Please attend the upcoming Chapel Hill Town Council meeting this Monday, September 22nd and the first informational meeting for the NCD on Tuesday, September 23rd..
Agenda item 4i for the TC meeting on the 22nd is summarized as:
Title of Agenda Item: Response to Planning Board Petition to Request Financial Support to Hire a Professional Facilitator for the Glen Lennox Area Neighborhood
Background: The attached staff memorandum includes background information on the September 8, 2008 Planning Board petition to request that the Council financially support the hiring of a facilitator for the Glen Lennox Area Neighborhood.
Staff Recommendation(s): That the Council adopt the attached resolution to hire the Dispute Settlement Center to facilitate a constructive dialogue for the residents and property owners of the Glen Lennox Area Neighborhood.
The following evening, Tuesday, September 23rd, is the first public information meeting regarding the Glen Lennox NCD process. The structure of the meeting will be:
Contents:
1.Background information about the Neighborhood Conservation District designation
2.Information about the NC 54 Corridor from the Town’s Comprehensive Plan and other relevant sources
3.An introduction to the concept of zoning
4.Fundamental planning terminology and definitions
5.An explanation of the Neighborhood Conservation District development process
6.A development history for the existing Neighborhood Conservation Districts
7.A discussion of issues that a Neighborhood Conservation District can and cannot address
8.An explanation of Phase Two of the Neighborhood Conservation District initiation process
Structure:
1.Opening introduction,
2.Staff presentation
3.Question and Answer period
Please attend any meetings you can to be sure your opinions are heard!
For more information, visit saveglenlennox.org and click on the Discuss link. Relevant files have been posted in the files section of the discussion group.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Glen Lennox Planning Board Resolution
From Rae Buckley, Housing and Neighborhood Services Planner
A RESOLUTION TO HOLD A GLEN LENNOX AREA PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING AND TO REQUEST FUNDING FOR A FACILITATED DISCUSSION MEETING OR MEETINGS AS PART OF THE INFORMATIONAL PHASE OF CONSIDERATION OF A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has received and accepts a petition that was accepted by the Council on June 23, 2008, to initiate Phase One of the Neighborhood Conservation District Process for the Glen Lennox Area Neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Council directed the Planning Board to structure the process in a manner that will facilitate a constructive dialogue between the property owners and the neighborhood beyond the mandated Public Information Meeting required by the Ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Planning Board directs the staff to hold a Glen Lennox Area Neighborhood Conservation District Public Information Meeting, and specifies the following components of the meeting:
Informational Phase Components
1. Public Information Meeting Date
Location: Town Hall Council Chambers
Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 7pm
2. Neighborhood Conservation District Preliminary Boundary
Neighborhood Conservation District Boundary as identified by the Town Council in its April 28, 2008 Resolution to invite the residents of the Glen Lennox area to demonstrate with a petition that 51% of property owners seek to initiate Phase One of the Neighborhood Conservation District Process for the Glen Lennox Area Neighborhood.
A RESOLUTION TO HOLD A GLEN LENNOX AREA PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING AND TO REQUEST FUNDING FOR A FACILITATED DISCUSSION MEETING OR MEETINGS AS PART OF THE INFORMATIONAL PHASE OF CONSIDERATION OF A NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WHEREAS, the Planning Board has received and accepts a petition that was accepted by the Council on June 23, 2008, to initiate Phase One of the Neighborhood Conservation District Process for the Glen Lennox Area Neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the Council directed the Planning Board to structure the process in a manner that will facilitate a constructive dialogue between the property owners and the neighborhood beyond the mandated Public Information Meeting required by the Ordinance;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Planning Board directs the staff to hold a Glen Lennox Area Neighborhood Conservation District Public Information Meeting, and specifies the following components of the meeting:
Informational Phase Components
1. Public Information Meeting Date
Location: Town Hall Council Chambers
Date: Tuesday, September 23, 2008, 7pm
2. Neighborhood Conservation District Preliminary Boundary
Neighborhood Conservation District Boundary as identified by the Town Council in its April 28, 2008 Resolution to invite the residents of the Glen Lennox area to demonstrate with a petition that 51% of property owners seek to initiate Phase One of the Neighborhood Conservation District Process for the Glen Lennox Area Neighborhood.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
A Letter from Jeff Beam RE: Glen Lennox
The August 3rd News & Observer is to be applauded for its article on the Glen Lennox controversy. Mayor Kevin Foy is right when he says "Not everything is open for redevelopment." The article ends with Chapel Hill's Roger Perry whose reputation is fast knighting him the "Dean of Destruction." When the Save West House Coalition battled Mr. Perry, he obviously thought anyone that disagreed with his development ideas was irrational. Look at the amount of development that has happened in Chapel Hill, Orange County, and the Triangle. You'll find very little of it has been protested by "irrationals". There is a point where one's rationales differ. I refer
readers to my June 2004 Chapel Hill News column, "We can live and work within the beauty of the past," describing the 13th century town Erice, Sicily, it's facades and streets intact, housing a state-of-the-art international scientific think tank. (orangeculturalarts web site)
During the West House fight I sounded the warning that West House was the canary in the mine--any quaint, human-scale architecture would soon be up for demolition rationally argued as having no purpose, impossible to retrofit. Those of us in Chapel Hill, including noted architects, who have visited areas like Austin, Texas, can attest to the possibilities abounding in recycling the past. But, oh, profits are not as great. The greed of our contemporary "robber-barons" is THE great irrational force at work in our culture. To ignore the need to slow development because of global climate change, and the transfer of economic power to Asia, is to ignore our descendants' future. Mr. Perry, of course, would love to see the Grubb development. It's right across and down the road from Meadowmont, and his new development on the charming old green swale of the University Motor Inn. It would assure more development along the Highway 54 corridor and thus, supposedly, deepen his pockets.
The Glen Lennox fight is only in its infancy. Surely you know that these "Rationals", from Perry to Grubb, intend to achieve as much as they desire with as little compromise, and as much profit, as possible? They are expert at retro-fitting terminology such as green space, mixed-use, village, green building, and affordable housing to their ends. Lovely crepe myrtles do not a massive oak make.
I've been astonished at some individuals, otherwise rational, who have bought in to Grubb's slum-like descriptions of Glen Lennox which contradicts, I'm sure, their current rental office spiel, and what I know from folks who live at Glen Lennox. I could give the community a pound or two of Boric acid and if there are roaches there, they'd be gone in a matter of days. Don't you think neglecting Glen Lennox, if it were the case, benefits their argument to demolish?
If only the creativity used to fight irrational preservationists was used to adapt our past we would be a much better society for it. It's time we began thinking of the planet and the not-so-rich instead of the dollar.
Jeffery Beam
3212 Arthur Minnis Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
jeffbeam@email.unc.edu
991-962-2264 weekdays
919-967-2470 evenings and weekends
readers to my June 2004 Chapel Hill News column, "We can live and work within the beauty of the past," describing the 13th century town Erice, Sicily, it's facades and streets intact, housing a state-of-the-art international scientific think tank. (orangeculturalarts web site)
During the West House fight I sounded the warning that West House was the canary in the mine--any quaint, human-scale architecture would soon be up for demolition rationally argued as having no purpose, impossible to retrofit. Those of us in Chapel Hill, including noted architects, who have visited areas like Austin, Texas, can attest to the possibilities abounding in recycling the past. But, oh, profits are not as great. The greed of our contemporary "robber-barons" is THE great irrational force at work in our culture. To ignore the need to slow development because of global climate change, and the transfer of economic power to Asia, is to ignore our descendants' future. Mr. Perry, of course, would love to see the Grubb development. It's right across and down the road from Meadowmont, and his new development on the charming old green swale of the University Motor Inn. It would assure more development along the Highway 54 corridor and thus, supposedly, deepen his pockets.
