|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Loryn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Services Coordinator |
|
SUBJECT: |
Public Hearing: Proposed Neighborhood Conservation District for the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle Neighborhood |
|
DATE: |
May 14, 2007 |
Tonight, the Council considers a proposed rezoning to create a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle 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 October 24, 2005, representatives from the Mason Farm Neighborhood Association presented a petition to the Council requesting that the neighborhood be designated as a Neighborhood Conservation District. On November 11, 2005, the Council authorized the Manager to release a Request for Proposals to create a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle neighborhood. In the interim, on April 24, 2006, the Council voted to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle neighborhood to Residential-Low Density 1 zoning (R-LD1 – 1 acre minimum lot size). On June 26, 2006, the Council authorized the Manager to hire Clarion Associates to work with the Planning Board to develop a Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle Neighborhood Conservation District.
Clarion presented its final recommendations to the Planning Board at its March 20, 2007 meeting. Please see Attachment 2 for the recommendations for the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle neighborhood prepared by Clarion Associates, dated March 16, 2007. Please see the chart beginning on page 15 for summary of the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District Plan recommendations.
To be designated a Neighborhood Conservation District, the Land Use Management Ordinance states that an area must meet the following criteria:
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 Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle neighborhood, the Council initiated the process by adopting a resolution on June 26, 2006.
The following provides a summary of the recommendations as proposed by Clarion Associates and preliminary recommendations from the staff.
1. Minimum Lot Size: The Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle neighborhood is currently zoned Residential-Low Density 1 (R-LD1), which requires a one-acre minimum lot size (43,560 square feet). The Clarion Associates recommendation does not include a change to the current regulations.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: We recommend maintaining the current minimum lot size of one acre. Existing lots below the one-acre minimum lot size are currently nonconforming lots. Please refer to Attachment 5 for a discussion of nonconforming status. In most circumstances, the status of a lot as nonconforming poses no negative impacts for a single-family residential property owner. The effect of nonconforming lot status occurs when multiple, adjacent lots are held in common ownership and one or more is nonconforming. 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.”
The Ordinance provisions allow construction of a new house on a lot smaller than one acre unless a property owner owns the lot next door. The Ordinance provisions would not allow construction of a new house on a lot smaller than one acre if the same owner owns the property next door, unless the two lots can be recombined to create two lots with at least 1 acre each.
2. Maximum Floor Area Ratio: The current R-LD1 zoning does not apply a floor area ratio to single-family homes (with or without accessory apartments). However, we note that the floor area ratio regulation is included in the Northside, Greenwood, Kings Mill/Morgan Creek and Pine Knolls Neighborhood Conservation Districts. The Clarion Associates recommendation is to require a floor area ratio of 0.15.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: We recommend the creation of a floor area ratio of .15, as proposed.
3. Minimum Street Setback: The current R-LD1 zoning requires a minimum street setback of 30 feet. The Clarion Associates recommendation is to change the minimum street setback to 50 feet.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: We recommend increasing the minimum street setback to 50 feet. Existing lots that do not meet this regulation would become lots with nonconforming features. Please refer to Attachment 5 for a detailed discussion of nonconforming status. The regulations provide a special status if a home no longer complies with the setback regulations that allow the structure to be rebuilt if damaged or destroyed.
4. Minimum Interior Setback: R-LD1 zoning requires a minimum interior setback of 16 feet. The Clarion Associates recommendation is to change the interior setback to 25 feet.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: We recommend increasing the minimum interior setback to 25 feet. The Land Use Management Ordinance distinguishes between an interior setback and a solar setback (northern interior setback), which in R-LD1 zoning is 19 feet. We believe that the recommendation refers to both setbacks and recommend the increase of both to 25 feet. Please refer to Attachment 5 for a detailed discussion of nonconforming status. The regulations provide a special status if a home no longer complies with the setback regulations that allow the structure to be rebuilt if damaged or destroyed.
