ATTACHMENT 3
Clarion Associates
1526 East Franklin Street, Suite 102
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
919.967.9188 phone
919.967.9077 fax
Memorandum
|
To: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director |
|
From: |
Roger Waldon |
|
Date: |
April 26, 2007 |
|
Re: |
Proposed Neighborhood Conservation District for the Mason Farm / Whitehead Circle Neighborhood |
________________________________________________________________________________
This memorandum offers discussion of issues raised at the April 3, 2007 meeting of the Chapel Hill Planning Board, during consideration of a possible Neighborhood Conservation District for the Mason Farm / Whitehead Circle neighborhood. Sources of information include Clarion’s March memorandum suggesting provisions for a new overlay zoning district for this neighborhood, the April 3 memorandum to the Planning Board from the Planning Department, the Planning Board’s discussion on April 3, and additional discussions with staff, neighborhood residents, and neighborhood property owners.
The issues addressed here are:
(1) Recommended dimensional regulations;
(2) Interior vs. exterior changes to a structure;
(3) Recommended parking restrictions;
(4) Notification requirements;
(5) Administration and enforcement of regulations.
The memorandum closes with summary suggestions as consideration of the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District continues.
DISCUSSION
Dimensional Regulations: Neighbors, consultants, and staff all acknowledge that the physical characteristics of a dwelling unit can have an influence on how the dwelling is used, and that some physical configurations particularly lend themselves to the incidence of rooms being rented out individually. This led the Planning Board and Town Council, for example, to establish the “bedroom-bathroom” ratio for application to the Northside and Pine Knolls neighborhoods. We have suggested that, for the Mason Farm / Whitehead Circle neighborhood, the bedroom-bathroom ratio would not apply well, but that another similar regulation would be useful: a regulation tying space devoted to bedrooms to space devoted to common areas within a house.
The April 3 staff report to the Planning Board noted operational complications with the idea as suggested, including concerns regarding definitions of common space and concerns about capacity to administer such a regulation under the constraints of current staffing resources. Accordingly, we suggest adjustment of the original proposal as follows:
· Require that the square footage devoted to bedrooms in a dwelling cannot be greater than the square footage devoted to common space in a dwelling.
· Define common space as any portion of a dwelling that is not a bedroom or a bathroom. Town procedures already incorporate definitions of what constitutes a bedroom and what constitutes a bathroom (needed for administration of regulations in Northside and Pine Knolls).
· Require applicant calculation of the square footage of bedrooms and bathrooms, along with the total floor area of a dwelling proposed for construction or renovation. Total square footage of a proposed structure is regularly required as a component of most development applications and is routinely measured and stated on applications. This provision would require additional documentation from the applicant regarding the square footage devoted to bedrooms and bathrooms.
· With this information in hand, the calculation would become straightforward: the area devoted to common space would be the area of the house minus bedrooms and minus bathrooms.
This approach would be slightly less restrictive than that we suggested in March, in that it would include hallways and other undefined portions of a dwelling as common space; it would be easier to administer because provisions are already in place to identify bedrooms and bathrooms.
A key to making this provision workable would be requiring applicants for a Zoning Compliance Permit to provide information about square footage for bedrooms, bathrooms, and overall dwelling. One way to assure accuracy would be to require that this calculation be prepared by a registered architect for applications within this Neighborhood Conservation District. Based on our conversations with local professionals, we believe that this requirement would likely cost applicants approximately $250 to $400 for the services of an architect. On balance, given the concerns about maintaining single-family occupancy and neighborhood character, this additional expense as part of new construction or renovation can be justified.
Interior vs. Exterior Change to a Structure: The April 3 staff memorandum stated that, for interior-only renovations for a single-family dwelling, the standard practice is for an applicant to obtain a statement of “No Zoning Compliance Permit Needed,” and then to simply obtain a building permit. The suggestion here is that, for this Neighborhood Conservation District, every construction initiative, whether internal or external, would need a Zoning Compliance Permit and accompanying review to determine compliance with regulations. This would add cost to an applicant, but that additional cost can be justified under the objective of preserving character. This provision would add to the Planning Department’s workload by requiring review of applications of a nature not currently requiring review.
Recommended Parking Restrictions: The Planning Department memorandum of April 3 discusses operational difficulties associated with trying to restrict the number of parking spaces on a lot, including the difficulty of distinguishing driveway areas from parking areas. We agree with the Department’s conclusion that focusing on additional restrictions on front yard parking is the best approach to regulating parking on private lots.
Notification Requirements: Our March report suggested notification requirements and waiting periods accompanying applications for Zoning Compliance Permits. The April 3 Staff memorandum reported the differences between these suggestions and rules that had been put in place for Pine Knolls and Northside, and suggested that the suggested Mason Farm / Whitehead Circle notification provisions would be unduly cumbersome. Upon further review we agree, and accordingly suggest that the notification requirements for Mason Farm / Whitehead Circle be drafted in a manner that is identical to those for Pine Knolls and Northside.
Administration and Enforcement of Regulations: Current workload demands focused on the Town’s Planning Department and Zoning Enforcement functions are high. Provisions proposed here, such as requiring attention to square footage of bedrooms in a dwelling and requiring Zoning Compliance Permits for interior renovations, would add to that workload and require staff functions for which there currently is little or no staff capacity. In considering these new requirements that will serve to help protect the character of this Chapel Hill neighborhood, the Planning Board and Town Council will need to consider workload and staffing resources. This area is small and the number of properties that would trigger the need for additional staff work is limited, but we understand that even limited increases in workload cannot be accommodated without additional resources or re-allocation of assigned functions. Some of the responsibility (and cost) can be shifted to applicants, such as requiring architect certification of square footage calculations; but increases in staff responsibilities are inevitable with creation of a new Neighborhood Conservation District.
SUMMARY
We continue to believe that a Neighborhood Conservation District overlay zone for the Mason Farm / Whitehead Circle neighborhood would help conserve and maintain the character of this residential area. Based on discussions at and subsequent to the April 3 Planning Board, we suggest adjustments to our initial March proposal as follows:
· Adjust the definition of common space to be easier to identify
· Adjust the notification requirement to align with existing requirements for Pine Knolls and Northside
· Require applicant to provide architect certification of square footage calculations
Accordingly, we suggest creation of a Neighborhood Conservation District here that has the following provisions. Items in bold were also recommended by the Planning Department on April 3:
1. Minimum Lot Size: One acre
2. Maximum Floor Area Ratio: .15
3. Minimum Street Setback: 50 feet
4. Minimum Interior Setback: 25 feet
5. Setbacks for dwellings 6,500 square feet and larger: Double the standard setbacks
6. Bedroom-to-Common Space Ratio: Adjust definition, require architect certifications
7. Maximum Building Height: Secondary Height Limit set at 30 feet
8. Front Yard Parking Limitation: Limit to 25%
9. Maximum on-site parking spaces: Eliminate proposed requirement
10. Notification Requirements: Change to align with Northside / Pine Knolls
11. Design Guidelines: To be drafted as supplement to existing guidelines
12. Application of Regulations: To be applied to residential uses, not institutional uses
13. Boundary: As shown on accompanying map
14. Definitions: Adjust Common Space definition