The Glen Lennox fight is only in its infancy. Surely you know that these "Rationals", from Perry to Grubb, intend to achieve as much as they desire with as little compromise, and as much profit, as possible? They are expert at retro-fitting terminology such as green space, mixed-use, village, green building, and affordable housing to their ends. Lovely crepe myrtles do not a massive oak make.
I've been astonished at some individuals, otherwise rational, who have bought in to Grubb's slum-like descriptions of Glen Lennox which contradicts, I'm sure, their current rental office spiel, and what I know from folks who live at Glen Lennox. I could give the community a pound or two of Boric acid and if there are roaches there, they'd be gone in a matter of days. Don't you think neglecting Glen Lennox, if it were the case, benefits their argument to demolish?
If only the creativity used to fight irrational preservationists was used to adapt our past we would be a much better society for it. It's time we began thinking of the planet and the not-so-rich instead of the dollar.
Jeffery Beam
3212 Arthur Minnis Road
Hillsborough, NC 27278
jeffbeam@email.unc.edu
991-962-2264 weekdays
919-967-2470 evenings and weekends
Letter to editor Chapel Hill Herald
Dear Editor; Who is responsible for a“State of Decline?”
We find the lengthy letter by Grubb Properties President Clay Grubb disingenuous at best, certainly self-serving and irresponsible generally in referring to The Glen Lennox Apartments(GLA), which they purchased over 20 years ago, as in a “State of Decline”. Who has allowed that decline?
We purchased our home, just over 100 yards from the edge of the GLA, in 1970 and have enjoyed the solid and peaceful neighborhood which surrounds the GLA and the very responsible care which Grubb Properties has provided for the external area of the neighborhood. A growth of mature trees provides cover for birds, animals and a comfortable community ambience, as well as unusually guiet roadways in, through and around this neighborhood.
While we do understand that persons and corporations owning property have certain ownership rights and privileges, we also believe that there is a very clear responsibility for persons and corporations to acknowledge, understand and accept an equally strong right of community to require responsible use of property for a community and town “good”.
The Neighborhood Conservation District, which the Chapel Hill town Council has allowed us to pursue, will provide a process for all of us to have a voice in how our area is developed. We believe that destroying 440 moderately priced rental units in order to build another multi-story, mixed use complex is not in the best interests of our neighborhood nor the Town of Chapel Hill.
We challenge Grubb Properties to invest in Renovation rather than Destruction!
Wes & J ane Hare, 243 Flemington Rd, CH NC 27517-5637, 919 929-3316
We find the lengthy letter by Grubb Properties President Clay Grubb disingenuous at best, certainly self-serving and irresponsible generally in referring to The Glen Lennox Apartments(GLA), which they purchased over 20 years ago, as in a “State of Decline”. Who has allowed that decline?
We purchased our home, just over 100 yards from the edge of the GLA, in 1970 and have enjoyed the solid and peaceful neighborhood which surrounds the GLA and the very responsible care which Grubb Properties has provided for the external area of the neighborhood. A growth of mature trees provides cover for birds, animals and a comfortable community ambience, as well as unusually guiet roadways in, through and around this neighborhood.
While we do understand that persons and corporations owning property have certain ownership rights and privileges, we also believe that there is a very clear responsibility for persons and corporations to acknowledge, understand and accept an equally strong right of community to require responsible use of property for a community and town “good”.
The Neighborhood Conservation District, which the Chapel Hill town Council has allowed us to pursue, will provide a process for all of us to have a voice in how our area is developed. We believe that destroying 440 moderately priced rental units in order to build another multi-story, mixed use complex is not in the best interests of our neighborhood nor the Town of Chapel Hill.
We challenge Grubb Properties to invest in Renovation rather than Destruction!
Wes & J ane Hare, 243 Flemington Rd, CH NC 27517-5637, 919 929-3316
Glen Lennox developer toTown "Just Kidding"
Glen Lennox developer to Town: "just kidding!"
Ruby Sinreich's picture
Blog entry Submitted by Ruby Sinreich on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 9:57pm.
* Growth & Development
* Clay Grubb
* Glen Lennox
* Grubb Properties
I still can't decide which of Clay Grubb's statements is more ridiculous: the description of Glen Lennox as "in decline" (how does he think it got that way?) or last month's admission that his proposal to redevelop the property was "done hastily" and wasn't really a very good idea. A month ago, I was open to the idea of at least some changes in Glen Lennox, but at this point I kinda want to put a moratorium on development until we can convince the guy to just sell the whole thing.
The president of Grubb Properties said Wednesday night that his company's initial plans to redevelop the Glen Lennox neighborhood and shopping center failed to respect the community's character.
"I do not think the plan was sensitive to the history of Glen Lennox. I apologize," Clay Grubb told the Chapel Hill Town Council. "That was a plan that was done hastily."
[...] "Our current plan does not preserve the unique character that makes up Glen Lennox's heart and soul," he said.
- newsobserver.com: Plan 'done hastily,' developer says, 6/26/08
Is this really someone we want building an enormous complex of nearly a thousand home and businesses on one of the most prominent and essential thoroughfares in our town?
More information:
http://www.saveglenlennox.org/
Ruby Sinreich's picture
Blog entry Submitted by Ruby Sinreich on Mon, 07/14/2008 - 9:57pm.
* Growth & Development
* Clay Grubb
* Glen Lennox
* Grubb Properties
I still can't decide which of Clay Grubb's statements is more ridiculous: the description of Glen Lennox as "in decline" (how does he think it got that way?) or last month's admission that his proposal to redevelop the property was "done hastily" and wasn't really a very good idea. A month ago, I was open to the idea of at least some changes in Glen Lennox, but at this point I kinda want to put a moratorium on development until we can convince the guy to just sell the whole thing.
The president of Grubb Properties said Wednesday night that his company's initial plans to redevelop the Glen Lennox neighborhood and shopping center failed to respect the community's character.
"I do not think the plan was sensitive to the history of Glen Lennox. I apologize," Clay Grubb told the Chapel Hill Town Council. "That was a plan that was done hastily."
[...] "Our current plan does not preserve the unique character that makes up Glen Lennox's heart and soul," he said.
- newsobserver.com: Plan 'done hastily,' developer says, 6/26/08
Is this really someone we want building an enormous complex of nearly a thousand home and businesses on one of the most prominent and essential thoroughfares in our town?
More information:
http://www.saveglenlennox.org/
Grubb Pulls Plans to Replace Glen Lennox For Now
Developer pulls plan to replace Glen Lennox
Sadia Latifi, Staff Writer
Comment on this story
CHAPEL HILL - Grubb Properties has withdrawn its controversial plan to replace the Glen Lennox apartments and shopping center, one of the state's oldest.
The move came last month, two days after company president Clay Grubb told the Chapel Hill Town Council that initial plans to tear down and rebuild the neighborhood were "done hastily."
Grubb now plans to participate in a neighborhood planning process that could lead to new zoning restrictions for the half-century-old property. The developer will likely resubmit a new plan in the future.
"Our decision to withdraw the initial concept plan was really made to allow the focus on working together with the neighborhood community on the conservation process before coming together to form a new idea," said Jim Schaafsma, senior vice president of planning and development for Grubb Properties.
When the company announced redevelopment plans last spring, residents of the cottage-style apartments and their neighbors mobilized, sending letters to Town Hall, creating a Web site at www.saveglenlennox.org and selling T-shirts.
Senior town planner Kay Pearlstein said it was unusual for a developer to withdraw a concept plan before presenting it to the Chapel Hill Community Design Commission, the first step in the development process. The concept plan was supposed to go under review at a commission meeting Aug. 20.
