TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Proposed Neighborhood Conservation District for the Coker Hills Neighborhood
DATE: May 15, 2006
PURPOSE
Tonight, the Council considers a proposed rezoning to create a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Coker Hills 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:
Cover Memorandum: Summarizes the proposed, reviews procedures for review, and offers a preliminary recommendation for Council action.
Attachments: Includes an ordinance designating the district boundaries and specifies the purposes and standards for the district (please see Attachment 1).
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 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 a formal petition with signatures from property owners to the Town Clerk.
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 March 7, 2006 meeting. Please see Attachment 2 for the recommendations prepared by Clarion Associates for the Coker Hills 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 Coker Hills 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.
Preliminary Recommendation: We also recommend increasing the minimum lot size to .6 acre. We believe that this regulation would provide protection against the subdivision of large lots. Existing lots below the .6 acre minimum lot size would become nonconforming lots. Please refer to Attachment 4 for a discussion of nonconforming status.
Preliminary Recommendation: The neighborhood does not appear to have reached a consensus of support for increased setbacks. We recommend no change to the current setbacks of the R-1 zoning district. We believe the existing setbacks are reasonable. We believe that the recommended increase in the minimum lot size will address concerns about subdivision of lots raised by some of the residents.
Preliminary Recommendation: The neighborhood does not appear to have reached a consensus of support for increased interior setbacks. We recommend no change to the current interior setbacks of 14 and 17 feet in the R-1 zoning district. We believe the existing interior setbacks are reasonable and that the recommended increase in the minimum lot size will address concerns about subdivision of lots raised by some of the residents.
4. & 5. Maximum Floor Area Ratio and Maximum Building Square Footage: The current R-1 zoning does not apply a floor area ratio to single-family homes, nor does it currently provide a maximum building square footage. This type of regulation was included in the Northside Neighborhood Conservation District. The Clarion Associates recommendation is to impose a floor area ratio of .2 and to cap the maximum square footage of a house at 7,500 square feet. The Clarion recommendation allows for larger single family dwellings if they meet the proposed floor area ratio of .2 and if required minimum street and interior setbacks are doubled.
Preliminary Recommendation: The neighborhood does not appear to have reached a consensus of support for a maximum floor area ratio or a maximum building square footage. We do not recommend the addition of floor area ratios or maximum building square footage.
Preliminary Recommendation: The neighborhood does not appear to have reached a consensus of support for maximum building height. We do not recommend reducing the height limit.
Preliminary Recommendation: The neighborhood does not appear to have reached a consensus of support for a maximum percentage of front yard used for parking. We recommend no change to the current restrictions for front yard parking.
Preliminary Recommendation: We do not concur with the recommendation to limit business related vehicle trips to six trips per day, including all employee trips. We believe that the Land Use Management Ordinance criteria provide reasonable restrictions on the traffic and parking activity associated with a Home Occupation.
Preliminary Recommendation: We concur with this recommendation.
Preliminary Recommendation: We are concerned about the recommendation to require a consultation with Town staff before clearing trees measured at 24” DBH. We believe the addition of this type of tree protection regulation for single- and two-family dwellings could have significant staffing implications. In addition, we are aware that the Council is considering a text amendment to the Land Use Management Ordinance to address this issue Town-wide. We recommend that tree removal issues be addressed during the Council’s deliberations on this matter, expected later this year.
The second boundary issue involves Clayton Road in the neighborhood. During the February 21, 2006 Planning Board meeting, several residents from Clayton Road requested to be excluded from the Neighborhood Conservation District. We have received a petition dated February 14, 2006, signed by eighteen of nineteen residents of Clayton Road requesting to be excluded from the Neighborhood Conservation District.
Preliminary Recommendation: We also recommend exclusion of the Vernon Hills properties from the Neighborhood Conservation District boundary. There seems to be agreement among residents from both neighborhoods to exclude the Vernon Hills properties.
Regarding Clayton Road, we recommend its inclusion in the Neighborhood Conservation District Boundary. Because this is a case where there is disagreement about the boundary line among neighborhood residents, we recommend that the decision be made on the basis of the Neighborhood Conservation District designation criteria included in the Land Use Management Ordinance.
We believe that a critique of Clayton Road against the Land Use Management Ordinance criteria supports the inclusion of the street. Clayton Road contains one block face; the area was developed over 25 years ago with the rest of the neighborhood; at least 75 percent of the land area in the proposed district is presently improved; and the area possesses one or more distinctive features that create a cohesive identifiable setting, character or association. Specifically, it is our understanding that the street was developed using the same restrictive covenants as the rest of the neighborhood and it possesses the same scale, size, type of construction and distinctive building materials as well as the same lot layout, setbacks, and street layouts.
The Coker Hills 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 Coker Hills 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 Low Residential (1-4 units/acre) on the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan, adopted May 8, 2000. Residential-1 zoning districts are consistent with this land use designation.
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-1 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: Because of its proximity to proposed expansion of the University, it is reasonable to believe that the Coker Hills neighborhood may be affected by growth pressures related to the demand for housing.
We believe creating a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Coker Hills neighborhood is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies:
“Conserve and enhance those elements that define Chapel Hill’s special community character and the heritage of Chapel Hill’s historic neighborhoods” (Goal, Section 3.2).
“Protect the physical and social fabric of Chapel Hill’s neighborhoods” (Objective, Section 3.2).
The area is characterized by larger lots, and lots are dominated by woodland and tree stands. 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 Low Residential (1-4 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 Coker Hills neighborhood may limit the potential for a variety of housing types and sizes.
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 those elements that define the community character.
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 nonconforming status.
