a) A landowner who desires to challenge on substantive grounds the validity of a Zoning Ordinance or map or any provision thereof, which prohibits or restricts the use or development of land in which he has an interest may submit a curative amendment to City Council with a written request that his challenge and proposed amendment be heard and decided as provided in Section 916.1. City Council shall commence a hearing thereon within sixty (60) days of the request as provided in Section 916.1 of the MPC. The curative amendment and challenge shall be referred to the planning agency or agencies as provided in Section 609 of the MPC and notice of the hearing thereon shall be given as provided in Sections 610 and 916.1 of the MPC.
b) The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Section 908 of the MPC and all references therein to the Zoning Hearing Board shall, for purposes of this Section be references to City Council, provided, however, that the provisions of Section 908 (1.2) and (9) of the MPC shall not apply and the provisions of Section 916.1 of the MPC shall control. If a municipality does not accept a landowner's curative amendment brought in accordance with this subsection, and a court subsequently rules that the challenge has merit, the court's decision shall not result in a declaration of invalidity for the entire Zoning Ordinance and map, but only for those provisions which specifically relate to the landowner's curative amendment and challenge.
c) When City Council has determined that a validity challenge has merit, it may accept a landowner's curative amendment, with or without revision, or may adopt an alternative amendment which will cure the challenged defects. City Council shall consider the curative amendments, plans and explanatory material submitted by the landowner and shall also consider:
1) The impact of the proposal upon roads, sewer facilities, water supplies, schools and other public service facilities;
2) If the proposal is for a residential use, the impact of the proposal upon regional housing needs and the effectiveness of the proposal in providing housing units of a type actually available to, and affordable by, classes of persons otherwise unlawfully excluded by the challenged provisions of the ordinance or map;
3) The suitability of the site for the intensity of use proposed by the site's soils, slopes, woodlands, wetlands, floodplains, aquifers, natural resources and other natural features;
4) The impact of the proposed use on the site's soils, slopes, woodlands, wetlands, floodplains, natural resources and natural features, the degree to which these are protected or destroyed, the tolerance of the resources to development and any adverse environmental impacts; and
5) The impact of the proposal on the preservation of agriculture and other land uses which are essential to public health and welfare.