TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Proposed Neighborhood Conservation District for the Pine Knolls Neighborhood
DATE: May 15, 2006
PURPOSE
Tonight, the Council considers a proposed rezoning to create a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Pine Knolls neighborhood. An attached map shows the proposed boundary for the Neighborhood Conservation District (please see Map 1).
This package of material has been prepared for the Town Council’s consideration, and is organized as follows:
The Land Use Management Ordinance includes a provision for creating Neighborhood Conservation Districts. The purpose of creating a Neighborhood Conservation District is to preserve and protect unique and distinctive older in-town residential neighborhoods or commercial districts which contribute significantly to the overall character and identity of the Town.
A Neighborhood Conservation District is created as an overlay zoning district by enactment of an ordinance to designate the district. The rezoning ordinance would identify the designated district boundaries. The Land Use Management Ordinance also states that a conservation plan shall be approved as part of a Zoning Atlas Amendment creating a Neighborhood Conservation District.
On February 28, 2005, Ms. Delores Bailey, on behalf of the Pine Knolls neighborhood, presented a petition requesting Council consideration of a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Pine Knolls neighborhood. On April 5, 2005, the Planning Board also petitioned the Council in support of the Pine Knolls request.
On June 15, 2005, the Council authorized engaging Clarion Associates to prepare and complete Neighborhood Conservation Districts in the Coker Hills, Greenwood, Morgan Creek/Kings Mill Road and Pine Knolls neighborhoods by April 2006, at a cost not to exceed $50,000. Clarion presented its final recommendations to the Planning Board at its April 4, 2006 meeting. Please see Attachment 2 for the recommendations prepared by Clarion Associates for the Pine Knolls neighborhood. Please see the summary chart below for a table that summarizes the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District Plan recommendations.
ORDINANCE PROVISIONS
To be designated a Neighborhood Conservation District, the Land Use Management Ordinance states that an area must meet the following criteria:
The area must possess one or more of the following distinctive features that create a cohesive identifiable setting, character or association;
According to the Land Use Management Ordinance, a proposal for designation as a Neighborhood Conservation District may be initiated in one of three ways:
In the case of the Pine Knolls neighborhood, the Council initiated the process by adopting a resolution on June 15, 2005.
The following provides a summary of the recommendations as proposed by Clarion Associates and preliminary recommendations from the Manager.
Duplexes: The proposed boundary for the Pine Knolls neighborhood is currently zoned Residential-3 (R-3) and has one property zoned Residential-4 (R-4). The Land Use Management Ordinance allows the construction of two-family dwelling/duplex housing units in the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts. The Clarion Associates recommendation is to prohibit the development of new two-family dwelling/duplex housing units. This regulation is also included in the Northside Neighborhood Conservation District.
Preliminary Recommendation: We also recommend prohibiting the development of new two-family/duplex housing units. Existing duplex units would be allowed to be maintained as they currently exist according to the Town’s nonconforming use provisions. Please refer to Attachment 4 for a discussion of nonconformity.
Maximum Floor Area Ratio: The Pine Knolls neighborhood is primarily zoned R-3, which does not apply a floor area ratio to single-family development. The Clarion Associates recommendation is to impose a floor area ratio of 0.25.
Preliminary Recommendation: We also recommend the creation of a floor area ratio of .25, as proposed, for single-family homes (and single-family with accessory apartment).
Maximum Size for single-family Dwelling: The current R-3 zoning does not apply a maximum building square footage. This type of regulation was included in the Northside Neighborhood Conservation District. The Clarion Associates recommendation is to cap the maximum square footage of a house at 2,500 square feet.
Preliminary Recommendation: We also recommend capping the maximum building square footage for a single-family dwelling (and single-family with accessory apartment) at 2,500 square feet.
Maximum Building Height: The current R-3 and R-4 zoning permits a maximum secondary building height of 60 feet. The Clarion Associates recommendation is to change the maximum secondary building height to 35 feet.
Preliminary Recommendation: We recommend the proposal to reduce the maximum secondary height to 35 feet for development of single-family homes (and single-family with accessory apartment) only.