Nonconforming Lot: The proposed recommendations for a Neighborhood Conservation District include a .6 acre minimum lot size. Existing lots below the .6 acre minimum lot size would become nonconforming lots.
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.
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.
With the establishment of a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Coker Hills neighborhood, we anticipate that some nonconforming features will be created. These nonconforming features would likely relate to building setbacks.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Board Recommendation: On May 2, 2006, the Planning Board voted not to recommend a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Coker Hills neighborhood as described in the attached Summary of Planning Board Action (please see Attachment 5) and outlined below.
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation: Based on the activity and communication that has taken place in this neighborhood, we believe that creating a Neighborhood Conservation District with limited standards for the Coker Hills neighborhood is a compromise that offers protection against the subdivision of large lots. The limited guidelines also would not prohibit property owners from making alterations to their homes beyond that allowed with the existing Residential-1 zoning. We believe the preliminary recommendation 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 Public Hearing, we will complete a Neighborhood Conservation District Plan for the Coker Hills neighborhood. The Neighborhood Conservation District Plan will detail the guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation District and the boundary. The Plan would be incorporated as part of the Land Use Management Ordinance, and will 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 item returns for Council consideration.
Summary of Proposed Recommendations
for the Coker Hills Neighborhood
Neighborhood Conservation District Plan
|
Current Zoning |
Clarion Associates Recommendation |
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation |
Planning Board Recommendation |
Summary of Citizen Comments |
|
|
1.Minimum Lot Size |
.39 Acre (17,000 Square Feet) |
.6 Acre (26,000 Square Feet) |
.6 Acre (26,000 Square Feet) |
No change to current zoning regulations |
Most residents were comfortable with the minimum lot size. Several thought the minimum lot size should not change. |
|
2. Minimum Street Setbacks for Single-Family Dwelling or Single-Family Dwelling with Accessory Apartment |
28 feet |
50 feet |
No change to current zoning regulations |
No change to current zoning regulations |
Some residents support Clarion’s recommendation, others support the Manager’s Preliminary recommendation. |
Land Use Regulation |
Current Zoning |
Clarion Associates Recommendation |
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation |
Planning Board Recommendation |
Summary of Citizen Comments |
|
3. Minimum Interior Setbacks for Single-Family Dwelling or Single-Family dwelling with Accessory Apt. |
14 feet, 17 feet northern interior |
25 feet |
No change to current zoning regulations |
No change to current zoning regulations |
Some residents support Clarion’s recommendation, other support the Manager’s Preliminary recommendation. |
|
4. Maximum Floor Area Ratio for Single-Family Dwelling (or Single-Family Dwelling with Accessory Apartment) |
N/A |
.2 |
No change to current zoning regulations |
No change to current zoning regulations |
Most that attended early meetings supported Clarion’s recommendation. At the Planning Board meeting, some residents spoke against a floor area ratio. |
Land Use Regulation |
Current Zoning |
Clarion Associates Recommendation |
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation |
Planning Board Recommendation |
Summary of Citizen Comments |
|
5. Maximum Size for Single-Family Dwelling (or Single-Family Dwelling with Accessory Apartment) |
N/A |
7,500 square feet. Larger single-family dwelling allowed if meets floor area ratio criteria and if required minimum street and interior setbacks are doubled. |
No change to current zoning regulations |
No change to current zoning regulations |
Most that attended early meetings supported Clarion’s recommendation. At the Planning Board meetings, some residents spoke against a maximum building square footage. |
|
6. Maximum Building Height |
Maximum primary building height of 29 feet, maximum secondary height of 40 feet |
Maximum secondary height of 37 feet |
No change to current zoning regulations |
No change to current zoning regulations |
Most that attended early meetings were supportive of reducing the maximum building height while still allowing for the development of 2 stories plus an attic. At later meetings, concern was expressed by some neighbors about the imposition of new standards. |
Land Use Regulation |
Current Zoning |
Clarion Associates Recommendation |
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation |
Planning Board Recommendation |
Summary of Citizen Comments |
|
7. Maximum Percent of Front Yard Used for Parking |
40% |
25% |
No change to current zoning regulations |
No change to current zoning regulations |
Most that attended early meetings were supportive of Clarion’s recommendation. At later meetings, concern was expressed by some neighbors about the imposition of new standards. |
|
8.Home Occupations |
Restrictions include not generating traffic volumes or parking area needs greater than would normally be expected in the neighborhood |
Limit business related vehicle trips to 6 trips per day, including all employee trips |
No change to current zoning regulations |
No change to current zoning regulations |
Some that attended meetings supported limiting traffic and parking for home occupations. Others felt the regulations should stay as they currently exist. |
|
9. Accessory Apartments |
Permitted with a 34,000 acre minimum lot size |
Permitted – No additional minimum lot size requirement |
Permitted – No additional minimum lot size requirement |
No change to current zoning regulations |
Most that attended meetings supported Clarion’s recommendation. |
Land Use Regulation |
Current Zoning |
Clarion Associates Recommendation |
Manager’s Preliminary Recommendation |
Planning Board Recommendation |
Citizen Comments |
|
10. Tree Protection |
Tree protection required if 5,000 square feet of land disturbance proposed |
Require consultation with Town before clearing deciduous trees measured at 24” DBY or greater, except as part of construction and/or maintenance of permitted improvements, or to remove dead, diseased, or hazardous trees |
No change to current zoning regulations |
No change to current zoning regulations |
Some residents expressed interest in developing tree protection measures. |
|
11. Boundary |
|
Include entire area as proposed on Map 1 |
Include entire area as proposed on Map 1 |
No recommendation |
The majority of residents of Clayton Road and some residents of Elliot Road petitioned to be excluded from the boundary. |
May 15, 2006
ATTACHMENTS
MAP
