TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Neighborhood Conservation District: Options for Future Actions regarding the Coker Hills Neighborhood
DATE: June 12, 2006
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to review with the Council options for future actions regarding the Coker Hills neighborhood. We recommend that the Council take no action at this time.
On March 7, 2005, the President of the Coker Hills Neighborhood Association petitioned the Council for establishment of a Neighborhood Conservation District. On March 29, 2005, the neighborhood submitted its formal petition with signatures from property owners to the Town Clerk. On June 15, 2005, the Council authorized the Town Manager to contract for services with Clarion Associates to prepare Neighborhood Conservation Districts for the Coker Hills neighborhood as well as the Greenwood, Morgan Creek/Kings Mill and Pine Knolls neighborhoods.
On February 21, and March 21, 2006, the Planning Board received public input from Coker Hills residents about the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District. Some residents who spoke in favor of the proposal noted that a Neighborhood Conservation District might help to preserve the current look and feel of the neighborhood. Some residents who spoke in opposition to the proposal objected to proposed standards with regard to setbacks, height limits, and floor area ratios. There also was some dissatisfaction expressed about the process of consideration of a Neighborhood Conservation District.
Based on the activity and communication that had taken place since the March 21 Planning Board meeting, the staff developed an alternative recommendation for the Planning Board’s consideration. The alternative recommendation focused on two elements of the neighborhood’s restrictive covenants:
We believed that this alternative recommendation was a compromise that offered protection against the subdivision of large lots, but would not prohibit property owners from making alterations to their homes beyond that allowed with the existing Residential-1 zoning.
The alternative recommendation was presented to the Council at a public hearing on May 15, 2006 (please see Attachment 1). Again, testimony from residents reflected both support for and opposition to the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District regulations and to the process that was used to develop the recommendations. At this meeting, the Council decided to defer decision on a Neighborhood Conservation District for the neighborhood and asked the staff to develop suggestions for how the Council might proceed.
DISCUSSION
At the May 15 Public Hearing, the Council received the consultant’s recommendation for standards proposed as part of a Neighborhood Conservation District. In addition, the Council received the Manager’s preliminary recommendation. Following testimony that night, the Council indicated that it would take no action at this time on the Neighborhood Conservation District proposal because of disagreement in the neighborhood. The Council requested that we develop process options that could attempt to resolve some of the conflicts among neighbors. Generally, we believe the Town has a limited role in the resolution of private conflicts except to encourage further work among the neighbors. Below, we present the Council with options.
1. Use a Professional Facilitator
This option was suggested by the Council and residents of the neighborhood as a means to address the personal tensions that have developed as a result of the Neighborhood Conservation District process.
Comment: We have contacted the Dispute Settlement Center and the University of North Carolina School of Government to discuss how the organizations could help the neighborhood. The person at the School of Government who ordinarily provides conflict resolution services has indicated a conflict of interest because of an employment relationship with a resident of the area. Based on preliminary discussions with the Dispute Settlement Center, we believe this option would cost approximately $5,000 to $6,000. We recognize that there may be other facilitators in the community who would be available to provide services.
We recommend that the Town provide no funding for conflict resolution services for the Coker Hills Neighborhood. We believe that doing so would establish a precedent for similar requests in the future. As a general policy, we believe that the Town should avoid paying for attempts to settle disputes among neighbors. In this case, however, the Council could conclude that an effort should be made to salvage the community investment in the proposed development of a Neighborhood Conservation District. If the Council determines than an attempt at dispute resolution is justified, we believe it would be reasonable to request that the neighborhood pay one-half of the estimated costs, or about $3,000.
We note that there is a possibility that providing conflict resolution services for the neighborhood may not result in consensus about standards for the Neighborhood Conservation District. We believe that it would be reasonable for the Council to request documentation of support from two-thirds of the neighborhood before again considering a Neighborhood Conservation District for Coker Hills. This is a standard already used by the Town when considering neighborhood requests for traffic calming measures.
2. Consider whether Coker Hills should be Designated as a Residential Conservation District
Of the five neighborhoods that have requested Neighborhood Conservation District designation (Northside Coker Hills, Greenwood, Morgan Creek/Kings Mill Road and Pine Knolls), Coker Hills is the only neighborhood that is not designated as a residential conservation area in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates certain areas surrounding the downtown and University of North Carolina campus as “residential conservation areas” because they are considered to be particularly susceptible to change. This designation means, in part, that when policy choices that affect these areas are before the Town Council, the balance should tilt in favor of protection and preservation.
The Planning Board’s recommendation included a statement that the Council should open a process to determine whether the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to determine if Coker Hills should be a residential conservation area.
Comment: The Planning Board is currently in the process of working with other Town Advisory Boards to develop recommendations regarding revision of the Comprehensive Plan. If the neighborhood wishes to explore this option, there would be an opportunity for neighbors to request consideration.
3. Take no Action
One option is to take no action at this time.
Comment: The neighborhood does not have consensus on establishment of a Neighborhood Conservation District. It would be reasonable for the Council to take no action. The neighborhood could engage in its own internal process to seek resolution of differences.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Board Recommendation: On May 2, 2006, the Planning Board voted to recommend that the Council not adopt a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Coker Hills neighborhood, but should open a process to determine whether the Comprehensive Plan should be amended to determine if Coker Hills should be a Residential Conservation Area.
Manager’s Revised Recommendation: We believe that using the services of a professional facilitator could help the neighborhood, though it might not result in consensus on the Neighborhood Conservation District. If the Council determines that an effort should be made to salvage the community investment in the proposed development of a Neighborhood Conservation District, the Council could request that the neighborhood pay one-half of the estimated costs, or about $3,000. As an alternative, it would be reasonable for the Council to take no action.
ATTACHMENTS