Bathroom to Bedroom Ratio: The current R-3 and R-4 zoning does not apply a standard ratio to the amount of bedrooms and bathrooms in a single-family dwelling. This recommendation was developed in response to concerns raised by residents about the increasing proportion of rental properties in the neighborhood designed for habitation by multiple non-related persons.
The Clarion recommendation is that, “a dwelling with more than two bedrooms and a bathroom to bedroom ratio of 1.0 or greater, shall be classified as a rooming house unless the dwelling is occupied by persons related by blood, adoption, marriage or domestic partnership, with not more than two unrelated persons.” This regulation was also included in the Northside Neighborhood Conservation District.
Preliminary Recommendation: We also recommend creating a bedroom to bathroom ratio limitation, for single-family developments, and recommend the exceptions as they are defined by Clarion Associates.
Maximum Percentage of Front Yard Used for Parking: Section 5.9.9 of the Land Use Management Ordinance states that parking and drive areas shall be limited to 40 percent of the front yard area of any zoning lot. This restriction applies to single-family and two-family residences. The Clarion Associates recommendation is to reduce the percentage of front yard parking to 30 percent.
Preliminary Recommendation: We also recommend the proposal to decrease the percentage of allowable front yard parking area to 30 percent.
Zoning Compliance Permit Notification: The Town currently does not have a notification requirement associated with a single-family Zoning Compliance Permit application. The Northside Neighborhood Conservation District requires notification of property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property if an increase in floor area or a garage is proposed. The Clarion Associates recommendation is that “adjacent property owners must be notified through the Town if an increase in floor area or garages are proposed, with a 10-day waiting period to follow notification.”
Preliminary Recommendation: We agree with the recommendation to create a single-family Zoning Compliance Permit notification requirement when property owners increase their floor area or if garages are proposed. However, we recommend using the same notification requirement of 1,000 feet that was created for the Northside Conservation District. As documented in a previous Clarion Associates Report, residents are concerned about the affects that new developments have on the entire neighborhood with respect to their quality, compatibility and density. Because the residents’ concerns related to the effect of new development on the community as a whole, we recommend that the notification requirement extend to community members beyond the adjacent property owners.
We do not agree with the recommendation to require a 10-day waiting period after the notification is sent. The Northside Neighborhood Conservation District specifies that notification must occur simultaneously with the submittal of a Zoning Compliance Permit application to the Town. Since the Zoning Compliance Permit application can take up to 30 business days to process, we believe there is a waiting period that naturally occurs after the notification letters are sent. In addition, we are concerned that adding a 10-day waiting period complicates the Zoning Compliance Permit application process and would be difficult to enforce.
Neighborhood Conservation District Boundary: We have identified three boundary issues regarding the Pine Knolls Neighborhood Conservation District. First, the Clarion Associates recommendation states that there has been an ongoing discussion throughout the process about the inclusion of the Manley Estates property. Clarion Associates’ recommendation is to exclude the property because, “Manley Estates is a new development of a kind that does not exist anywhere else in the neighborhood, and because the new rules that are likely to be considered would likely not be applicable to this existing multi-family development.” The Board of Manley Estates has also requested to be excluded from the boundary (part of Attachment 6).
The second boundary issue pertains to the inclusion of the Lincoln Center property, which is owned by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. In a letter to the Mayor, dated March 20, 2006, the Superintendent of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools stated that the Board of Education voted unanimously to seek exemption from the proposed Pine Knolls Neighborhood Conservation District (part of Attachment 6). We are aware that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools has considered changing the use of the facility back to a school and are concerned that the proposed height restrictions will limit their ability to increase the capacity of the building for this purpose. The Clarion Associates report includes the Lincoln Center property in the proposed boundary for the neighborhood.
The third boundary issue relates to three properties located toward the end of Merritt Mill Road on the east side of the street that are owned by Mainsail Development, LLC. The properties are adjacent to Merritt Mill Road exit ramp from Highway 54. During public comments, representatives from the Mainsail Development and the community petitioned the Planning Board to exclude them from the boundary because of a concern that inclusion in the district boundary could have a negative impact on the future development of the properties. Although representatives from Mainsail Development are discussing plans with the community to build a mixed use development, no formal plans have been submitted to the Town.
