TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Proposed Rezoning to Create a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Greenwood 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 the Greenwood neighborhood. An attached map shows the proposed boundary for the Neighborhood Conservation District (please see Map 1). The areas within the proposed boundary are zoned Residential-Low Density 1 (R-LD1 – 1 acre minimum lot size.) 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 Greenwood 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) nonconformities; 2) accessory apartments; 3) comparison to R-1 zoning standards; and 4) fence regulations.
1. 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 Greenwood 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.
2. Accessory Apartment: A resident requested clarification on the proposed lot size requirement for accessory apartments.
Comment: Our recommendation is that no minimum lot size would be required to develop an accessory apartment, and that an accessory apartment is permitted with every single-family dwelling. In the May 15, 2006, Public Hearing Memorandum, we stated that we support the recommendation that no additional minimum lot size be required, which created some confusion about what the word “additional” referred to.
This regulation would allow the development of an accessory apartment on any lot in the neighborhood regardless of the lot size. 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.
3. Comparison to Residential-1 Standards: Council members requested that the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District standards be compared against both the current Residential-Low Density 1 (R-LD1) zoning standards and the Residential-1 (R-1) zoning standards which had previously applied to the neighborhood.
Comment: On April 25, 2005, the Council approved a rezoning of the Greenwood neighborhood from R-1 to R-LD 1. The current R-LD 1 standards were used as a baseline and comparison in the process of developing the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District standards. To provide the comparison, we have added an R-1 column to the summary chart below entitled, “Summary of Recommendations for the Greenwood Neighborhood Conservation District Plan.”
4. Fence Regulations: Several Council Members requested further discussion on how the proposed fence regulations would affect corner lots. Council members also requested a change to the recommended language of “50 percent opaque” to provide more clarity on what was intended. Residents and Council members requested that the proposed fence regulations not apply to fences built around pools.
Comment: The Land Use Management Ordinance provides zoning standards for street setbacks, solar setbacks and interior setbacks that relate to the orientation of the lot and the street rather than the orientation of the lot and the structure built upon it. Therefore, corner lots are considered to have two street setbacks. However we believe that the Clarion Associates recommendation regarding fencing was intended to apply to the front yard only, which would require a corner lot to comply with the fence regulation according to which street the house faced. We continue to recommend the restriction of fences as proposed by Clarion Associates.
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 Greenwood neighborhood meetings.
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 and the North Carolina general building code.
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 Greenwood 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 Greenwood 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 Greenwood 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.
The Manager’s recommendation has been revised to include:
1. removal of the word “additional” from the accessory apartment language,
2. language to allow fences around swimming pools,
3. language to adjust the fence provisions to reference openings rather than opacity, and
4. language to include the exception to fence height for houses bordering Christopher Road.
MAP
Summary of Recommendations
for the Greenwood Neighborhood
Neighborhood Conservation District Plan
|
R-1 Zoning |
Current Zoning R-LD1 |
Manager’s Revised Recommendation |
Planning Board Recommendation |
|
|
1. Minimum Lot Size |
.39 acre (17,000 square feet) |
1 acre |
1 acre |
1 acre |
|
2. Minimum Street Setbacks for Single-Family Dwelling (or Single-Family Dwelling with Accessory Apartment) |
28 feet |
30 feet |
50 feet |
50 feet |
|
3. Minimum Interior Setbacks for Single-Family Dwelling (or Single-Family dwelling with Accessory Apt) |
14 feet, 17 feet for northern interior |
16 feet, 20 feet northern interior |
20 feet |
20 feet
|
|
4. Maximum Floor Area Ratio for Single-Family Dwelling (or Single-Family Dwelling with Accessory Apartment) |
N/A |
N/A |
.15 |
.15 |
|
5. Maximum Building Height |
Maximum primary building height of 29 feet, maximum secondary height of 40 feet |
Maximum primary building height of 29 feet, maximum secondary height of 35 feet |
Maximum primary building height of 29 feet, maximum secondary height of 35 feet |
Maximum primary building height of 29 feet, maximum secondary height of 35 feet |
|
Land Use Regulation |
R-1 Zoning |
Current Zoning R-LD1 |
Manager’s Revised Recommendation |
Planning Board Recommendation |
|
6. Maximum Percent of Front Yard Used for Parking |
40% |
40% |
25% |
25% |
|
7. Accessory Apartments |
Permitted with 34,000 square foot lot |
Permitted with a 2 acre minimum lot size |
No minimum lot size requirement |
No minimum lot size requirement |
|
8. Fences |
No restrictions on fences below six feet in height |
No restrictions on fences below six feet in height |
Except for the portion of lots that front on Christopher Road/ Fordham Boulevard, the following standards shall apply: 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 except for houses bordering Christopher Road. |
|
9. Single-Family Zoning Compliance Permit Notification |
No notification required |
No notification required |
No change to current regulations |
No change to current regulations |
|
10. Tree Protection |
No current regulations for single or two-family dwelling |
No current regulations for single or two-family dwelling |
No change to current regulations |
No change to current regulations |
|
11. Boundary |
|
|
Include property on Indian Springs Road and eight UNC-owned properties on Greenwood Road |
Include property on Indian Springs Road and eight UNC-owned properties on Greenwood Road |
June 12, 2006
