May 4, 2015

Page 1

COUNCIL MINUTES

The City Council of the City of Raleigh met in a Unified Development Ordinance Work Sessionat 4:00 p.m. on Monday, May 4, 2015in the City Council Chamber of the Raleigh Municipal Building, Avery C. Upchurch Government Complex, 222 West Hargett Street, Raleigh, North Carolina, with the following present:

Mayor Nancy McFarlane

Mayor Pro Tem John Odom

Councilor Mary-Ann Baldwin

Councilor Kay C. Crowder

Councilor Bonner Gaylord

Councilor Wayne Maiorano

Councilor Russ Stephenson

Councilor Eugene Weeks

Mayor McFarlane called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and the following items were discussed.

UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE –PROPOSED CITYWIDE REMAPPING – INFORMATION RECEIVED

Assistant Planning Director Travis Crane stated this meeting is the first of several meetings regarding the remapping of the city under the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) noting the intention is to not revise the Future Land Use Map. He used a PowerPoint presentation in support of his presentation, the outline of which is as follows:

Remapping Raleigh

  • Adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan in October 2009

−First ever consolidated future land use map

  • Drafted UDO 2010 – 2012

−Brand new mixed use districts; regulations

−Hundreds of public meetings

  • Adopted UDO February 2013

−Effective date – September 1, 2013

  • Act III

−Adopt a new Comprehensive Plan

−Adopt a new zoning code

−Adopt a new zoning map

  • Large area city-initiated rezoning request
  • Rezoning will fully implement the UDO
  • This rezoning map is not intended to fully implement the future land use map
  • Staff generated first draft of map, using “Mapping Methodology”

−Tried to make the map a “mechanical” exercise

−Do not remove land use entitlements

−Do not create any non-conformities

  • Provided UDO base district using following hierarchy

−Zoning district

−Use on property

−Future land use map

  • Seven mixed use districts in UDO

−Residential Mixed Use (-RX)

−Office Park (-OP)

−Office Mixed Use (-OX)

−Neighborhood Mixed Use (-NX)

−Commercial Mixed Use (-CX)

−Downtown Mixed Use (-DX)

−Industrial Mixed Use (-IX)

  • Seven height districts in UDO

−3 (3 stories/50 feet)

−4 (4 stories/62 feet)

−5 (5 stories/75 feet)

−7 (7 stories/90 feet)

−12 (12 stories/150 feet)

−20 (20 stories/250 feet)

−40 (40 stories/500 feet)

  • Seven frontages in UDO

−Parkway (-PK)

−Detached (-DE)

−Parking Limited (-PL)

−Green (-GR)

−Urban Limited (-UL)

−Urban General (-UG)

−Shopfront (-SH)

  • Mixed use zoning districts contain base, height and frontage
  • Mixed use district must include base and height; frontage is optional
  • Frontage applied based on context; guidance of Urban Form Map
  • R-1, R-2, R-4, R-6 and R-10 regulated by UDO (70% of City)

−Occurred of effective date of UDO - September 1, 2013

  • Proposed zoning map will rezone remainder of City

−Approximately 35,000 parcels

Options for Zoning Conditions

  • Over 900 conditional use districts
  • Most of the conditions remain, attached to UDO district
  • Staff reviewed each conditional use zoning
  • Preference to retain conditions, unless conditions were deemed illegal or fully implemented
  • 78 conditional use districts converted to general use

−Conditions could be retired in total

−Single conditions amongst many conditions cannot be removed

Public Comment

  • Public comments received between May and September
  • Staff received 1,787 comments by phone, email, interactive web viewer
  • Staff responded to every comment
  • Documented every comment and response
  • Public comment basis for Planning Commission review

Planning Commission Review

  • 14 Planning Commission work sessions; about 40 hours of review
  • Planning Commission received an additional 179 public comments during review
  • Planning Commission reviewed 311 items and recommends changes to 117 items
  • Little to no controversy during discussion

Planning Commission Recommendation

  • Planning Commission finds the rezoning request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval

−22 Findings and Reasons provided in Resource Materials for City Council notebook