5. Setbacks for units 6,500 square feet and larger: The Land Use Management Ordinance does not apply setback regulations according to the square feet of a structure. The Clarion Associates recommendation is to double the street and interior setback requirements for units 6,500 square feet and larger. This recommendation would require a minimum street setback of 100 feet and a minimum interior setback of 50 feet.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: We recommend the creation of a minimum street setback of 100 feet and a minimum interior setback of 50 feet for homes that are 6,500 square feet and larger, as proposed.
6. Maximum total square footage of bedrooms in a dwelling unit: The Land Use Management Ordinance does not apply a standard that compares the square feet of bedrooms to the square feet of common area in a dwelling unit and does not include a definition of “bedrooms” or “common areas.” The Clarion Associates recommendation of March 16, 2007 was to classify a dwelling unit as a Rooming House if the total amount of space used as bedrooms is greater than the total amount of space used as common areas unless the dwelling is occupied by persons related by blood, adoption, marriage, or domestic partnership, with not more than two unrelated persons. The Clarion Associates recommendation defined common area as, “areas or rooms within a dwelling unit that cannot be fully enclosed by walls and doors. These areas include kitchens, living rooms, dining rooms, studies, and other common spaces other than bathrooms and hallways.” Bedrooms were defined as “rooms, other than kitchens, bathrooms and closets, which can be fully enclosed by walls and doors to create private sleeping areas.” At the April 3, 2007 Planning Board meeting, residents requested that the standard be applied to interior renovations.
According to the Clarion Associates recommendation memorandum of March 16, 2007, this standard was created in response to the neighborhood’s concerns about renter-occupied dwellings inhabited by multiple unrelated persons. The Clarion Associates report states that, “One of the primary concerns within the neighborhood is maintaining the original single-family character” (see Attachment 2, pages 4, 5 and 9 for a discussion of this issue). Residents have stated that there are houses in the neighborhood that have been reconfigured internally to create more bedrooms for rental occupancy at the expense of common areas. Residents have expressed the belief that reconfigurations of this nature decrease the likelihood that the property will be sold to a single-family buyer in the future.
We did not recommend the March 16, 2007 Clarion Associates proposal for a Maximum Total Square Footage of Bedrooms in a Dwelling Unit because we were concerned about successful implementation and enforcement of the regulation.
We note that the issue of houses being rented by students was also a concern to residents in the Northside and Pine Knolls neighborhoods. In response, the Town adopted a Neighborhood Conservation District bedroom to bathroom ratio zoning regulation that states, “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 unrelated by blood, adoption, marriage, or domestic partnership, with not more than two unrelated persons.” We have found this regulation to be enforceable because a bathroom is defined by the plumbing it contains rather than its use as a bathroom. In addition, this regulation does not require the measurement of square feet inside specific rooms. We also note that this regulation is only applied in the case of a Zoning Compliance Permit application to either increase the existing footprint of a structure or build a new structure. This regulation is not applied in the case of an interior renovation that does not alter the exterior footprint of a structure.
On April 26, 2007, in response to the staff concerns, Clarion Associates suggested an adjustment of the proposal (see Attachment 3). The consultant’s revised recommendation is summarized below:
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: We recommend the revised Clarion Associates recommendation of April 26, 2007, which states that the total square footage devoted to bedrooms in a dwelling cannot be greater than the square footage devoted to common space in a dwelling; and which requires the submittal of a fully dimensioned drawing of an entire house as part of the Zoning Compliance Permit application for the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle Neighborhood Conservation District. This is a complicated proposal that we believe will require certification by a professional. We recommend that the dimensioned drawings be sealed by an architect licensed in the State of North Carolina based on Town floor area definitions, as proposed.
By requiring sealed floor plans, the Maximum Total Square Footage of Bedrooms in a Dwelling Unit regulation would not require interpretation on the part of the Town. In practice, the Town would provide an applicant with the floor area definitions proposed by Clarion Associates for bedrooms and common areas, and allow the applicant’s architect to interpret the definitions and certify that the floor plan meets the ratio requirement. The Zoning Compliance Permit requirement would be satisfied upon receipt of the sealed plans. The sealed plans would be on file and as part of the Zoning Compliance Permit and interpretation challenges could be part of an appeal to the Board of Adjustment regarding compliance with the bedroom to common area ratio at the time of permit issuance. Once the project was completed, it would be necessary for the applicant to provide a second set of dimensioned drawings sealed by a licensed architect to verify that the project was constructed as indicated on the application. This requirement would be a stipulation of the Zoning Compliance Permit and would be satisfied upon receipt of the certification.