Chapel Hill's Planning Board will meet Aug. 19 to begin a separate process that could lead to Glen Lennox being labeled a Neighborhood Conservation District, a designation meant to protect individual communities' character. At the meeting, the board will schedule a public information meeting for residents to learn more about the NCD process and to vote on moving forward.
"I'm pleased as punch because they [Grubb Properties] trotted out these plans without anybody's input," said Greg Brusseau, a Flemington Road resident and member of Glen Lennox's neighborhood steering committee. "To involve the community is really the right thing."
In an e-mail message sent June 27 to Pearlstein, Josh Gurlitz of GGA Architects withdrew the plans on behalf of the development team. The initial plan proposed replacing the 440 apartment units and the shopping center, between N.C. 54 and U.S. 15-501, with a multistory mix of housing and retail space.
Glen Lennox was built to alleviate the housing shortage after World War II, and it was the first large apartment complex in Chapel Hill. Grubb Properties has owned the property for more than 20 years.
sadia.latifi@newsobserver.com or (919) 829-4768
Sadia Latifi, Staff Writer
Comment on this story
CHAPEL HILL - Grubb Properties has withdrawn its controversial plan to replace the Glen Lennox apartments and shopping center, one of the state's oldest.
The move came last month, two days after company president Clay Grubb told the Chapel Hill Town Council that initial plans to tear down and rebuild the neighborhood were "done hastily."
Grubb now plans to participate in a neighborhood planning process that could lead to new zoning restrictions for the half-century-old property. The developer will likely resubmit a new plan in the future.
"Our decision to withdraw the initial concept plan was really made to allow the focus on working together with the neighborhood community on the conservation process before coming together to form a new idea," said Jim Schaafsma, senior vice president of planning and development for Grubb Properties.
When the company announced redevelopment plans last spring, residents of the cottage-style apartments and their neighbors mobilized, sending letters to Town Hall, creating a Web site at www.saveglenlennox.org and selling T-shirts.
Senior town planner Kay Pearlstein said it was unusual for a developer to withdraw a concept plan before presenting it to the Chapel Hill Community Design Commission, the first step in the development process. The concept plan was supposed to go under review at a commission meeting Aug. 20.
Chapel Hill's Planning Board will meet Aug. 19 to begin a separate process that could lead to Glen Lennox being labeled a Neighborhood Conservation District, a designation meant to protect individual communities' character. At the meeting, the board will schedule a public information meeting for residents to learn more about the NCD process and to vote on moving forward.
"I'm pleased as punch because they [Grubb Properties] trotted out these plans without anybody's input," said Greg Brusseau, a Flemington Road resident and member of Glen Lennox's neighborhood steering committee. "To involve the community is really the right thing."
In an e-mail message sent June 27 to Pearlstein, Josh Gurlitz of GGA Architects withdrew the plans on behalf of the development team. The initial plan proposed replacing the 440 apartment units and the shopping center, between N.C. 54 and U.S. 15-501, with a multistory mix of housing and retail space.
Glen Lennox was built to alleviate the housing shortage after World War II, and it was the first large apartment complex in Chapel Hill. Grubb Properties has owned the property for more than 20 years.
sadia.latifi@newsobserver.com or (919) 829-4768
Glen Lennox CDC application change
Dear Citizens Interested in Glen Lennox,
This is to inform you that the applicant has requested that the Glen Lennox Concept Plan to be reviewed by CDC is being rescheduled to their monthly meeting on August 20, 2008. The date for Council review of the Concept Plan has not been established, but we anticipate that a re-notice of property owners within 1,000 feet of the Glen Lennox site will be sent approximately 2 weeks prior to the CDC meeting and will include a tentative date for Council review sometime in the Fall.
Please let interested friends and neighbors know of the rescheduled Glen Lennox Concept Plan review by the CDC and please let me know if you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
Kay Pearlstein, staff liaison to the Community Design Commission
Kay Pearlstein, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning Department
Town of Chapel Hill
405 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd
Chapel Hill, NC 27514-5705
Phone: (919) 968-2728
Fax: (919) 969-2014
This is to inform you that the applicant has requested that the Glen Lennox Concept Plan to be reviewed by CDC is being rescheduled to their monthly meeting on August 20, 2008. The date for Council review of the Concept Plan has not been established, but we anticipate that a re-notice of property owners within 1,000 feet of the Glen Lennox site will be sent approximately 2 weeks prior to the CDC meeting and will include a tentative date for Council review sometime in the Fall.
Please let interested friends and neighbors know of the rescheduled Glen Lennox Concept Plan review by the CDC and please let me know if you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
Kay Pearlstein, staff liaison to the Community Design Commission
Kay Pearlstein, AICP
Senior Planner
Planning Department
Town of Chapel Hill
405 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd
Chapel Hill, NC 27514-5705
Phone: (919) 968-2728
Fax: (919) 969-2014
Glen Lennox Neighborhood Convservation Effort Moves Forward
Glen Lennox neighborhood conservation effort moves forward
THE CARRBORO CITIZEN, Jul 3, 2008 News, Top Story Jump to Comments
by Rich Fowler
Staff Writer
Glen Lennox area residents are one step closer to getting a Neighborhood Conservation District. At its meeting last week, the Chapel Hill Town Council allowed residents to go forward with the NCD process, which allows the planning department to hold an informational meeting for area landowners.
The NCD petition was filed soon after Grubb Properties, the owner of the Glen Lennox apartments and shopping center, announced a plan to redevelop the area into a high-density neighborhood similar to Meadowmont.
But at the council meeting, Clay Grubb, president of Grubb Properties, said he didn’t think the plan was sensitive to the history of Glen Lennox.
“I apologize,” Grubb said. “We were not prepared to submit that plan, but we felt like we had no choice at the time. That was a plan that was done hastily.”
He said he’d be happy to halt plans while all parties involved talked it over.
Grubb said he didn’t feel the NCD process was fair, because his company owns the 440 apartment units and shopping center, which make up a little more than one-third of the area.
Mary Dexter, who filed the original petition, said the proposed Glen Lennox redevelopment plan wasn’t the only reason for an NCD. “We’re working on saving a neighborhood, not just apartments,” she said. Dexter said area residents were concerned about teardowns and “McMansions” in their neighborhood.
“We have common historical values, we have common architectural values,” she said. “We are a neighborhood, and you are part of it.”
The next step is that the planning board will schedule a meeting to tell landowners how the NCD process works, what it protects and what it doesn’t protect. Notices will be sent to all landowners within a 500-foot radius of the proposed NCD before the meeting.
There are currently six NCDs in Chapel Hill, including one in Northside and the most recent one in Coker Hills.
The council took no action on a proposed moratorium on development along NC 54 east of 15-501 up to the town limits. Projects already under construction as well as those still in the application phase would not be stopped by a moratorium.
Because of the way the development process is set up, the proposed redevelopment of Glen Lennox, along with any other future proposed projects along NC 54, would still be subject to a moratorium if the council chooses to pass one when it meets again in the fall.
Michael Collins, vice chair of the planning board, said the board unanimously supported the original petition for a moratorium on NC 54. “The applications seem to be coming fast and furious,” he said. Collins said that perhaps it was a good time to step back and discuss what the council and citizens want along the road.
Mayor Pro Tem Jim Ward said that passing the moratorium now wasn’t an either/or issue. He said that passing one right now wouldn’t be effective, because the town would wind up losing a lot of time under a moratorium when the council wasn’t in session.
“It has our attention, and it will gain more attention and thought over the next few months,” he said.
THE CARRBORO CITIZEN, Jul 3, 2008 News, Top Story Jump to Comments
by Rich Fowler
Staff Writer
Glen Lennox area residents are one step closer to getting a Neighborhood Conservation District. At its meeting last week, the Chapel Hill Town Council allowed residents to go forward with the NCD process, which allows the planning department to hold an informational meeting for area landowners.
