TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Rezoning to Create a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Morgan Creek/Kings Mill Road Neighborhood
DATE: June 12, 2006
PURPOSE
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information to the Council about a proposed rezoning to create a Neighborhood Conservation District for Morgan Creek/Kings Mill Road neighborhood. The attached maps show the proposed boundary for the Neighborhood Conservation District (please see Map 1 and Map 2). The area within the proposed boundary is zoned Residential-1 (R-1). The Neighborhood Conservation District would be an overlay district to the regular zoning districts. The attached plan would constitute the terms of the Neighborhood Conservation District.
The attached Ordinance would amend the Chapel Hill Zoning Atlas to create a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Morgan Creek/Kings Mill Road neighborhood.
The Council held a public hearing on May 15, 2006, and received citizen, Planning Board and Council comments. A copy of the memorandum is attached (please see Attachment 1). The Council continued the hearing until tonight, and referred comments received at the forum to the Manager and Attorney for consideration in developing a follow-up report and recommendation.
If enacted by the Council, the attached Ordinance would amend the Town’s Zoning Atlas. The Neighborhood Conservation District Plan would also become a component of the Zoning Atlas, and a copy of the District Plan would be attached to the Land Use Management Ordinance.
At the May 15, 2006 public hearing, the Council heard discussion of key issues (summarized below) and recessed the hearing until tonight.
KEY ISSUES
We believe that the key issues raised during the May 15, 2006 public hearing and during the process of developing guidelines for the Neighborhood Conservation District are: 1) the District boundary; 2) nonconformities; 3) fence regulations; and 4) accessory apartments.
1. Boundary: The Winter Drive Subdivision is located outside the Town limits in the extraterritorial jurisdiction. A resident requested information on the difference between properties located inside Town limits and properties located in the extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Comment: In 1959, the North Carolina General Assembly granted all municipalities in the state the authority to apply city zoning, subdivision, and other land use ordinances in the unincorporated areas just outside the city’s boundaries. This area is called the city’s extraterritorial planning jurisdiction. The North Carolina General Statute 160A-360(a) provides that the city acquires jurisdiction for all of its ordinances adopted under Article 19 of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes and the county loses its jurisdiction for the same range of ordinances. This includes not only zoning and subdivision ordinances, but also housing and building codes, and regulations on historic districts and historic landmarks, open spaces, community development, erosion and sedimentation control, floodways, mountain ridges, and roadway corridors.
Residents of the extraterritorial area do not vote in Town elections and do not pay Town taxes. However, the Town Planning Board and Board of Adjustment include residents in this area. These appointments are made by the County Board of Commissioners.
We continue to recommend exclusion of the Winter Drive Subdivision from the proposed zoning overlay district. We note that there are eight lots in the subdivision. The property owners of the four properties on Meadow Lane have declared their support for including the subdivision in the boundary, whereas property owners of the four properties on Winter Drive have requested to be excluded from the boundary.
We offer arguments for and against inclusion of the Winter Drive Subdivision. Reasons to include the Subdivision in the Neighborhood Conservation District include:
· the two areas abut;
· impacts from one property can have an affect on the adjacent lots; and
· the two areas share access to the public meadow and vistas across the meadow.
Reasons for not including the Winter Drive Subdivision include:
· vehicular access to the subdivision is separate (and prohibited according to recently amended restrictive covenants on the part of Morgan Creek residents);
· the lots were developed separately and are not part of the original Morgan Creek restrictive covenants; and
· the Winter Drive subdivision is not currently within the Town’s corporate limits.
If the Council wishes to exclude the Winter Drive Subdivision the enacting Ordinance will reference Map 1. If the Council wishes to include the Winter Drive Subdivision the enacting Ordinance should reference Map 2.
2. Nonconformity: A Council Member requested additional information regarding the potential nonconformity status of properties within an overlay district.