We also recommend, as proposed by Clarion Associates, that a Zoning Compliance Permit be required for the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle Neighborhood Conservation District in the case of major interior renovations. Zoning Compliance Permits are typically not required for interior renovations because exterior site changes are not proposed. Zoning Compliance Permits are required for land disturbance and site alterations, such as building additions, enclosing a deck or adding a shed. If a change in floor area or interior renovation is proposed, we note that applications for a Zoning Compliance Permit would be evaluated against the regulations of the entire Neighborhood Conservation District zoning overlay and not just the Maximum Total Square Footage of Bedrooms in a Dwelling Unit component. We recommend defining “interior renovations,” for the purpose of this Neighborhood Conservation District, as “construction that removes, perforates, or reconfigures any walls within the existing floor plan of the house.”
Staff Concerns: We understand that the Clarion Associates proposal was created to address the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle resident’s concerns about housing that is rented to students. We are concerned that the proposed regulation may not have the intended effect on rental development and may be overly burdensome on the single-family property owners instead. In addition, this proposal will have financial implications on homeowners. The proposal will add the Zoning Compliance Permit fee for homeowners proposing only interior renovations. The requirement for an architect’s certification and seal will also have financial implications on homeowners in the neighborhood. Clarion Associates estimates that each architect’s certification and seal could cost between $500 and $1,000. As proposed, this regulation would require two sets of sealed plans to ensure compliance.
We note that an application for a Zoning Compliance Permit would be evaluated against the entire Neighborhood Conservation District zoning overlay and not just the Maximum Total Square Footage of Bedrooms in a Dwelling Unit. Zoning Compliance Permits are currently required for any land disturbance or site alterations which include such activities as adding a shed or enclosing a deck. We are concerned that in some cases, the cost of obtaining the Zoning Compliance Permit and the sealed architect plans could exceed the cost of the project itself.
We note that the proposed regulation is a new zoning provision for the Town and that it would expand the scope of the Town’s zoning code into the interior floor plan of new and existing structures. Because of this, we are concerned that the proposed regulation could have unintended effects beyond the intention of maintaining the single-family character of the neighborhood. One such effect could be that the regulation could encourage the rental of common space as bedrooms, which could increase the occupancy of a house beyond its bedroom capacity.
Our preliminary recommendation to apply this new regulation is provided with many cautions. By simply requiring a Zoning Compliance Permit for interior renovations, we are introducing a new business process between the Inspections and Planning Departments that is outside the normal regulatory process. Although the process seemingly relies on professional certifications, we believe it will create a staff burden and open the possibility for staff errors in its application.
In summary, we do not recommend the use of this standard in other neighborhoods. By using land regulations to increase the minimum lot size and decrease the building envelope, Neighborhood Conservation Districts can be a tool to discourage the subdivision of large lots and the development of houses that are out of character in a neighborhood. These are issues that are dimensional in nature and can be enforced through measurement. As a tool to address rental activity, we do not believe that Neighborhood Conservation District zoning is an effective method. Use and occupancy issues are difficult to define, measure, monitor, and enforce.
7. Maximum Secondary Building Height: The current R-LD1 zoning permits a maximum primary building height of 29 feet and a maximum secondary building height of 35 feet. The Clarion Associates recommendation is to change the maximum secondary building height to 30 feet.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: We recommend changing the maximum secondary building height to 30 feet, as proposed.
8. 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 change the percentage of front yard parking to 25 percent.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: We recommend the proposal to decrease the percentage of allowable front yard parking area to 25 percent. Given the larger lot sizes in the neighborhood, we believe a provision to allow up to 25 percent of a front yard to be provided as parking is appropriate.
