|
TO: |
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager |
|
FROM: |
J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Loryn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Services Coordinator |
|
SUBJECT: |
Proposed Rezoning to Create a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle Neighborhood |
|
DATE: |
June 11, 2007 |
Enactment of the attached Ordinance would amend the Zoning Atlas to create a Neighborhood Conservation District for the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle neighborhood.
The Council held a public hearing on May 14, 2007, and received citizen, Planning Board and Council comments. A copy of the memorandum is attached (please see Attachment 3). The Council continued the hearing until tonight, and referred the comments 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.
We did not receive a valid protest petition against this rezoning, but we did receive an email from a resident of the neighborhood who submitted a personal protest against this rezoning. This email was forwarded to the Council on May 15, 2007. By law, formal “Protest Petitions” could have been filed against this rezoning. A formal Protest Petition that meets legal requirements would increase the number of votes needed to enact this rezoning. We mailed a notice about the rezoning on March 28, 2007 to property owners in the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District boundary and property owners within 1,000 feet of the proposed boundary. The notice included a statement that information on protest petitions was available from the Town Clerk or the Planning Department, and that the deadline for filing protest petitions with the Town Clerk was Wednesday, May 9, 2007.
We believe that the key issues raised during the May 14, 2007 public hearing are: 1) Common Area to Bedroom Ratio feasibility; 2) requirement for Common Area to Bedroom certification and associated costs; and 3) ordinance terminology.
1. Common Area to Bedroom Ratio Feasibility: A Council Member asked staff to provide examples of how the proposed Common Area to Bedroom Ratio regulation would apply to actual floor plans in the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle neighborhood. A concern was expressed that simple renovations to a home could violate the proposed regulation but not be harmful to the entire neighborhood. A resident stated that a ratio of 50% Common Area square footage to 50% Bedroom square footage could be more effective if the ratio were changed to 60% Common Area square footage and 40% Bedroom square footage.
Comment: Please refer to Attachment 2 for a Memorandum from Clarion Associates that provides examples of how the ratio would apply to two specific floor plans. We continue to recommend a ratio of 50% Common Area square footage to 50% Bedroom square footage. We do not recommend changes to make the proposed Common Area to Bedroom Ratio more restrictive based on the Clarion Associates assertion that, “the regulation would not prohibit someone from adding a bedroom to the house; but it would prohibit the owner from converting common space to an extra bedroom, the type of phenomenon that encourages occupancy by other than a single-family household.”
We continue to be concerned about the introduction of the Common Area to Bedroom Ratio regulation. We believe the proposed regulation may not have the intended effect on rental development and may be overly burdensome to property owners instead. We are also concerned about applying this new regulation to building renovations as well as building additions. We understand this new proposal is important to the residents of the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle neighborhood, but we are concerned about the creation of zoning standards that attempt to address issues of use and occupancy, which are difficult to define, measure, monitor and enforce. We believe the Neighborhood Conservation District tool is better used to discourage the subdivision of large lots and the development of houses that are out of character in a neighborhood.
An alternative proposal for Council consideration offers a compromise to the full Common Area to Bedroom Ratio proposal. This alternative proposal would apply the Common Area to Bedroom Ratio, and the associated certifications, only at times when a Zoning Compliance Permit is required for a floor area expansion of an existing home or for construction of a new home (the conditions under which a Zoning Compliance Permit is currently required). This alternative proposal would not require certification of compliance with the Common Area to Bedroom Ratio for interior renovations or simple renovations that do not involve the addition of floor area, as in the case of constructing a deck.
2. Requirement for a Common Area to Bedroom Ratio Certification and Associated Costs: A Council Member stated that it would not take the expertise of an architect to calculate the proposed Common Area to Bedroom Ratio and requested that the proposal allow the calculation to be performed by appraisers, engineers, general contractors and surveyors. A resident suggested that the estimated $500-$1,000 fee to obtain an architect certification for the proposed Common Area to Bedroom Ratio was high and requested that the staff revisit the proposal to require only an architect certification.
Comment: We believe the proposed Common Area to Bedroom regulation and associated procedures can be incorporated into existing Town procedures only if we can rely on provision of a Common Area to Bedroom Ratio certification from a licensed professional. We have revised our recommendation to include licensed professionals beyond just architects.