Preliminary Recommendation: We recommend inclusion of all three of the areas mentioned above in the Neighborhood Conservation District boundary. However, we also recommend that the proposed standards apply only to single-family dwellings (and single-family dwellings with accessory apartment). Property developed in a manner other than single-family would continue to be in the proposed boundary of the Neighborhood Conservation District, but not subject to the standards of the overlay district. Development other than single-family would require consideration by the Town Council as a rezoning and/or a Special Use Permit.
The Pine Knolls Neighborhood Conservation District is proposed as a Zoning Atlas Amendment. The Land Use Management Ordinance requires the Town Manager to: 1) conduct an evaluation of the proposed rezoning; 2) present a report to the Planning Board; 3) notify property owners of the proposal; 4) hold a public hearing; and 5) present a report and recommendation to the Town Council.
Public Notice
On April 26, 2006, notice of the public hearing was sent to the property owners and owners of property within 1,000 feet of the properties proposed for rezoning (please see Attachment 3). Notice of the proposed rezoning was also included in the Town Week section of the Chapel Hill News on Sunday, April 30, and Sunday, May 7. Copies of the agenda materials for the proposed rezoning are available in the Town Clerk’s office. Documents are also available on the Town’s website (www.townofchapelhill.org).
Format Tonight
The Council is holding a public hearing to receive citizen comment on a proposed rezoning. Typically, the Council refers comments made at the public hearing to the Manager and Town Attorney for a follow-up report. We anticipate returning to the Council with a follow up report for consideration on June 12, 2006.
Protest Petitions
By law, formal “Protest Petitions” may be filed against this rezoning. A formal Protest Petition that meets legal requirements would increase the number of votes needed to enact this rezoning. The notice mailed on April 26, 2006 included a statement that information on protest petitions was available from the Town Clerk or the Planning Department. If a protest petition is submitted and determined to be valid, a three-fourths vote by the Council would be required to enact the new zoning. The deadline for filing protest petitions with the Town Clerk was Wednesday, May 10, 2006. We will report at tonight’s Public Hearing regarding any valid protest petitions that have been submitted.
Zoning determines the type and intensity of uses and development that are allowed on a piece of land. In Chapel Hill, a rezoning may be requested in two ways: general use and conditional use rezoning requests. A general use rezoning request is to change the zoning to a different zoning district in which any of several kinds of developments and uses are permissible. A conditional use rezoning request is to allow development and uses only with approval of a Special Use Permit. The Pine Knolls neighborhood rezoning proposal is a general use rezoning. The designation would be as an overlay zone.
The zoning designation of a property determines the range of land uses and development intensities permitted on the property. Article 4.4 of the Land Use Management Ordinance establishes the intent of Zoning Atlas Amendments by stating:
“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.
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.”
Comprehensive Plan
Land Use Plan
The entire area proposed for rezoning is designated as Medium Residential (four to eight units/acre) on the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan, adopted May 8, 2000. Residential-3 and Residential-4 zoning districts are consistent with this land use designation.
Residential Conservation Areas
The area proposed for rezoning is designated as an “area most susceptible to change” and a “residential conservation area” in Figures 1 and 2 of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates certain areas surrounding the downtown and University of North Carolina campus as “residential conservation areas” and “areas most susceptible to change” 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.
Zoning Justification
As noted in the “Zoning Atlas Amendments” section of this memorandum, there are three justifications for rezonings: 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. Only one justification needs to be met in order for the Council to approve a rezoning.
Following is a response to the three required considerations:
A. A rezoning is necessary to correct a manifest error.
We do not believe that the current Residential-3 and Residential-4 zoning of this site is a manifest error.
B. A rezoning is necessary because of changed or changing conditions in a particular area or in the jurisdiction generally.
We do not believe that this rezoning is necessary because of changed or changing conditions in the area or in the jurisdiction generally.
C. A rezoning is necessary to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.
Argument in Support: As noted above, the Comprehensive Plan identifies the area as a “residential conservation area”. Because of its proximity to the downtown and the main campus of the University, it is reasonable to believe that the Pine Knolls neighborhood may be affected by growth pressures related to the demand for housing.