The NCD petition was filed soon after Grubb Properties, the owner of the Glen Lennox apartments and shopping center, announced a plan to redevelop the area into a high-density neighborhood similar to Meadowmont.
But at the council meeting, Clay Grubb, president of Grubb Properties, said he didn’t think the plan was sensitive to the history of Glen Lennox.
“I apologize,” Grubb said. “We were not prepared to submit that plan, but we felt like we had no choice at the time. That was a plan that was done hastily.”
He said he’d be happy to halt plans while all parties involved talked it over.
Grubb said he didn’t feel the NCD process was fair, because his company owns the 440 apartment units and shopping center, which make up a little more than one-third of the area.
Mary Dexter, who filed the original petition, said the proposed Glen Lennox redevelopment plan wasn’t the only reason for an NCD. “We’re working on saving a neighborhood, not just apartments,” she said. Dexter said area residents were concerned about teardowns and “McMansions” in their neighborhood.
“We have common historical values, we have common architectural values,” she said. “We are a neighborhood, and you are part of it.”
The next step is that the planning board will schedule a meeting to tell landowners how the NCD process works, what it protects and what it doesn’t protect. Notices will be sent to all landowners within a 500-foot radius of the proposed NCD before the meeting.
There are currently six NCDs in Chapel Hill, including one in Northside and the most recent one in Coker Hills.
The council took no action on a proposed moratorium on development along NC 54 east of 15-501 up to the town limits. Projects already under construction as well as those still in the application phase would not be stopped by a moratorium.
Because of the way the development process is set up, the proposed redevelopment of Glen Lennox, along with any other future proposed projects along NC 54, would still be subject to a moratorium if the council chooses to pass one when it meets again in the fall.
Michael Collins, vice chair of the planning board, said the board unanimously supported the original petition for a moratorium on NC 54. “The applications seem to be coming fast and furious,” he said. Collins said that perhaps it was a good time to step back and discuss what the council and citizens want along the road.
Mayor Pro Tem Jim Ward said that passing the moratorium now wasn’t an either/or issue. He said that passing one right now wouldn’t be effective, because the town would wind up losing a lot of time under a moratorium when the council wasn’t in session.
“It has our attention, and it will gain more attention and thought over the next few months,” he said.
Growth Forments Fuss in Chapel Hill
Growth foments a fuss in Chapel Hill
The kitchens and bathrooms were small, the air-conditioning spotty. But families felt safe, and on the weekends, neighbors hung laundry together on clotheslines outside.
Updated: Aug. 3, 2008 2:44 AM Full story http://www.newsobserver.com/news/growth/story/1163407-p2.html
Sadia Latifi, Staff WriterComment on this story CHAPEL HILL - The kitchens and bathrooms were small, the air-conditioning spotty. But families felt safe, and on the weekends, neighbors hung laundry together on clotheslines outside.
It wasn't perfect, Alice Simmons said, but Glen Lennox was home.
Simmons was reading the newspaper in her nursing home when she learned developers planned to tear down the neighborhood and its companion shopping center off the N.C. 54 entrance to Chapel Hill. Having lived there in the 1970s and again in the early '90s, Simmons, 76, said the news made her heart drop.
"It would just be a terrible thing to lose it," she said. "Everything about the place is just wonderful."
The side effects of growth -- cranes, noise and higher rents -- are ubiquitous in the Triangle. But when growth comes to Chapel Hill, developers often meet a particular kind of resistance. It comes in the form of petitions, T-shirts and a Web site generated by a population that often prefers keeping things the way they are.
"People are on guard for not having Chapel Hill become a generic place," Mayor Kevin Foy said. "Not everything is open for redevelopment."
Grubb Properties, the owners of Glen Lennox, recently withdrew its design plans after neighbors lobbied hard against them. The two sides will now enter talks that could lead to new zoning rules and a new redevelopment plan next year. Residents and preservationists remain cautious.
In downtown Chapel Hill, construction is beginning on the 10-story Greenbridge condominium project. And across N.C. 54 from Glen Lennox, more condominiums are coming. Some observers say the future of Glen Lennox itself, the one-story apartments built for returning GIs, seems crucial.
"This is almost a test case; it's a line in the sand for how Chapel Hill is going to grow," said Ernest Dollar, executive director of the Preservation Society of Chapel Hill. "There has to be a delicate balance to preserve the idealized Chapel Hill that people come here for but still grow as a town. And I think that unwise growth and unwise development could really hamper and destroy the things we love about this town and brought us here."
Conservation option
Molly McConnell figured she'd die in Glen Lennox.
"Really, I thought this was my last stop before God," she said. But now, she said, she's thinking about finding a new place for herself and her beagle, MercyMe Lily Grace Happy Dog.
McConnell, 62, learned about the plans when Grubb called a meeting with homeowners bordering Glen Lennox. One homeowner, Mary Dexter, petitioned the Town Council around the same time to designate Glen Lennox a Neighborhood Conservation District. If approved, the district would restrict development to protect the area's character. Ten-dollar T-shirts and a Web site, save glenlennox.org -- soon followed.
Foy said the public outcry shows how many people feel about the neighborhood.
"Glen Lennox has become one of the iconic places in Chapel Hill, not because of its architecture and not because of its layout, but because of the people who have lived there and the life experiences they've had over the last 50 years," he said. "When you take that and say we're going to take out every trace of that neighborhood, I think people are justifiably appalled."
Glen Lennox Apartments opened in 1950 to address the housing shortage after World War II. Early residents included veterans, married students, retirees and new families -- much the same as its residents today.
"It's easy for ... someone who is not attached to the community emotionally to say this is going to be make us look better," said Delores Bailey, director of Empowerment, a neighborhood advocacy organization. "But when you own property and are raising children and you've been here for awhile, it's difficult to say, 'I will give up my way of life for the betterment of Chapel Hill.' "
Kate Hilgenberg, 23, went to day care in the neighborhood, playing beneath big oak trees and making her first friends. Now, having graduated from college, she's back.
"It's so homey. It feels so safe, and there are just so many people here that are completely different -- families, retired folks," she said. "It's very inviting and safe, and I can't believe they are going to turn it into a parking lot."
The Town Council has approved the first step of the Neighborhood Conservation District process: a meeting for residents to decide whether they want to pursue the conservation designation. Grubb Properties president Clay Grubb had asked the council to delay that process. He apologized for submitting a plan that was "done hastily" and failed to respect the neighborhood's historic character.
A rushed proposal
The decision to rebuild Glen Lennox was something Grubb said he wrestled with for a long time. He remembered the fervor of the community from his days at UNC-Chapel Hill's law school and anticipated the reaction to the proposed plans to be strong.
But Grubb and his team of architects had a vision: Build a great urban development and help the town grow.
The plan was sweeping: Tear down the neighborhood and shopping center and replace it with 908 new homes, three parking decks, a 700-seat movie theater and a seven- to nine-story hotel. Costs for maintaining the apartments were rising, he argued. Most of the longer-term residents had died or moved away, and the neighborhood was in a state of decline. When residents started to mobilize, the company rushed its design plans to the town's planning board.
"We probably -- no, we definitely -- submitted prematurely as a reaction to the neighborhood conservation district proposal," Grubb said. "At the time, people were probably like, 'Oh my God, what is this guy -- a fool?' "
Grubb was at a board meeting in Raleigh a few weeks later when someone said losing Glen Lennox's green spaces and quaint homes would be a loss for Chapel Hill.
"It really hit me, and so I kind of said, 'Well gosh, my momma probably hates the plan we came up with,' " he said.
Negotiations first
Developer Roger Perry, who built Durham's Woodcroft and Chapel Hill's Meadowmont projects, said Grubb Properties may have "underestimated the community's psychological ownership" of Glen Lennox.