UDO Alterations

  • During remapping, staff identified potential text changes to the UDO

−non-conformity clause for application of frontage

−Permit hotels in OP (currently Special Use Permit required)

−Permit bars/nightclubs in NX with limitations (not permitted)

−Permit office in IH (not permitted)

−Establish limitations for gas stations in NX (no limitations)

  • All changes currently in the adoption process

−Planning Commission reviewing limitations for gas stations in NX and non-conforming frontages; should be delivered to Council in June

−Council has received text change that would alter certain uses in mixed use districts

Process for Review

  • Resources Materials for City Council

−Zoning application

−Planning Commission Certified Recommendation

−Public Comments

−Resources

  • Public Hearing

−July 7

−Map can only be made more restrictive after date of advertisement of the public hearing (June 26)

May 4 Work Session

  • Residential Business District
  • Building Heights in Downtown

Residential Business District

  • Retired “legacy zoning district”
  • Allows residential, office, commercial
  • Mapped primarily in two areas:

−Glenwood South

−Southeast of Downtown

  • RB does not permit the following uses:

−Bar/nightclub/tavern

−Car wash

−Hospital

−Veterinary hospital

−Bank (with a drive through)

−Eating establishment (with no drive through; no onsite alcohol consumption)

−Hotel

−Convenience retail (apparel, drugstore, books, florist, furniture, laundry, music, jewelry, shoes, sporting goods, etc.)

  • Much of the area zoned RB southeast of downtown is also mapped with the DOD
  • The DOD permits an increase in density (up to 320/acre) and building height
  • This was translated to the DX district by staff
  • Why the change?

−Discussion related to Z-28-14 (corner of Cabarrus & Person)

−Public comment at Planning Commission: restrict late night activity and alcohol sales

−Applicant intends to open restaurant in this location

−While certain zoning districts may have limitations on alcohol sales, the State issues ABC permit

  • State not required to follow zoning

Public Comment

  • Staff anticipates additional public comment during Planning Commission review
  • Comments may be raised by Commissioners, public
  • Staff suggests that comments be delivered at meetings
  • Staff will respond to comments and provide a recommendation

The PowerPoint presentation included current and proposed rezoning maps.

Mr. Crane noted the remapping process will involve about 35,000 parcels; however there will be little to no effect on permitted uses, etc.

Mr. Stephenson noted a memo outlining staff’s recommendations was included in the agenda packet. He expressed his belief the issue is the proposition to rezone properties in the Downtown East area zoned Neighborhood Business (NB), which does not allow alcohol sales, to DX, which permits the sale of alcohol with Assistant Planning Director Crane noting the State’s ABC Board can issue a license to sell alcohol to any establishment in NB or DX and the City is bound to honor that license. Mr. Crane went on to point out the issue is a result of a current rezoning case at the corner of Cabarrus and Person Streets where a former church facility is being converted into a restaurant. Mr. Stephenson asserted the proposed NB to DX rezoning would be an upgrade for all NB zones citywide.

Discussion took place regarding ABC Board reviews of alcohol sales permits and how City zoning regulations are considered during the review with Ms. Baldwin talking about how recent mixed uses on in the North Person Street area improved the neighborhood’s character. She questioned whether the sale of alcohol could be regulated as part of zoning conditions with Assistant Planning Director Crane responding in the affirmative.

Mr. Stephenson requested clarification that NB to DX would open opportunities to higher impact merchants with Mr. Crane responding in the affirmative.

Discussion took place regarding whether any other zoning categories were considered for the Downtown East NB zones, as well as how eating establishments differ from night clubs, bars, taverns, etc. with regard to the percent of sales of alcohol to food. The discussion also included how NX and DX zoning may affect such establishments.

Planning Director Ken Bowers talked about parking requirements for eating establishments and clubs in NX and DX zones noting if there is no urban frontage involved, then the off-street parking requirements may not apply.

Mr. Maiorano talked about businesses in the Five Points area and questioned the proposed zoning for that area with Assistant Planning Director Crane responding the new zoning would be DX.

