MEMORANDUM

 

TO:                  Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager

 

FROM:            J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director

                        Gene Poveromo, Development Manager

 

SUBJECT:      Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendments, Revised Residential-Special Standards-Conditional Zoning District

 

DATE:            March 23, 2009

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Tonight the Council continues the public hearing from March 16, 2009.  Enactment of the attached ordinances would result in text amendments to the Land Use Management Ordinance which would provide more flexibility in where the Residential-Special Standards–Conditional Zoning District 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.  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 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, which provides a more restricted adjustment to the zoning district.  Unlike Ordinance A, in Ordinance B, all nine objective statements must be met.   

 

DISCUSSION

 

Council Comments

At the March 16, 2009 public hearing, Council members made several suggestions for refining the review process and/or standards for the R-SS-C zoning districts.  They included the following:

 

• Refer the text amendments for further study by the newly created Sustainability Community Visioning Task Force;
• Provide additional standards/metrics so that the community, developers, and future Town Councils can  better understand the expectations and intent of the district;
• Provide more emphasis on affordable housing component;
• Provide more specificity for applicable locations (e.g. specific nodes along major transportation corridors);
• Apply the district only to already-developed sites (“brownfields”) rather than to virgin land;
• Provide the Sustainability Visioning Task Force with the proximity maps generated earlier for downtown proximity; and
• Restricting any version resembling draft Ordinance A as to the number of standards that must be met.

 

Staff Comment:  Unable to sufficiently analyze these ideas in the time frame given, we suggest they be considered by the staff and by the newly created Sustainability Visioning Task Force, with the potential of further refining of the R-SS-C zoning district standards later in the year.

 

For tonight, we continue to offer Ordinances A and B as presented at the March 16, 2009 public hearing.  We recommend Ordinance B, which requires all nine standards be met. 

 

COMPARISON OF ORDINANCES A AND B

 

	Application of 9 standards	Conditional zoning district, requiring accompanying SUP	Rezoning as legislative decision (control over location)	Corrects typographical error in statement #9 of current version of R-SS-C zoning district text
Ordinance A	Some or all	Yes	Yes	Yes
Ordinance B	All	Yes	Yes	Yes

 

Ordinances A and B are provided as Attachments 1 and 2, respectively.

 

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: The Planning Board recommendation and several citizen comments (some reflected in the attached emails) provide arguments in opposition to the proposed text amendment.  Please see the attached Summary of Planning Board Action and emails from citizens.

 

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 Recommendation: We recommend enactment of Ordinance B to amend the R-SS-C district, allowing 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. 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

1.      Summary of Planning Board Action (p. 9).

2.      Emails from citizens (p. 10).