He said he empathizes with some of the difficulties Grubb has faced.
"What is always troubling to people in my business is people who are not rational and not interested in building consensus and not willing to understand practical realities," Perry said.
"Chapel Hill has been changing and evolving for 215 years," he said. "You can't counter someone's emotion because that's their personal attitude, but the fact of the matter is that things do change. There are things that are worth preserving, and there are things that aren't worth preserving. It's highly interpretive and individual."
Facing strong criticism, Grubb Properties pulled the design plan June 27. The company will participate in discussions about the neighborhood's designation as a conservation district but still intends to come up with a new design. This time, Grubb said, they'll take their time.
"I think there's a great opportunity for it [Glen Lennox] to become as special as it used to be," he said. "It doesn't have to happen immediately."
<>
The kitchens and bathrooms were small, the air-conditioning spotty. But families felt safe, and on the weekends, neighbors hung laundry together on clotheslines outside.
Updated: Aug. 3, 2008 2:44 AM Full story http://www.newsobserver.com/news/growth/story/1163407-p2.html
Sadia Latifi, Staff WriterComment on this story CHAPEL HILL - The kitchens and bathrooms were small, the air-conditioning spotty. But families felt safe, and on the weekends, neighbors hung laundry together on clotheslines outside.
It wasn't perfect, Alice Simmons said, but Glen Lennox was home.
Simmons was reading the newspaper in her nursing home when she learned developers planned to tear down the neighborhood and its companion shopping center off the N.C. 54 entrance to Chapel Hill. Having lived there in the 1970s and again in the early '90s, Simmons, 76, said the news made her heart drop.
"It would just be a terrible thing to lose it," she said. "Everything about the place is just wonderful."
The side effects of growth -- cranes, noise and higher rents -- are ubiquitous in the Triangle. But when growth comes to Chapel Hill, developers often meet a particular kind of resistance. It comes in the form of petitions, T-shirts and a Web site generated by a population that often prefers keeping things the way they are.
"People are on guard for not having Chapel Hill become a generic place," Mayor Kevin Foy said. "Not everything is open for redevelopment."
Grubb Properties, the owners of Glen Lennox, recently withdrew its design plans after neighbors lobbied hard against them. The two sides will now enter talks that could lead to new zoning rules and a new redevelopment plan next year. Residents and preservationists remain cautious.
In downtown Chapel Hill, construction is beginning on the 10-story Greenbridge condominium project. And across N.C. 54 from Glen Lennox, more condominiums are coming. Some observers say the future of Glen Lennox itself, the one-story apartments built for returning GIs, seems crucial.
"This is almost a test case; it's a line in the sand for how Chapel Hill is going to grow," said Ernest Dollar, executive director of the Preservation Society of Chapel Hill. "There has to be a delicate balance to preserve the idealized Chapel Hill that people come here for but still grow as a town. And I think that unwise growth and unwise development could really hamper and destroy the things we love about this town and brought us here."
Conservation option
Molly McConnell figured she'd die in Glen Lennox.
"Really, I thought this was my last stop before God," she said. But now, she said, she's thinking about finding a new place for herself and her beagle, MercyMe Lily Grace Happy Dog.
McConnell, 62, learned about the plans when Grubb called a meeting with homeowners bordering Glen Lennox. One homeowner, Mary Dexter, petitioned the Town Council around the same time to designate Glen Lennox a Neighborhood Conservation District. If approved, the district would restrict development to protect the area's character. Ten-dollar T-shirts and a Web site, save glenlennox.org -- soon followed.
Foy said the public outcry shows how many people feel about the neighborhood.
"Glen Lennox has become one of the iconic places in Chapel Hill, not because of its architecture and not because of its layout, but because of the people who have lived there and the life experiences they've had over the last 50 years," he said. "When you take that and say we're going to take out every trace of that neighborhood, I think people are justifiably appalled."
Glen Lennox Apartments opened in 1950 to address the housing shortage after World War II. Early residents included veterans, married students, retirees and new families -- much the same as its residents today.
"It's easy for ... someone who is not attached to the community emotionally to say this is going to be make us look better," said Delores Bailey, director of Empowerment, a neighborhood advocacy organization. "But when you own property and are raising children and you've been here for awhile, it's difficult to say, 'I will give up my way of life for the betterment of Chapel Hill.' "
Kate Hilgenberg, 23, went to day care in the neighborhood, playing beneath big oak trees and making her first friends. Now, having graduated from college, she's back.
"It's so homey. It feels so safe, and there are just so many people here that are completely different -- families, retired folks," she said. "It's very inviting and safe, and I can't believe they are going to turn it into a parking lot."
The Town Council has approved the first step of the Neighborhood Conservation District process: a meeting for residents to decide whether they want to pursue the conservation designation. Grubb Properties president Clay Grubb had asked the council to delay that process. He apologized for submitting a plan that was "done hastily" and failed to respect the neighborhood's historic character.
A rushed proposal
The decision to rebuild Glen Lennox was something Grubb said he wrestled with for a long time. He remembered the fervor of the community from his days at UNC-Chapel Hill's law school and anticipated the reaction to the proposed plans to be strong.
But Grubb and his team of architects had a vision: Build a great urban development and help the town grow.
The plan was sweeping: Tear down the neighborhood and shopping center and replace it with 908 new homes, three parking decks, a 700-seat movie theater and a seven- to nine-story hotel. Costs for maintaining the apartments were rising, he argued. Most of the longer-term residents had died or moved away, and the neighborhood was in a state of decline. When residents started to mobilize, the company rushed its design plans to the town's planning board.
"We probably -- no, we definitely -- submitted prematurely as a reaction to the neighborhood conservation district proposal," Grubb said. "At the time, people were probably like, 'Oh my God, what is this guy -- a fool?' "
Grubb was at a board meeting in Raleigh a few weeks later when someone said losing Glen Lennox's green spaces and quaint homes would be a loss for Chapel Hill.
"It really hit me, and so I kind of said, 'Well gosh, my momma probably hates the plan we came up with,' " he said.
Negotiations first
Developer Roger Perry, who built Durham's Woodcroft and Chapel Hill's Meadowmont projects, said Grubb Properties may have "underestimated the community's psychological ownership" of Glen Lennox.
He said he empathizes with some of the difficulties Grubb has faced.
"What is always troubling to people in my business is people who are not rational and not interested in building consensus and not willing to understand practical realities," Perry said.
"Chapel Hill has been changing and evolving for 215 years," he said. "You can't counter someone's emotion because that's their personal attitude, but the fact of the matter is that things do change. There are things that are worth preserving, and there are things that aren't worth preserving. It's highly interpretive and individual."
Facing strong criticism, Grubb Properties pulled the design plan June 27. The company will participate in discussions about the neighborhood's designation as a conservation district but still intends to come up with a new design. This time, Grubb said, they'll take their time.
"I think there's a great opportunity for it [Glen Lennox] to become as special as it used to be," he said. "It doesn't have to happen immediately."
<>
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Town of Chapel Hill Neighborhood Conservation District Info.
Neighborhood Conservation Districts
* Established Neighborhood Conservation Districts
* Neighborhood Conservation Districts in Development
* Neighborhood Conservation District Petitions
* Land Use Management Ordinance Excerpt
o Purpose
o Designation Criteria
o Zoning Authority
o Initiation
o Designation Procedures
o Design Standards
o Administration of Ordinance
* Links
Established Neighborhood Conservation Districts
* CD-1: Northside
* CD-2:Greenwood
* CD-3:Kings Mill-Morgan Creek
* CD-4:Pine Knolls
* CD-5:Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle
* CD-6: Coker Hills (Effective Date January 1, 2008)
Neighborhood Conservation Districts in Development
Effective October 2007, no Neighborhood Conservation Districts are in Development.