Discussion took place regarding retail square footage restrictions and how it may affect the Person Street/Cabarrus Street zoning case with Mr. Odom requesting clarification that rezoning properties from NX to OX would remove restaurant uses, with Assistant Planning Director Crane responding in the affirmative.

Mr. Stephenson questioned whether the NX designation could be the best change from Residential Business with Assistant Planning Director Crane responding in the affirmative. This topic was discussed at length with Mrs. Crowder questioning which zoning would provide the greatest flexibility in uses with Planning Director Bowers responding DX zoning would provide the greatest flexibility; however, NX would allow such uses as restaurants in previously residential structures. He went on to note OX zoning would have the greatest restrictions with regard to the amount of ground floor retail space.

Mr. Stephenson expressed his doubts DX zoning would be the best option for the Downtown East area and stated he would much prefer NX zoning.

Additional discussion took place regarding allowed uses and parking requirements under NX, DX, and OX zones. The discussion also included ABC licensing, hours of operation, and how the proposed rezoning may or may not affect permitted uses with Mr. Maiorano expressing his belief rezoning should be less about land use and more about economic development opportunities.

Ms. Baldwin questioned whether NX zoning would impact the Person/Cabarrus zoning case with Assistant Planning Director Crane responding the Applicant is proposing DX zoning.

Planning Director Bowers talked further about the City’s remapping process.

Future rezoning for Five Points and the Upper Person Street area were discussed as well as which downtown rezoning maps to send to public hearing with Mr. Stephenson indicating he would not support the current DX proposal for Downtown East and stated he would prefer NX zoning.

Ms. Baldwin questioned if NX zoning was more restrictive than DX with Assistant Planning Director Crane responding in the affirmative with Mr. Stephenson pointing out the City Council could handle individual zoning changes after the new maps are adopted.

Mr. Maiorano questioned whether bars and restaurants could be further regulated under DX zoning with Assistant Planning Director Crane responding such regulations would require a text change.

Discussion took place regarding the benefits of DX zoning as well as the proposed DX zoning from Residential Business for the Downtown East area with Ms. Baldwin stating she would like to hear the public comments at the upcoming July 7, 2015 hearing and added the City Council could make any changes after the public hearing. She requested additional information from Staff regarding NX and DX zoning uses and regulations.

UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE – PROPOSED DOWNTOWN BUILDING HEIGHT REGULATIONS– INFORMATION RECEIVED

Planner Elizabeth Alley used a PowerPoint presentation to talk about proposed downtown building height regulations with the presentation outlined as follows:

Challenge

  • How is the existing uncertain building height translated in a UDO zoning district?

−DOD allowed theoretically unlimited height, but only through discretionary review

−UDO does not contain discretionary site plan review—must assign a by-right height

Tall Buildings in Downtown

  • Building height in downtown is capped at 80 feet, unless a preliminary site plan is approved
  • Planning Commission must review the 8 site plan standards to approve site plan
  • All site plans in Historic Downtown East area must be approved by City Council, regardless of height
  • All plans in Historic Overlay Districts must receive a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Raleigh Historic Development Commission

Building Height and Site Plan Standards

(2)Thesite planis in accordance with the general plans for the physical development of theCityas embodied in the Comprehensive Plan, Redevelopment Plans; Streetscape Plans, manuals, handbooks or otherCity Council-adopted plans and standards.

(4)Thesite plancontains adequate measures to mitigate the impact of the development on nearby residential uses and historic resources from incompatible characteristics such as:

  1. Building scale;
  2. Architectural character; …

Methodology

  • “Existing entitlements:” applicants could request buildings of any height in the DOD, but adopted policies do not contemplate 40+ stories everywhere
  • Desire not to create internal conflict between mapped heights, HODs, NCODs, former PBODs
  • Desire to respect identified Edge Areas
  • Comp Plan policies: “highest buildings on the axial streets” implies buildings are lower elsewhere
  • Consideration given to avoiding jarring transitions, although not always possible (Prince Hall HOD).