The proposal has been modified to require that the Common Area to Bedroom Ratio be certified by a licensed architect, licensed appraiser, licensed engineer, licensed general contractor, or licensed surveyor.
We believe that requiring a licensed professional to perform the Common Area to Bedroom Ratio calculation would add accountability to this requirement due to the affiliation that the licensee has with state and national boards. We also believe that a licensed professional would be able to use their judgment about the Town’s definitions of Common Space and Bedrooms without needing interpretation from the Town staff.
We note that the certified plans would be on file as part of the Zoning Compliance Permit process. Interpretation challenges could be subject to appeal to the Board of Adjustment regarding compliance with the Common Area to Bedroom Ratio at the time of permit issuance. If an appeal should occur, we believe it would be beneficial to have a licensed professional who could explain their certification to the Board of Adjustment.
3. Ordinance Terminology: The May 14, 2007 Public Hearing Memorandum included an early version of a Clarion Associates recommendation 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. A Council Member raised a concern that this regulation would not allow a same-sex couple (that was not registered as domestic partners) in a foster parenting arrangement to occupy a dwelling as a household.
Comment: As currently written, our recommendation regarding the proposed Common Area to Bedroom Ratio does not refer to occupancy standards or to a Rooming House designation and therefore does not include the language about how persons are related. Instead, it states “an application for a Zoning Compliance Permit must be accompanied by a floor plan certified by a licensed architect, licensed appraiser, licensed engineer, licensed general contractor or licensed surveyor that certifies the total amount of space used as bedrooms is not equal to or in excess of the total square footage of common areas in the dwelling (no more than 50% of the total square footage).”
We believe that the concern raised by the Council Member was in reference to an early version of the Clarion Associates Maximum Total Square Footage of Bedrooms in a Unit recommendation and was included in the Summary of Recommendations for the Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle Neighborhood Conservation District. The “Rooming House” designation was removed from the Clarion Associates final proposal.
We note that a regulation regarding rooming houses and relationships was included in the Neighborhood Conservation District plan for the Pine Knolls neighborhood, but the language was changed to address the concern that the regulation would not allow a same-sex couple (that was not registered as domestic partners) in a foster parenting arrangement to occupy a dwelling as a household. The regulation states, “A dwelling with more than 2 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 related by blood, adoption (including foster parenting status), marriage or domestic partnership, with not more than two unrelated persons.”
As stated in the May 14, 2007 memorandum (please see Attachment 3), 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 Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle neighborhood is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Plan.
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 (provided as part of Attachment 3) and outlined in the summary chart below.
Revised Staff 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.
The staff recommendation has been revised to include the requirement that that the Common Area to Bedroom Ratio be certified by a licensed architect, licensed appraiser, licensed engineer, licensed general contractor, or licensed surveyor. Please refer to the chart below for a summary of the current zoning standards for R-LD1, the Clarion Associates recommendations as of 4/26/07, the Planning Board recommendation of 5/1/2007, a revised Town staff recommendation, and the Town Manager recommendation.
The following chart incorporates the current zoning standards for R-LD1, the Clarion Associates recommendation as of 4/26/07, the Planning Board recommendation of 5/1/2007, a revised Town staff recommendation, and the Town Manager recommendation.
