontage on particular major transportation corridors.

An applicant must demonstrate that the associated Special Use Permit application achieves the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan by complying ~~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 reasonable accessible pedestrian/bicycle and non-vehicular access to downtown/centers.
5. In support of this objective, the proposed development shall be located within a reasonable walking/cycling distance of downtown or within a reasonable walking/cycling distance of a neighborhood commercial /employment center, and include frontage along one of the following transportation corridors:
  - NC 54 between Town limits and US 15-501; or
  - Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. between Rosemary Street and I-40; or
  - US 15-501 between I-40 and Chatham County.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Promotion of green and ecologically sound developments.
10. Encouragement of a community character that promotes economic vitality, ~~economic~~ environmental protection and social equity.

Draft Ordinance B requires that the Council determine that all nine objectives are met. Ordinance B also corrects a typographical error in statement #9 and is provided as Attachment 2.

Application of the amended R-SS-C zone would be at the discretion of the elected officials. In addition, because the R-SS-C 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. 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. In other words, the Council would control where the zoning district may be applied.

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: We believe the justification of the text amendment proposal 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, carbon reduction, water conservation and other conservation measures, promotion of a healthy downtown/neighborhood centers, protection of the natural environment, and promotion of public art in development.
Argument in Opposition: To date no arguments in opposition has been submitted.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Planning Board: On March 3, 2009, the Planning Board unanimously recommended denial of the proposed text amendment. Please refer to the attached Summary of Planning Board Action for additional information.

Staff’s Preliminary Recommendation: We recommend that the R-SS-C district be amended to allow flexibility along with greater focus on appropriate areas within the community where this district may be appropriate. This flexibility will offer the Council greater authority to review and potentially approve a wider range of development proposals that strive to comply with the themes and goals of the Comprehensive Plan as well as directing development toward appropriate sites.

We recommend that the Council open and hold a public hearing to consider the proposed Land Use Management Ordinance text amendments, the Manager’s memorandum, and associated attachments as listed therein. As requested by the Council, we will return to the Council for possible action on March 23, 2009.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance A (p. 8).

2. Ordinance B (p. 10).

3. Summary of Planning Board Action (p. 12).