Comment: We recommend that the Council continue utilizing the standard Ordinance language regarding nonconformity. Early in the Neighborhood Conservation District process, the consultant had suggested consideration of language to establish that existing uses and features would be “not nonconforming.” We have reviewed the idea and do not believe it is desirable. Nonconforming status is an accepted language in State law that identifies a use or feature as lawfully established but no longer conforming to current regulations. Town regulations provide a special status for these lawfully established nonconformities. Nonconformities are acknowledged with any change to regulation and can be rebuilt if damaged or destroyed.
In the Morgan Creek/Kings Mill neighborhood, we expect some nonconforming features to be created with the establishment of the overlay zoning district. These nonconforming features relate to setbacks, floor area ratio and height limits. Existing single family structures that exceed the proposed floor area ratio or proposed lower height limit and larger setbacks can be rebuilt if damaged or destroyed because of the special nonconforming status.
We note that the Land Use Management Ordinance measures street setbacks perpendicularly from the property line to any structure on the zoning lot. We also note that the zoning overlay district standards, such as setback and height regulations, are subject to variance procedures as described in Section 4.12 of the Land Use Management Ordinance.
Please refer to the May 15 Memorandum for a more detailed discussion of nonconformity.
3. Accessory Apartments: A Council Member requested that the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District standards include the same provision for accessory apartments as was included in the Greenwood proposed standards. Specifically, the Council member requested language that there be “no minimum lot size requirement to develop an accessory apartment. An accessory apartment is permitted with every single-family dwelling.”
Comment: We support including the accessory apartment provision that there be no minimum lot size requirement to develop an accessory apartment in the Neighborhood Conservation District standards. Aside from this standard, the Land Use Management Ordinance requirements regarding accessory apartments would still apply. The requirements include the following: that the floor area of one of the dwelling units does not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the floor area of the single family residential unit nor is greater than 750 square feet, and that the dwelling’s exterior design and entry locations give the dwelling the appearance of a single-family dwelling.
4. Fence Regulation: Several Council Members requested an explanation of how the fence regulations relate to the setback regulations. Residents and Council members also requested that the proposed fence regulations not apply to fences built around pools. Finally, Council members requested a change to the recommended language of “50 percent opaque” to provide more clarity on the intention of the provision.
Comment: The Land Use Management Ordinance defines the dimensional standards for lots and buildings throughout Chapel Hill according to zoning districts. The dimensional standards identify three setback requirements: the street setback, the solar setback, and the interior setback. Section 3.8.3 “Exceptions to Setback and Height Regulations,” itemizes the features that shall not be subject to the setback requirements and includes fences and walls not exceeding six feet in height (3.8.3(a)(3)). This exception means that fences or walls at or below six feet may be built between the property line and the setbacks but fences or walls that exceed this height would have to comply with the setback requirements. The Neighborhood Conservation District proposal to limit fence height would reduce the allowable height from six feet to four feet in the setback. A fence or wall that is taller than four feet would have to comply with the setback requirements. Fences that are built beyond the setback requirements must comply with the dimensional standards for the allowable maximum building height (primary).
With regards to the request that the proposed fence regulations not apply to fences built around pools, we propose to change the language to, “All fences located in the front yard with street frontage shall have a maximum fence height of four feet except where required by law for facilities such as swimming pools.” We note that fences built around pools will be subject to the provisions included in the Land Use Management Ordinance (described above) and the North Carolina general building code.
As for the proposed regulation that a fence in the front yard be no more than 50 percent opaque, we agree with the Council that this language should be changed. Instead, we propose, “Fences located in the front yard and taller than 2.5 feet shall have openings of at least 50 percent or more in the construction of the fence. We believe this language better communicates the intentions expressed in the Morgan Creek/Kings Mill neighborhood meetings.