Opportunities for Change

  • Downtown West Gateway area can better reflect area plan
  • Hillsborough Street (“axial street”) not uniformly mapped for greater height
  • Areas where greater height is not inconsistent with existing policies or guidelines
  • East Side

−Moore Square Historic Overlay District

−Prince Hall Historic Overlay District

−Comp Plan “edge areas”

−South Park Area Plan

  • West Side

−Downtown West Gateway Area Plan

−Comp plan “edge areas”

−Convention Center vicinity

  • North Side

−Hillsborough Street

−West/Harrington St vicinity

The presentation included color-coded maps of various downtown locations to illustrate the proposed building height regulations.

PlannerCarter Pettibone reviewed Staff’s proposal and talked about how public comment affected the recommendations. He also reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendations as well as proposed changes to building height recommendations around Moore Square, Prince Hall, etc.

Discussion took place regarding development on the southern end of Fayetteville Street as well as possible impact on development around Shaw University with Planning Director Bowers talking about efforts to preserve certain downtown buildings.

Mrs. Crowder expressed concern regarding the proposed 40-story allowance along Fayetteville Street stating the height may restrict daylight access with Planning Director Bowers pointing out step-back regulations would help ease daylight and wind tunnel issues.

Discussion took place regarding how additional building heights may affect historic buildings with Mr. Weeks questioning how the proposed hotel for the Shaw University area would affect zoning with Planning Director Bowers responding the Historic District Overlay would have to be removed in order to build the hotel. Mr. Weeks question the last time Shaw University was consulted during this process with Planner Pettibone responding the school was last contacted in fall 2014. Mr. Weeks urged another meeting with Shaw University as they installed a new President recently.

Mr. Odom questioned whether topography along Capital Boulevard was taken into consideration, especially the area north of Peace Street noting this would be a great development opportunity. Planning Director Bowers pointed out the proposed high speed rail line will also impact development in that area and went on to talk about how limited access to Capital Boulevard would affect building heights.

Discussion took place regarding possible higher density development along the west side of West Street with Mr. Stephenson talking about similar development in Charlotte along the Sugar Creek Greenway.

Mayor McFarlane talked about sound issues with taller building heights noting Austin, Texas considered soundproofing requirements for buildings in the entertainment districts and questioned whether Raleigh could initiate a similar requirement with Planning Director Bowers and Assistant Planning Director Crane responding Staff would explore that possibility.

Discussion took place regarding increased building heights in the Seaboard Station area with Mr. Odom suggesting expanding the 20 story allowance over to Johnson Street in the South Peace Street area. The discussion also included the possibility of negotiating certain residential and pedestrian friendly features in the new development.

Mayor McFarlane questioned how crown signs would be regulated with Assistant Planning Director Crane responding buildings greater than 200 feet in height are eligible for crown signs.

Mr. Maiorano questioned the message the City is sending to the private sector regarding redevelopment, especially with regard to building heights. He noted the building located on the northeast corner of Hillsborough Street and Glenwood Avenue is next to a railroad and on a bridge is currently only 4 stories high and questioned whether the proposed maximum building height could be higher and gradually decrease going to the north with Planning Director Bowers responding in the affirmative.

Discussion took place regarding current and proposed building heights reflect current uses and overlay zonings with Mayor McFarlane expressing concern the Planning Commission’s building height recommendation for the block located across Hillsborough Street from Snoopy’s and Chargrill is 20 stories while the surrounding blocks are only 12 stories and stated she felt more comfortable with a 12 story designation for this block as well.

Mr. Gaylord suggested reviewing Staff’s and the Planning Commission’s recommendations on a block-by-block basis and have the Council vote on which recommendations to approve or chose a third alternative.

Ms. Baldwin talked about current and proposed building heights around Moore and Nash squares and suggested a greater building adjacent to the parks and transitioning to lower heights further out.

Mr. Maiorano expressed his support for Mr. Gaylord’s suggestion with Mr. Stephenson expressing his support for Ms. Baldwin’s suggestion regarding building heights around Moore and Nash squares.

Discussion took place regarding height density versus community benefits with Mr. Maiorano urging the Council to focus on what it could achieve in the process.