Neighborhood Conservation District Petitions
* Phase One: Petition Requesting a Neighborhood Conservation District Public Information Meeting
* Phase Two: Petition Requesting to Begin the Formal Process to Create a Neighborhood Conservation District Zoning Overlay District
Land Use Management Ordinance Excerpt
Purpose Statement: Within the Town of Chapel Hill there are unique and distinctive older in-town residential neighborhoods or commercial districts which contribute significantly to the overall character and identity of the Town and are worthy of preservation and protection. Some of these districts are designated as historic districts, others may lack sufficient historical, architectural or cultural significance at the present time to be designated as Historic Districts. As a matter of public policy, the Town Council aims to preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate the value of these residential neighborhoods or commercial districts through the establishment of Neighborhood Conservation Districts.
The purposes of a Neighborhood Conservation District in older Town residential neighborhoods or commercial districts are as follows:
* to promote and provide for economic revitalization and/or enhancement
* to protect and strengthen desirable and unique physical features, design characteristics, and recognized identity, charm and flavor;
* to protect and enhance the livability of the Town;
* to reduce conflict and prevent blighting caused by incompatible and insensitive development, and to promote new compatible development;
* to stabilize property values;
* to provide residents and property owners with a planning bargaining tool for future development;
* to promote and retain affordable housing;
* to encourage and strengthen civic pride; and
* to encourage the harmonious, orderly and efficient growth and redevelopment of the Town.
a. Designation Criteria
To be designated a Neighborhood Conservation District, the area must meet the following criteria:
1. The area must contain a minimum of one block face (all the lots on one side of a block);
2. The area must have been platted or developed at least 40 years prior to the date of the submittal and acceptance of a petition to initiate Phase One of the Neighborhood Conservation District process, or prior to a Town Council action to initiate Phase One of the Neighborhood Conservation District process;
3. At least 75% of the land area in the proposed district is presently improved;
4. The area must possess one or more of the following distinctive features that create a cohesive identifiable setting, character or association;
1. scale, size, type of construction, or distinctive building materials;
2. lot layouts, setbacks, street layouts, alleys or sidewalks;
3. special natural or streetscape characteristics, such as creek beds, parks, gardens or street landscaping;
4. land use patterns, including mixed or unique uses or activities; or
5. abuts or links designated historic landmarks and/or districts.
5. The area must be predominantly residential in use and character.
Any designated Historic Overlay District shall be deemed to satisfy the criteria listed above.
b. Zoning Authority
Separate ordinances are required to designate each district. Ordinances designating each Neighborhood Conservation District shall identify the designated district boundaries, and specify the individual purposes and standards for that district.
1. Overlay District - Neighborhood Conservation Districts are designed as overlays to the regular zoning districts. Property designated within these districts must also be designated as being within one of the General Use Districts. Authorized uses must be permitted in both the General Use District and the overlay district. Property designated as a Neighborhood Conservation District may have additional designations. Such property shall comply with all applicable use restrictions.
2. Zoning Designation
1. The zoning designation for property located within a Neighborhood Conservation District shall consist of the base zone symbol and the overlay district symbol (CD) as a suffix. Neighborhood Conservation Districts shall be numbered sequentially to distinguish among different districts, i.e., R-4 (CD-1), R-1 (CD-2), etc.
2. The designation of property within a Neighborhood Conservation District places such property in a new zoning district classification and all procedures and requirements for zoning/rezoning must be followed.
3. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of a specific Neighborhood Conservation District ordinance and the General Use District regulations, the provisions of the Neighborhood Conservation District ordinance shall control.
4. Except as modified by this Section, the procedures for zoning changes set forth in Section 4.4 shall otherwise apply to the designation of an area as a Neighborhood Conservation District.
5. Upon designation of an area as a Neighborhood Conservation District, the Town Council shall cause notice of such designation to be recorded in the official public records of real property of Orange County.
c. Initiation
The process to initiate the designation of a Neighborhood Conservation District shall consist of two phases. Phase One must be completed in order to initiate Phase Two.
1.
Phase One shall consist of a Town sponsored Public Information Meeting to provide general information about Neighborhood Conservation Districts including a review of existing Neighborhood Conservation Districts and an explanation of the rezoning process.
1. Phase One may be initiated by the Town Council; by property owners representing 51% of the land area within the proposed district, upon submittal and acceptance of a petition by the Town Council; or by 51% of property owners in a proposed district upon submittal and acceptance of a petition by the Town Council.
2. The Town Manager shall prescribe the form(s) on which a Neighborhood Conservation District petition is made.
3. The Planning Board shall review the Council motion or the petition to initiate Phase One of the process to create a Neighborhood Conservation District. The Planning Board shall designate a preliminary boundary and set a date to hold a Public Information Meeting regarding the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District.
4. Notification of the Public Information Meeting shall be sent to all property owners located within the preliminary boundary and within 500 feet of the boundary.
2.
Phase Two shall consist of a Planning Board Feasibility Review and Town Council action.
1. Phase Two may be initiated by the Town Council; by property owners representing 51% of the land area within the proposed district, upon submittal and acceptance of a petition to the Town Council; or by 51% of property owners in a proposed district upon submittal and acceptance of a petition to the Town Council.
2. The Town Manager shall prescribe the form(s) on which a Neighborhood Conservation District petition is made.
3. The Planning Board shall review the Council motion or the petition to initiate Phase Two of the process to create a Neighborhood Conservation District. The Planning Board shall set a date and conduct a Neighborhood Conservation District Feasibility Review.
4. Notification of the Planning Board’s Neighborhood Conservation District Feasibility Review time, date, and place shall be sent to all property owners located within the preliminary boundary and within 500 feet of the boundary.
5. The Town Staff shall submit to the Planning Board a written analysis of the petition and include a recommendation with specific reference to:
* the community goals: a statement of objective for the Neighborhood Conservation District;
* the level of urgency: a description of current development activity in the neighborhood;
* the plenary or committee structure: a proposal of who will participate in the process of drafting a Neighborhood Conservation District rezoning proposal. A Committee structure shall include 10% of households in the initial boundary or twenty people, whichever is less, and a Plenary structure shall open the process to the entire neighborhood; and
* the initial boundary: a map of properties properties to be included in the Neighborhood Conservation District .
6. The Planning Board shall conduct the Neighborhood Conservation District Feasibility Review. The Neighborhood Conservation District Feasibility Review shall be open to the public and all interested persons shall be given the opportunity to present arguments in favor of or against a rezoning and to ask questions.
7. After the Neighborhood Conservation District Feasibility Review, the Planning Board shall submit its recommendation to the Town Council with specific reference to the community goals, the level of urgency, the plenary or committee structure, and the initial proposed boundary of the Neighborhood Conservation District.
8. After the Neighborhood Conservation District Feasibility Review, the Town Council shall review the Planning Board’s recommendation and the Town Staff recommendation and act on the petition. Action on the petition may include endorsement to begin the rezoning process to establish a Neighborhood Conservation District or to not begin the process.
9. Endorsement to begin the rezoning process shall include reference to the community goals, the level of urgency, the plenary or committee structure, and the initial boundary of the Neighborhood Conservation District.
10. Notification of the Town Council action shall be sent by first class mail to owners of properties located within the preliminary boundary and within 500 feet of the boundary.
d. Designation Procedures
1. Following initiation for designation of a Neighborhood Conservation District, the Planning Board, or a Committee designated by the Town Council with representation from the Planning Board, shall develop a neighborhood conservation plan for the proposed district that may include:
1. maps indicating the boundaries, age of structures and land use of the proposed district;
2. maps and other graphic and written materials identifying and describing the distinctive neighborhood and building characteristics of the proposed district; and
3. design standards for new construction, additions or alterations to the street facades of existing buildings or structures within the proposed district.