|
Land Use Regulation |
Current Zoning |
Revised Clarion
Associates |
Planning Board Recommendation |
Staff Revised |
Manager’s |
|
|||||
|
1. Minimum Lot Size |
1 acre |
1 acre |
1 acre |
1 acre |
1 acre |
|
|||||
|
2. Maximum Floor Area Ratio for Single-Family Dwelling (or Single-Family Dwelling with Accessory Apartment) |
n/a |
.15 |
.15 |
.15 |
.15 |
|
|||||
|
3. Minimum Street Setbacks for Single-Family Dwelling (or Single-Family Dwelling with Accessory Apartment) |
30 feet |
50 feet |
50 feet |
50 feet |
50 feet |
|
|||||
|
4. Minimum Interior Setbacks for Single-Family Dwelling (or Single-Family dwelling with Accessory Apt) |
16 feet, 19 feet northern interior |
25 feet, both interior and northern interior |
25 feet, both interior and northern interior |
25 feet, both interior and northern interior |
25 feet, both interior and northern interior |
|
|||||
|
5. Greater setbacks for units 6,500 square feet and larger |
n/a |
Street and interior setbacks are doubled: · Street setback: 100 feet ·
Interior/northern interior setback: 50 feet |
Street and interior setbacks are doubled: · Street setback: 100 feet ·
Interior/northern interior setback: 50 feet |
Street and interior setbacks are doubled: · Street setback: 100 feet ·
Interior/northern interior setback: 50 feet |
Street and interior setbacks are doubled: · Street setback: 100 feet ·
Interior/northern interior setback: 50 feet |
|
|||||
|
6. Common Area to Bedroom Ratio/Maximum total square footage of bedrooms in dwelling unit
|
n/a |
Clarion 4/26/07: Require that 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 bathroom. Require applicant calculation of the square footage of bedroom and bathrooms, along with the total floor area of a dwelling proposed for construction or renovation. |
A Zoning Compliance Permit application would require a floor plan certified by a licensed architect that certifies the total amount of space used as bedrooms is not equal to or in excess of the total square footage of common areas in the dwelling. A second certified drawing would verify that the floor plans submitted for the Zoning Compliance Permit application match the construction prior to Town issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Definition for common space: any portion of a dwelling that is not a bedroom or bathroom. A Zoning Compliance Permit would be required in the case of interior renovations of homes in the neighborhood (not just site alterations and land disturbance). |
An application for a Zoning Compliance Permit must be accompanied by a floor plan certified by a licensed architect, licensed appraiser, licensed engineer, licensed general contractor or licensed surveyor that certifies that the total amount of space used as bedrooms is not in excess of the total square footage of common areas in the dwelling (no more than 50% of the total square footage). A second certified drawing would verify that the floor plans submitted for the Zoning Compliance Permit application match the construction prior to Town issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Definition for common space: any portion of a dwelling that is not a bedroom or bathroom. A Zoning Compliance Permit would be required in the case of interior renovations of homes in the neighborhood (not just site alterations and land disturbance). |
No change to current regulations |
||||||
|
7. Maximum Secondary Building Height |
35 feet |
30 feet |
30 feet |
30 feet |
30 feet |
||||||
|
8. Maximum Percent of Front Yard Used for Parking |
40% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
25% |
||||||
|
9. Maximum Number of Uncovered Parking Spaces on a Lot less than .5 Acres |
n/a |
Clarion 4/26/07: No change to current regulations |
No change to current regulations |
No change to current regulations |
No change to current regulations |
||||||
|
10. Single-Family Zoning Compliance Permit Notification |
No notification required |
Clarion 4/26/07: Property owners within 100 feet must be notified through the Town if an increase in floor area is proposed or if garages are proposed. |
Property owners within 100 feet must be notified through the Town if an increase in floor area is proposed or if garages are proposed. |
Property owners within 100 feet must be notified through the Town if an increase in floor area is proposed or if garages are proposed. |
Property owners within 100 feet must be notified through the Town if an increase in floor area is proposed or if garages are proposed. |
||||||
|
11. General Design Guidelines |
n/a |
Create a voluntary design guidelines document that would address appropriate design elements found in the neighborhood |
Create a voluntary design guidelines document that would address appropriate design elements found in the neighborhood |
Create a voluntary design guidelines document that would address appropriate design elements found in the neighborhood |
Create a voluntary design guidelines document that would address appropriate design elements found in the neighborhood |
||||||
|
12. Application of Overlay District |
n/a |
The provisions of the Neighborhood Conservation District are to apply to the 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. |
The provisions of the Neighborhood Conservation District are to apply to the 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. |
The provisions of the Neighborhood Conservation District are to apply to the 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. |
The provisions of the Neighborhood Conservation District are to apply to the 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. |
|
||||
|
13. Boundary |
n/a |
See Clarion Associates map |
Boundary as proposed by Clarion Associates. |
Boundary as proposed by Clarion Associates. |
Boundary as proposed by Clarion Associates. |
|
||||