TOWN ENFORCEMENT OF ZONING STANDARDS IN SUBSTITUTION FOR RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
For three of the four neighborhoods in process for establishment of a Neighborhood Conservation Districts, the proposed standards will impose regulations similar to the existing neighborhood covenants and, in some cases, propose regulations beyond the neighborhood’s restrictive covenants by creating new standards. We believe it is important to acknowledge this increased level of Town regulation and the implications of the increase. In effect, we believe the Town is being asked to enforce regulations that the citizens may expect to substitute for neighborhoods’ enforcement of their own private restrictive covenants. We believe citizen comments at the Neighborhood Conservation District public hearings last month support this conclusion. Therefore, we believe these new Town regulations will likely result in a higher demand for Town intervention and subsequent higher costs in legal fees. If the new overlay zoning districts are enacted, we will monitor the impact of the new regulations and report to the Council.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As stated in the May 15, 2006 memorandum (please see Attachment 1), there are three justifications for rezonings: a) to correct a manifest error in the chapter; 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. We believe that the proposed rezoning to create a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Morgan Creek/Kings Mill Road neighborhood is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Plan.
Planning Board Recommendation: On April 18, 2006, the Planning Board voted to recommend a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Morgan Creek/Kings Mill Road neighborhood as described in the attached Summary of Planning Board Action (provided as part of Attachment 1) and outlined in the summary chart below.
Manager’s Revised Recommendation: We believe that creating a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Morgan Creek/Kings Mill Road 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. We recommend including Map 1 in the Ordinance, which would exclude the Winter Drive Subdivision from the boundary.
Alternatively, including Map 2 in the Ordinance would include the Subdivision in the Boundary.
The Manager’s recommendation has been revised to include:
for the Morgan Creek/Kings Mill Road
Neighborhood Conservation District Plan
|
Land Use Regulation |
Current R-1 Zoning |
Manager’s Revised Recommendation |
Planning Board Recommendation |
|
1. Minimum Lot Size |
.39 acre (17,000 square feet) |
.6 acre (26,000 square feet) |
.6 acre (26,000 square feet) |
|
2. Minimum Street Setbacks for Single-Family Dwelling (or Single-Family Dwelling with Accessory Apartment) |
28 feet |
50 feet, except for lots that border Fordham Boulevard, where the Fordham Boulevard setback is determined by underlying zoning. |
50 feet except for lots that border Fordham Boulevard (would remain as is) |
|
3. Minimum Interior Setbacks for Single-Family Dwelling (or Single-Family dwelling with Accessory Apartment) |
14 feet, 17 feet for northern interior |
25 feet |
25 feet |
|
4. Maximum Building Height |
29 feet (primary) and 40 feet (secondary) |
29 feet (primary) and 40 feet (secondary) |
29 feet (primary) and 40 feet (secondary) |
|
5. Maximum Floor Area Ratio for Single-Family Dwelling (or Single-Family Dwelling with Accessory Apartment) |
N/A |
.17 |
.17 |
|
6. Maximum Size for a Single-Family Dwelling (or a Single-Family Dwelling with Accessory Apartment) |
N/A |
6,500 square feet (with provision for variance) |
6,500 square feet (with provision for variance) |
|
7. Maximum Percent of Front Yard Used for Parking |
40% |
25% |
25% |
|
8. Tree Protection |
No current regulations for single or two-family dwelling |
No change to current regulations |
No Agreement
|
|
9. Notification of Tree Removal |
No current regulations for single or two-family dwelling |
No change to current regulations |
No Agreement
|
|
Land Use Regulation |
Current R-1 Zoning |
Manager’s Revised Recommendation |
Planning Board Recommendation |
|
10. Fences |
No restrictions on fences below six feet in height |
Fences located in the front yard and taller than 2.5 feet shall have openings of at least 50 percent or more in the construction of the fence. All fences located in the front yard, with street frontage, shall have a maximum fence height of 4 feet except where required by law for facilities such as swimming pools. |
Fences located in the front yard and taller than 2.5 feet shall be no more than 50% opaque. All fences located in the front yard, with street frontage, shall have a maximum fence height of 4 feet. |
|
11. Accessory Apartments |
Permitted with 34,000 square foot lot |
No additional minimum lot size requirement |
Not discussed |
|
12. Boundary |
N/A |
Exclude Winter Drive Subdivision |
No Agreement
|
MAPS