2. All owners of properties within the proposed district shall be afforded the opportunity to participate in drafting the conservation plan. A conservation plan shall be approved as part of a Zoning Atlas Amendment creating a Neighborhood Conservation District .
e. Design Standards
1. ordinance creating a Neighborhood Conservation District shall include design standards for new construction or placement of any building, structure, foundation, sign, public art or outdoor apparatus or equipment (including visible utility boxes or mechanical equipment; trucks; lawn or landscaping equipment, but not including lawnmowers or hand tools; playground equipment; or sports equipment), and any additions, alterations, relocation or rehabilitation to the street facades of existing buildings, structures, foundations, sign, public art, or outdoor apparatus or equipment.
2. The conservation plan, and requisite design standards shall not apply to those activities which constitute ordinary repair and maintenance, i.e., using the same material and design.
3. The Design Standards for the Neighborhood Conservation District shall include the minimum following elements governing the physical characteristics and features of all property (public or private) within the proposed district:
1. building height, number of stories;
2. building size, massing (frontage, entrance location/features);
3. lot size, coverage;
4. front and side yard setbacks;
5. off-street parking and loading requirements;
6. roof line and pitch;
7. paving, hardscape covering.
4. In addition, the Design Standards may include, but shall not be limited to, the following elements:
1. building orientation;
2. general site planning (primary, ancillary structures);
3. density;
4. floor area ratio;
5. signage;
6. architectural style and details;
7. building materials;
8. garage entrance location;
9. front window, dormer size and location;
10. landscaping;
11. fences and walls;
12. entrance lighting;
13. driveways and sidewalks;
14. satellite dishes, utility boxes;
15. street furniture;
16. public art;
17. demolition (see subsection F);
18. roof line and pitch.
f. Administration of Ordinance
1. No building permit shall be issued for new construction or an alteration or addition to the street facade of an existing building or structure within a designated Neighborhood Conservation District without the submission and approval of design plans and the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit by the Town Manager.
2. The Town Manager shall review the design plans to determine compliance with the design standards contained in the neighborhood conservation plan adopted for the district.
3. If the Town Manager determines that the design plans are in conformance with the design standards adopted for the district, the Town Manager shall approve the plans and issue a Zoning Compliance Permit and the Department of Building Inspections may issue a building permit.
4. If the Town Manager determines that the design plans are not in conformance with the design standards adopted for the district, the Town Manager shall not approve the plans, and will issue Notification of Non-Compliance, identifying the specific Design Standards violated.
5. The applicant may appeal the Town Manager’s determination to the Board of Adjustment for as provided in Section 4.12.
Links
* National Trust for Historic Preservation
* Established Neighborhood Conservation Districts
* Neighborhood Conservation Districts in Development
* Neighborhood Conservation District Petitions
* Land Use Management Ordinance Excerpt
o Purpose
o Designation Criteria
o Zoning Authority
o Initiation
o Designation Procedures
o Design Standards
o Administration of Ordinance
* Links
Established Neighborhood Conservation Districts
* CD-1: Northside
* CD-2:Greenwood
* CD-3:Kings Mill-Morgan Creek
* CD-4:Pine Knolls
* CD-5:Mason Farm/Whitehead Circle
* CD-6: Coker Hills (Effective Date January 1, 2008)
Neighborhood Conservation Districts in Development
Effective October 2007, no Neighborhood Conservation Districts are in Development.
Neighborhood Conservation District Petitions
* Phase One: Petition Requesting a Neighborhood Conservation District Public Information Meeting
* Phase Two: Petition Requesting to Begin the Formal Process to Create a Neighborhood Conservation District Zoning Overlay District
Land Use Management Ordinance Excerpt
Purpose Statement: Within the Town of Chapel Hill there are unique and distinctive older in-town residential neighborhoods or commercial districts which contribute significantly to the overall character and identity of the Town and are worthy of preservation and protection. Some of these districts are designated as historic districts, others may lack sufficient historical, architectural or cultural significance at the present time to be designated as Historic Districts. As a matter of public policy, the Town Council aims to preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate the value of these residential neighborhoods or commercial districts through the establishment of Neighborhood Conservation Districts.
The purposes of a Neighborhood Conservation District in older Town residential neighborhoods or commercial districts are as follows:
* to promote and provide for economic revitalization and/or enhancement
* to protect and strengthen desirable and unique physical features, design characteristics, and recognized identity, charm and flavor;
* to protect and enhance the livability of the Town;
* to reduce conflict and prevent blighting caused by incompatible and insensitive development, and to promote new compatible development;
* to stabilize property values;
* to provide residents and property owners with a planning bargaining tool for future development;
* to promote and retain affordable housing;
* to encourage and strengthen civic pride; and
* to encourage the harmonious, orderly and efficient growth and redevelopment of the Town.
a. Designation Criteria
To be designated a Neighborhood Conservation District, the area must meet the following criteria:
1. The area must contain a minimum of one block face (all the lots on one side of a block);
2. The area must have been platted or developed at least 40 years prior to the date of the submittal and acceptance of a petition to initiate Phase One of the Neighborhood Conservation District process, or prior to a Town Council action to initiate Phase One of the Neighborhood Conservation District process;
3. At least 75% of the land area in the proposed district is presently improved;
4. The area must possess one or more of the following distinctive features that create a cohesive identifiable setting, character or association;
1. scale, size, type of construction, or distinctive building materials;
2. lot layouts, setbacks, street layouts, alleys or sidewalks;
3. special natural or streetscape characteristics, such as creek beds, parks, gardens or street landscaping;
4. land use patterns, including mixed or unique uses or activities; or
5. abuts or links designated historic landmarks and/or districts.
5. The area must be predominantly residential in use and character.
Any designated Historic Overlay District shall be deemed to satisfy the criteria listed above.
b. Zoning Authority
Separate ordinances are required to designate each district. Ordinances designating each Neighborhood Conservation District shall identify the designated district boundaries, and specify the individual purposes and standards for that district.
1. Overlay District - Neighborhood Conservation Districts are designed as overlays to the regular zoning districts. Property designated within these districts must also be designated as being within one of the General Use Districts. Authorized uses must be permitted in both the General Use District and the overlay district. Property designated as a Neighborhood Conservation District may have additional designations. Such property shall comply with all applicable use restrictions.
2. Zoning Designation
1. The zoning designation for property located within a Neighborhood Conservation District shall consist of the base zone symbol and the overlay district symbol (CD) as a suffix. Neighborhood Conservation Districts shall be numbered sequentially to distinguish among different districts, i.e., R-4 (CD-1), R-1 (CD-2), etc.
2. The designation of property within a Neighborhood Conservation District places such property in a new zoning district classification and all procedures and requirements for zoning/rezoning must be followed.
3. In the event of a conflict between the provisions of a specific Neighborhood Conservation District ordinance and the General Use District regulations, the provisions of the Neighborhood Conservation District ordinance shall control.
4. Except as modified by this Section, the procedures for zoning changes set forth in Section 4.4 shall otherwise apply to the designation of an area as a Neighborhood Conservation District.
5. Upon designation of an area as a Neighborhood Conservation District, the Town Council shall cause notice of such designation to be recorded in the official public records of real property of Orange County.
c. Initiation
The process to initiate the designation of a Neighborhood Conservation District shall consist of two phases. Phase One must be completed in order to initiate Phase Two.
1.
Phase One shall consist of a Town sponsored Public Information Meeting to provide general information about Neighborhood Conservation Districts including a review of existing Neighborhood Conservation Districts and an explanation of the rezoning process.
1. Phase One may be initiated by the Town Council; by property owners representing 51% of the land area within the proposed district, upon submittal and acceptance of a petition by the Town Council; or by 51% of property owners in a proposed district upon submittal and acceptance of a petition by the Town Council.