We believe creating a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Pine Knolls neighborhood is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies:
As noted above, the area is one of the “areas most susceptible to change” on Figure 1 of the Comprehensive Plan. The area is characterized by modest sized lots and moderately priced houses. We believe that these homes and their settings have a cohesive character that is worth preserving. As noted above, the proposed rezoning is also consistent with the proposed area’s designation of Medium Residential (four to eight units/acre) on the Town’s Land Use Plan.
Arguments in Opposition: Section 7.2 of the Comprehensive Plan contains an objective to “establish policies, regulations, incentives and programs to promote the availability of a full range of housing types, densities, costs, and tenancy options in Chapel Hill, both within new developments and existing neighborhoods.” It could be argued that creating a Neighborhood Conservation District in the Pine Knolls neighborhood may limit the potential for a variety of housing types and sizes because construction of new duplexes would not be permitted, house size would be limited to 2,500 square feet, and the floor area ratio would be 25 percent.
Evaluation of Neighborhood Conservation District Plan
As described above, the proposed changes to the underlying zoning district is intended to meet the goals of the 2000 Comprehensive Plan to protect and preserve neighborhoods affected by their central location near the heart of Town.
In addition, the changes are intended to alter the allowable “building envelope” to result in buildings which fit into the fabric of the neighborhood and be compatible with surrounding development. If the overlay zoning provisions are adopted, the scale and massing of future development would be more in keeping with the existing character of the neighborhood.
When considering rezoning a property or properties in this case, one factor to be considered is the effect the rezoning may have on existing uses in the area, as well as any “nonconformities” that may result from the rezoning. Generally, the term “nonconforming” refers to lots, uses, or features that complied with regulations at the time the use or structure began, but which do not meet current regulations. Nonconforming uses and features are allowed to be reconstructed if damaged or destroyed. Attachment 4 contains an explanation of nonconformities.
Nonconforming Lot: For almost all circumstances, the status of a lot as a nonconforming lot poses no negative impacts for a single family residential property owner. If a nonconforming lot is vacant, the owner can still build a single family house. If a single family house already exists on a nonconforming lot, the house can be used, expanded, and rebuilt if destroyed. The impact of nonconforming lot status occurs when multiple, adjacent lots are held in common ownership and one or more is nonconforming. In keeping with State statutes, Chapel Hill’s Land Use Management Ordinance contains the following language: “Where a nonconforming lot abuts another lot of record (whether conforming or nonconforming) held in the same ownership at or subsequent to enactment of this Chapter, such lots shall be combined or recombined as necessary to form a conforming lot or lots and shall not thereafter be subdivided except in compliance with all of the requirements of this Chapter.”
Nonconforming Use: A nonconforming use is a land use that does not conform to the Land Use Management Ordinance regulations. Existing duplex structures would become nonconforming uses created as a result of the Neighborhood Conservation District. Existing duplex structures would be allowed to be maintained as they currently exist according to the Town’s regulations.
Nonconforming Feature: A nonconforming feature is a physical characteristic that does not conform to today’s setback, height or other intensity or design provisions of the ordinance. Nonconforming features for existing development may continue to exist and may be reconstructed if the structure was damaged or destroyed. If enacted, the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District could result in the creation of nonconforming features.
With the establishment of a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Pine Knolls neighborhood, we anticipate that some nonconforming features will be created. These nonconforming features would likely relate to building setbacks.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Board Recommendation: On April 18, 2006, the Planning Board voted to recommend a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Pine Knolls neighborhood as described in the attached Summary of Planning Board Action (please see Attachment 5) and outlined in the summary chart below.
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation: We believe that creating a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Pine Knolls neighborhood is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Management Ordinance, and therefore, recommend that the Council enact the attached ordinance approving the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment.
Following tonight’s Hearing, we will complete a Neighborhood Conservation District Plan for the Pine Knolls Neighborhood. The Neighborhood Conservation District Plan would detail the guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation District and the boundary. The Plan would be incorporated as a part of the Land Use Management Ordinance, and would be subject to modification in the same manner as any other amendment to the Zoning Atlas.
