TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
THRU: Kelly Olivera - Assistant City Manager
Dr. Gerald Newton, AICP - Development Services Director
FROM: Will Deaton, AICP - Planning & Zoning Division Manager
Demetrios Moutos - Planner I
DATE: November 4, 2024
RE:
Title
Review of Special Use Permit Processes of Peer Cities and Text Amendment Recommendations
end
COUNCIL DISTRICT(S):
Council District(s)
All
b
Relationship To Strategic Plan:
Strategic Operating Plan FY 2022
Goals 2027
Goal 2: Responsible City Government Supporting a Diverse and Viable Economy
• Objective 2.4 - Sustain a favorable development climate to encourage business growth
Goal 3: City Investment in Today and Tomorrow
• Objective 3.2 - Manage the City’s future growth and strategic land use
Executive Summary:
This report proposes amendments to Fayetteville’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to enhance the efficiency of the Special Use Permit (SUP) process. Through a comprehensive analysis of current SUP requirements, past City Council decisions, and a comparative study with peer cities, the report advocates for reducing the number of uses necessitating SUPs. This strategy aims to balance developmental demands with community preservation while improving procedural efficiency.
Key findings indicate a high approval rate for SUP applications, suggesting opportunities for reclassification. The analysis of peer cities uncovered diverse approaches to SUP management, offering valuable insights for potential enhancements.
The proposed amendments categorize SUP removals based on potential impact, stressing the importance of careful evaluation for uses with moderate to high impact. The recommended course of action is to endorse staff suggestions and initiate the development of a text amendment for submission to the Planning Commission.
Background:
Fayetteville places a high priority on responsible development through its zoning regulations, with Special Use Permits (SUPs) playing a pivotal role. SUPs ensure extra scrutiny for specific land uses that could significantly impact communities, maintaining a balance between promoting development and preserving the character of Fayetteville's neighborhoods.
On July 30, 2023, Mayor Colvin requested a City Council agenda item to review the number of triggers for special use permits in comparison to peer cities. During the August 7, 2023, City Council Work Session, he sought council support to direct staff to investigate this topic. The staff would compare Fayetteville’s SUP requirements with those of similar cities. Following discussion, the council voted to proceed with this request and directed staff to conduct research and report back on their findings.
On February 5, 2024, at a City Council Work Session, Mr. Moutos, Planner I, presented a proposal to streamline Fayetteville's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) by revising the Special Use Permit (SUP) table. The proposal outlined a four-pronged approach:
- Assessing current SUP requirements
- Analyzing past City Council decisions on SUP applications
- Comparing regulations with peer cities
- Recommending amendments to align with modern planning practices while considering Fayetteville's unique needs
The presentation underscored the purpose of SUPs within the UDO: to regulate specific land uses with potential community impacts while balancing development with neighborhood character. Data analysis revealed a high approval rate (72.2%) for SUP applications, suggesting the possibility of streamlining the process by reclassifying frequently approved uses as permitted by right. After discussion, the City Council voted to advance the proposal for review by the Planning Commission, although Council Member Haire dissented.
On March 19, 2024, staff presented a report and proposal to the Planning Commission to amend the UDO regarding Special Use Permits (SUPs). Mr. Moutos led the presentation, outlining a proposal to streamline the UDO by reducing the number of required SUPs. Staff analysis identified that many uses requiring SUPs were rarely requested and routinely approved by the City Council. The proposed amendments aimed to eliminate SUP requirements for specific uses and potentially adjust standards for others. Key discussion points included resident participation and ensuring transparency throughout the process. The Planning Commission ultimately voted to defer action on the proposal, opting for further discussion at their April 16, 2024 meeting.
On April 16, 2024, staff returned to the Planning Commission to finalize the proposed amendments to the SUP text within the UDO. Mr. Moutos clarified that this meeting aimed to build on the previous month's discussions and gather the Board's recommendations. Ms. Harper emphasized that the session focused on board discussion, not final decisions. The discussion shifted to a few specific use types and their broader community impact. Concerns arose regarding the origin and appropriateness of existing regulations for these uses. The Board stressed the importance of thoughtful planning, incorporating community input, and revisiting the long-term implications of these specific uses at a later date. The meeting concluded with a unanimous vote to recommend approval of the proposed SUP changes to the City Council.
This proposal has undergone refinements over the past few months. Due to these revisions, the proposal is returned to this City Council Work Session for review. Upon City Council approval, the proposal will be presented to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendations. Following the Planning Commission’s input, the final proposal will return to the City Council for a full vote and approval at a regular meeting.
Issues/Analysis:
This analysis remains largely unchanged since its presentation to the City Council on February 5, 2024. We have retained it for continuity, considering the six-month interval that has passed.
The Special Use Permit (SUP) functions as a zoning instrument designed to accommodate land uses that may not seamlessly align with a specific district, contingent upon their precise location and design. It offers flexibility by permitting potentially compatible uses, subject to a rigorous review process that ensures adherence to City or County policies.
Current SUP Practices and Trends Analysis
Fayetteville’s Development Ordinance employs SUPs for certain land uses that necessitate additional scrutiny due to their potential community impact. This strategy seeks to balance the facilitation of development with the preservation of neighborhood character.
Data analysis of SUP applications reveals notable trends. A substantial proportion (72.2%) of applications received approval, indicating a general receptiveness to accommodating certain land uses. Conversely, a minor percentage (11.1%) were denied, likely due to specific concerns.