9. Maximum number of uncovered parking spaces for lots less than 0.5 acre: Section 5.9 of the Land Use Management Ordinance, “Parking and Loading,” does not currently provide maximum parking space requirements or provide a definition for residential parking spaces. The Clarion Associates recommendation of March 15, 2007 was to create a maximum parking space requirement of three (3) uncovered parking spaces per dwelling unit.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: We did not recommend the proposal to create a maximum number of three (3) uncovered parking spaces for lots less than 0.5 acre because we were concerned about successful implementation and enforcement of the regulation. On April 26, 2007, in response to the staff concerns, Clarion Associates revised their recommendation to remove this proposal (see Attachment 3). We believe that the proposal to decrease the percentage of allowable front yard parking to 25 percent discussed above is an effective standard through which to address the residents concern that “some yards tend to look more like parking areas.”
10. Notification of Development: The Town currently does not have an adjacent neighbor notification requirement for a Zoning Compliance Permit. The Northside and Pine Knolls Neighborhood Conservation Districts require owners within 1,000 feet of a property be notified if an increase in the floor area is proposed or if a garage is proposed. The Clarion Associates recommendation of March 16, 2007 was to require adjacent neighbor notification when requesting a Zoning Compliance Permit for an increase in floor area or for a proposed garage and to require a ten-day waiting period following the notification.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: We did not recommend the proposal to require neighbor notification as part of the application process for a Zoning Compliance Permit as initially proposed. On April 26, 2007, in response to staff concerns, Clarion Associates revised their recommendation to require notification if an increase in the floor area is proposed or if a garage is proposed in a manner that is identical to Pine Knolls and Northside Neighborhood Conservation District requirements (see Attachment 3).
We recommend aligning the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle notification requirement with Pine Knolls and Northside Neighborhood Conservation District notification requirements. We recommend using the notification radius of 100 feet that is applied in the case of Historic District applications because we believe this would be consistent with the original intent of the Clarion Associates proposal to notify adjacent neighbors.
11. General Design Guidelines: Design guidelines were created for the Neighborhood Conservation Districts in the Northside, Greenwood, Kings Mill/Morgan Creek and Pine Knolls neighborhoods. They are provided to land development applicants as a resource and are non-binding. The Clarion Associates recommendation is to create a voluntary design guidelines document that would address appropriate design elements found in the neighborhood.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: We recommend creating design guidelines for the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle, as proposed. We note that the General Design Guidelines would be created by Clarion Associates as part of the original contract with the Town and would not require additional funds.
12. Application of Overlay District: Section 3.7.2 of the Land Use Management Ordinance provides regulations governing the use of land and structures within the various zoning districts. The current R-LD1 zoning district allows as a principle use the development of dwelling units for single family and single family with accessory apartment. Should an application be made to change the use from this purpose, the Clarion Associates recommendation specifies that the Neighborhood Conservation District regulations would only apply to residential use of property and accordingly shall not apply to property whose principle use is a place of worship, a child day care facility, an elementary or secondary school, or a public cultural facility.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: We recommend that the provisions of the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle Neighborhood Conservation District apply to residential use of property.
13. Neighborhood Conservation District Boundary: The Clarion Associates recommendation states that the boundary of the neighborhood has been an open discussion throughout the process, focusing on the inclusion of the four UNC-owned properties located on the north side of Mason Farm Road and the Chapel Hill Kehillah property. Other than Historic Districts and absent their consent, state-owned property is not subject to overlay district regulations. However, residents that attended the meetings supported the inclusion of the UNC-owned properties because the properties would be required to comply with the proposed regulations if they were sold to another entity and used for residential purposes.
With the exception of the Kehillah properties, which are zoned Residential-4, the properties included in the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District boundary are currently zoned R-LD1.