The Plan will be prepared following the opening of the Public Hearing tonight and will be presented when the Hearing is continued at the time this returns for Council consideration.
|
Summary of Proposed Recommendations |
|||||
|
Current Zoning |
Clarion Associates Recommendation |
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation |
Planning Board Recommendation |
Summary of Citizen Comments |
|
|
1. Duplexes |
Currently allowed in R-3 and R-4 |
Not Permitted |
Not Permitted |
Not Permitted |
General support was expressed for not permitting duplexes. |
|
2. Maximum Floor Area Ratio for Single-Family Dwelling (or Single-Family with Accessory Apartment) |
N/A |
0.25 |
0.25 |
0.25 |
Most were comfortable with Clarion’s recommendation. Some felt the floor area ratio may prevent redevelopment in the neighborhood. |
|
3. Maximum Size for Single-Family Dwelling (or Single-Family dwelling with Accessory Apt) |
N/A |
2,500 Square Feet |
2,500 Square Feet |
2,500 Square Feet |
Most were comfortable with the Maximum Size as proposed. Some felt the size limit may prevent redevelopment in the neighborhood. |
|
Land Use Regulation |
Current Zoning |
Clarion Associates Recommendation |
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation |
Planning Board Recommendation |
Summary of Citizen Comments |
|
4. Maximum Secondary Building Height |
Maximum Secondary Height of 60 feet |
Maximum Secondary Building Height of 35 Feet |
Maximum Secondary Building Height of 35 Feet, Excluding single-family dwelling (or single-family with accessory apartment) |
Maximum Secondary Building Height of 35 Feet, Excluding Public Use Facilities, Elementary and Secondary Schools |
A representative from the Chapel Hill/Carrboro City School Board expressed concern with Clarion’s recommendation to limit building height for residential and nonresidential development. |
|
5. Bedroom to Bathroom Ratio for Single-Family Dwelling (or Single-Family with Accessory Apartment) |
N/A |
A dwelling with more than 2 bedrooms and a bathroom ratio of 1.0 or greater shall be classified as a Rooming House unless the dwelling is occupied by persons related by blood, adoption, marriage or domestic partnership, with not more than two unrelated persons. |
A dwelling with more than 2 bedrooms and a bathroom ratio of 1.0 or greater shall be classified as a Rooming House unless the dwelling is occupied by persons related by blood, adoption, marriage or domestic partnership, with not more than two unrelated persons. |
A dwelling with more than 2 bedrooms and a bathroom ratio of 1.0 or greater shall be classified as a Rooming House unless the dwelling is occupied by persons related by blood, adoption, marriage or domestic partnership, with not more than two unrelated persons. |
Comments from community members were supportive of the Bedroom to Bathroom Ratio. |
|
Land Use Regulation |
Current Zoning |
Clarion Associates Recommendation |
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation |
Planning Board Recommendation |
Summary of Citizen Comments |
|
6. Maximum Percent of Front Yard Used for Parking |
40% |
30% |
30% |
30% |
Comments from community members were generally supportive of 30%. |
|
7. Zoning Compliance Permit Notification |
N/A |
Adjacent property owners must be notified through the town if an increase in floor area or garages are proposed, with a ten-day waiting period to follow notification. |
Property owners within 1,000 feet must be notified if an increase in floor area is proposed or if garages are proposed. No additional waiting period. |
Property owners within 1,000 feet must be notified if an increase in floor area is proposed or if garages are proposed. No additional waiting period. |
Comments from community members were supportive of the Zoning Compliance Notification. |
|
8. Boundary |
N/A |
Exclude Manley Estates |
Include Lincoln Center, Mainsail Properties, and Manley Estates with the provision that standards only apply to Single-Family development (and Single-Family with accessory apartment) |
Include: Lincoln Center, Mainsail Properties, and Manley Estates |
The Chapel Hill/Carrboro City School Board and the Board of Manley Estates passed resolutions against being included in the Boundary. Representatives from Mainsail Properties requested that the properties be excluded from the Boundary. Several residents spoke in favor of excluding these properties. |
May 15, 2006