This data suggests that certain uses consistently achieve high approval rates. Reclassifying these frequently approved uses, or similar uses, as permitted by right could simplify the development process and reduce administrative burdens.
Comparative Analysis of SUP Processes in Peer Cities
Municipalities across the state employ diverse methods for managing SUPs:
• Raleigh: Utilizes a comprehensive review by the Planning Director, followed by public notice. The Board of Adjustment then conducts a public hearing and grants approval if the proposal meets established standards.
• Charlotte: Implements a system of “Prescribed Conditions” similar to Fayetteville’s additional standards. Uses meeting all required conditions bypass review beyond the staff level. Necessary conditions may be integrated into the use table through text amendments.
• Wilmington: Issues or denies SUPs through resolutions by either the City Council or Board of Adjustment, depending on the use. Additionally, a neighborhood meeting is required prior to application submission.
• Cumberland County: The Board of Adjustment hears and decides on SUP requests.
• Durham: Mandates a pre-application conference and adherence to specific application requirements. After review, a public hearing is scheduled, with the approval body varying by SUP type (minor, major, or transportation). Specific criteria guide approvals, including considerations of area harmony, compliance, public health and safety, and specific review factors. Appeals are permissible, and approved SUPs must be recorded.
• Winston-Salem: Operates a bifurcated SUP process based on use type and district. Uses designated with an “A” are reviewed by the Board of Adjustment, while those marked with an “E” require approval from the Elected Body. Both routes necessitate compliance with relevant zoning ordinance requirements. The process includes timely application submission, requisite information, site plans, and fees. Public notifications are made through property postings and mailed letters to nearby residents. For the Board of Adjustment process, applications undergo Planning Board reviews, and permits are granted based on findings concerning public safety, compliance with conditions, impact on property values, and alignment with local conditions. Permits may be extended, and separate SUPs are not required when a use aligns with special use district zoning.
By examining these practices, we can identify potential improvements to our SUP process, striving for a balance between efficiency and responsible development.
Following the Planning Commission’s approval recommendation for our initial approach on April 16, 2024, we have conducted further analysis of the proposed uses for SUP removal. This analysis categorizes them based on their potential community impact.
It is important to note that this is a general categorization based on typical public perceptions of these uses rather than a comprehensive impact assessment.
• Low Impact Uses:
o Agriculture, Government Facilities, Community & Educational Facilities, Places of Worship, Healthcare Facilities, Transportation & Utilities, and Certain Commercial Uses (e.g., professional services, restaurants with minimal traffic generation, convenience stores): These uses typically offer essential services with minimal adverse impacts. When designed appropriately, certain commercial uses can be compatible with various zoning districts.
§ Most agricultural uses (plant nurseries, urban agriculture, etc.) generally have minimal negative impacts and are often encouraged to support local supply chains and small independent businesses.
§ Schools, libraries, museums, community centers, and youth club facilities provide vital services and foster a family-friendly community with minimal operational disruption.
• Moderate Impact Uses:
o Therapeutic Homes, Cultural Facilities (large scale), Adult Day Care Centers (larger facilities or those in residential areas), Child Care Centers (larger facilities or those in residential areas), Specialty Commercial Uses (e.g., gas stations, crematoriums, entertainment establishments), Other Retail Sales (large stores or those with significant traffic generation): These uses may require additional scrutiny due to potential impacts on traffic, parking, noise, or aesthetics. Thoughtful planning and mitigation measures can address these concerns.
• Moderate to High Impact Uses:
o Multi-family dwellings, Single-Family Attached Dwellings (large projects or those in established neighborhoods), and Two-to-Four-Family Dwellings (depending on context): The potential impacts of these uses on traffic, parking, infrastructure, and neighborhood character can vary significantly. Careful consideration of size, location, and project design is essential for successful SUP removal.
This analysis focuses on uses considered for SUP removal. It acknowledges that the City Council has previously reviewed and often found controversial other uses not included here. Additionally, uses with inherent safety hazards, such as certain industrial uses, are naturally excluded from SUP removal consideration.
Budget Impact:
Streamlined permitting process with potential fee reductions for uses transitioning from Special Use Permit to Permitted by Right.
Options:
• Approve staff recommendations and direct the development of a text amendment for submission to the Planning Commission.
• Authorize staff to explore alternative City Council recommendations and begin drafting a text amendment for Planning Commission review.
• Refer the proposal back to staff for a comprehensive review, including potential changes to the Special Use Permit list.
• Take no action and maintain the current number of use types requiring Special Use Permits.
Recommended Action:
The Professional Planning Staff recommends option 2.
Attachments:
Attached is a comprehensive spreadsheet detailing all Special Use Permit (SUP) applications from 2015 to 2023. Each SUP includes a detailed description alongside the location. While not all peer cities are explicitly referenced in the examples, we have included their Use Tables and SUP standards for comparison.
Attachments:
• SUP Spreadsheet (2015-2023)
• Raleigh Use Table and SUP Standards
• Durham Use Table and SUP Standards
• Charlotte Use Table
• Winston-Salem Use Table and SUP Standards
• Wilmington Use Table and SUP Standards
• Cumberland County Use Table and SUP Standards
• Fayetteville Use Table
• PowerPoint Presentation