Representatives from the Kehillah agreed that the place of worship property should be included in the Neighborhood Conservation District boundary, with the understanding that the proposed regulations would not apply to properties whose principle use is as a place of worship. For that reason, the Clarion Associates recommendation #12 specifies that the application of the proposed regulations would “apply to residential use of property and accordingly shall not apply to property whose principle use is as a place of worship, a child day care facility, an elementary or secondary school, or a public cultural facility.” Please refer to recommendation #12 in this memorandum for staff comment.
Preliminary Staff Recommendation: We recommend inclusion of the UNC-owned properties and the Chapel Hill Kehillah properties. As with prior Neighborhood Conservation District Boundary proposals, we believe the boundary should be based on principles that are fair, objective, and will help guide boundary issues in the development of future Neighborhood Conservation Districts. Therefore, we continue to critique the issue on the basis of the Neighborhood Conservation District Designation Criteria included in the Land Use Management Ordinance (Section 3.6.5 (a)). It states:
“To be designated a Neighborhood Conservation District, the area must meet the following criteria:
We believe that a critique of the UNC-owned properties and the Kehillah properties against these criteria supports the inclusion of the properties. The properties contain one block face; the area was developed over 25 years ago; 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.
In addition, we refer to the boundary precedents set by previously adopted Neighborhood Conservation Districts. In the case of the UNC-owned properties, we note that eight UNC-owned properties were included in the Greenwood Neighborhood Conservation District boundary. With regard to the Kehillah properties, we note that the First Baptist and Manley Estates property and the Lincoln Center property are non-residential properties that were included in the Pine Knolls Neighborhood Conservation District boundary, though the existing uses are not subject to the overlay regulations.
Nonconforming Status: The Clarion Associates Final Recommendation Report notes that a constant theme throughout discussions has been the extent to which new regulations would affect existing properties.
Staff Comment: The Land Use Management Ordinance defines and provides a special status for land use conditions that were lawfully established but no longer conform to regulations. The Ordinance describes these types of nonconformities:
Each of these is described more fully in Attachment 5. With the establishment of a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle neighborhood we anticipate that some nonconforming features will be created. Nonconforming features have a special status in Chapel Hill’s regulations. Sometimes referred to as “grandfathering”, the special provisions state that homes with nonconforming features can be rebuilt if damaged or destroyed.
Vested Rights: We note that the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District would apply to development and land-disturbing activities within the boundary after the date that the zoning overlay is adopted. In addition, the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District would not apply to the continued use, operation or maintenance of any development existing, or for which construction had substantially begun, on or before the date that the zoning overlay is adopted. Furthermore, the Article would not apply to existing development which has established a vested right under North Carolina zoning law as of the adoption date of the zoning overlay. A determination of vested rights is made on a case by case basis considering the following criteria:
The Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle 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.
On March 28, 2007, 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 4). Notice of the proposed rezoning was also included in the Town Week section of the Chapel Hill News on Sunday, April 29, 2007. 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).
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 11, 2007.
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 March 28, 2007 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 9, 2007. 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 Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle 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.”
The entire area proposed for rezoning is designated as Low Residential (one to four units/acre) on the Chapel Hill Land Use Plan, adopted May 8, 2000. Residential-Low Density 1 zoning districts are consistent with this land use designation.
The area proposed for rezoning is designated as a “residential conservation area” in Figure 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” 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.
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; 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-Low Density 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: 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 Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle neighborhood may be affected by growth pressures related to the demand for housing.
We believe creating a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle neighborhood is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies:
As noted above, the area is one of the “residential conservation areas” identified on Figure 2 of the Comprehensive Plan. 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.” Creating Neighborhood Conservation Districts may limit the potential for a variety of housing types and sizes in a neighborhood.
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.
Planning Board Recommendation: On May 1, 2007 the Planning Board voted to recommend a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle neighborhood as described in the attached Summary of Planning Board Action (please see Attachment 6) and outlined in the summary chart below.
Staff Preliminary Recommendation: We believe that creating a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle 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 Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle 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.
The following chart incorporates the current zoning standards for R-LD1, the Clarion Associates recommendations dated 3/16/07 and 4/26/07, the Planning Board recommendation of 5/1/2007 and a Town staff recommendation.