2. The Town Manager shall prescribe the form(s) on which a Neighborhood Conservation District petition is made.
3. The Planning Board shall review the Council motion or the petition to initiate Phase One of the process to create a Neighborhood Conservation District. The Planning Board shall designate a preliminary boundary and set a date to hold a Public Information Meeting regarding the proposed Neighborhood Conservation District.
4. Notification of the Public Information Meeting shall be sent to all property owners located within the preliminary boundary and within 500 feet of the boundary.
2.
Phase Two shall consist of a Planning Board Feasibility Review and Town Council action.
1. Phase Two may be initiated by the Town Council; by property owners representing 51% of the land area within the proposed district, upon submittal and acceptance of a petition to the Town Council; or by 51% of property owners in a proposed district upon submittal and acceptance of a petition to the Town Council.
2. The Town Manager shall prescribe the form(s) on which a Neighborhood Conservation District petition is made.
3. The Planning Board shall review the Council motion or the petition to initiate Phase Two of the process to create a Neighborhood Conservation District. The Planning Board shall set a date and conduct a Neighborhood Conservation District Feasibility Review.
4. Notification of the Planning Board’s Neighborhood Conservation District Feasibility Review time, date, and place shall be sent to all property owners located within the preliminary boundary and within 500 feet of the boundary.
5. The Town Staff shall submit to the Planning Board a written analysis of the petition and include a recommendation with specific reference to:
* the community goals: a statement of objective for the Neighborhood Conservation District;
* the level of urgency: a description of current development activity in the neighborhood;
* the plenary or committee structure: a proposal of who will participate in the process of drafting a Neighborhood Conservation District rezoning proposal. A Committee structure shall include 10% of households in the initial boundary or twenty people, whichever is less, and a Plenary structure shall open the process to the entire neighborhood; and
* the initial boundary: a map of properties properties to be included in the Neighborhood Conservation District .
6. The Planning Board shall conduct the Neighborhood Conservation District Feasibility Review. The Neighborhood Conservation District Feasibility Review shall be open to the public and all interested persons shall be given the opportunity to present arguments in favor of or against a rezoning and to ask questions.
7. After the Neighborhood Conservation District Feasibility Review, the Planning Board shall submit its recommendation to the Town Council with specific reference to the community goals, the level of urgency, the plenary or committee structure, and the initial proposed boundary of the Neighborhood Conservation District.
8. After the Neighborhood Conservation District Feasibility Review, the Town Council shall review the Planning Board’s recommendation and the Town Staff recommendation and act on the petition. Action on the petition may include endorsement to begin the rezoning process to establish a Neighborhood Conservation District or to not begin the process.
9. Endorsement to begin the rezoning process shall include reference to the community goals, the level of urgency, the plenary or committee structure, and the initial boundary of the Neighborhood Conservation District.
10. Notification of the Town Council action shall be sent by first class mail to owners of properties located within the preliminary boundary and within 500 feet of the boundary.
d. Designation Procedures
1. Following initiation for designation of a Neighborhood Conservation District, the Planning Board, or a Committee designated by the Town Council with representation from the Planning Board, shall develop a neighborhood conservation plan for the proposed district that may include:
1. maps indicating the boundaries, age of structures and land use of the proposed district;
2. maps and other graphic and written materials identifying and describing the distinctive neighborhood and building characteristics of the proposed district; and
3. design standards for new construction, additions or alterations to the street facades of existing buildings or structures within the proposed district.
2. All owners of properties within the proposed district shall be afforded the opportunity to participate in drafting the conservation plan. A conservation plan shall be approved as part of a Zoning Atlas Amendment creating a Neighborhood Conservation District .
e. Design Standards
1. ordinance creating a Neighborhood Conservation District shall include design standards for new construction or placement of any building, structure, foundation, sign, public art or outdoor apparatus or equipment (including visible utility boxes or mechanical equipment; trucks; lawn or landscaping equipment, but not including lawnmowers or hand tools; playground equipment; or sports equipment), and any additions, alterations, relocation or rehabilitation to the street facades of existing buildings, structures, foundations, sign, public art, or outdoor apparatus or equipment.
2. The conservation plan, and requisite design standards shall not apply to those activities which constitute ordinary repair and maintenance, i.e., using the same material and design.
3. The Design Standards for the Neighborhood Conservation District shall include the minimum following elements governing the physical characteristics and features of all property (public or private) within the proposed district:
1. building height, number of stories;
2. building size, massing (frontage, entrance location/features);
3. lot size, coverage;
4. front and side yard setbacks;
5. off-street parking and loading requirements;
6. roof line and pitch;
7. paving, hardscape covering.
4. In addition, the Design Standards may include, but shall not be limited to, the following elements:
1. building orientation;
2. general site planning (primary, ancillary structures);
3. density;
4. floor area ratio;
5. signage;
6. architectural style and details;
7. building materials;
8. garage entrance location;
9. front window, dormer size and location;
10. landscaping;
11. fences and walls;
12. entrance lighting;
13. driveways and sidewalks;
14. satellite dishes, utility boxes;
15. street furniture;
16. public art;
17. demolition (see subsection F);
18. roof line and pitch.
f. Administration of Ordinance
1. No building permit shall be issued for new construction or an alteration or addition to the street facade of an existing building or structure within a designated Neighborhood Conservation District without the submission and approval of design plans and the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit by the Town Manager.
2. The Town Manager shall review the design plans to determine compliance with the design standards contained in the neighborhood conservation plan adopted for the district.
3. If the Town Manager determines that the design plans are in conformance with the design standards adopted for the district, the Town Manager shall approve the plans and issue a Zoning Compliance Permit and the Department of Building Inspections may issue a building permit.
4. If the Town Manager determines that the design plans are not in conformance with the design standards adopted for the district, the Town Manager shall not approve the plans, and will issue Notification of Non-Compliance, identifying the specific Design Standards violated.
5. The applicant may appeal the Town Manager’s determination to the Board of Adjustment for as provided in Section 4.12.
Links
* National Trust for Historic Preservation
Glen Lennox to be cherished, not destroyed
THE CHAPEL HILL NEWS
Guest Column -- By Jan Schochet Published: Aug. 5, 2008 5:56 PM | Full story
By Jan Schochet
As a person who has lived in Chapel Hill on and off since I first went to college here in the '70s, and as someone who also spent time fighting against the complete razing of downtown Asheville, my hometown, in 1980-1982, I am very disappointed that the town of Chapel Hill would even consider the Glen Lennox destruction project.
Given that there are already two "urban villages"-- one going up across the street (54 East) and one down the street (Meadowmont), both of which were built on one-use properties (54 East a former motel and Meadowmont on a former farm) -- the destruction of a complete neighborhood to build yet another densely populated shopping/high-end residential project is entirely inappropriate for a town that likes to think of itself as a progressive community.
There needs to be green space left somewhere. And for those who ask "where should development happen?" my answer is that it should happen downtown -- now there's an area that needs help very much.
Because the people who have owned downtown buildings for 30 years or more are aging and/or dying and the property is changing hands for the first time in decades, the property values have risen so much that the mortgage costs to the new owners necessitate extreme increases in rent prices. Hence, the problem with empty storefronts.
Also, as has been shown in Asheville, my hometown, which now has a thriving downtown of restaurants and galleries, a main turning point in revival of the downtown occurred when residential was brought into the downtown equation. (Why doesn't Grubb do their project downtown?)
Glen Lennox has always represented a moderately priced, safe neighborhood that a student or a grandmother (or anyone in between) could live in; currently the newest developments all over Chapel Hill aspire to appeal to the richest of the rich, a sad comment on who society values. Does Chapel Hill really want to exclude "regular" people from its population?
So-called "smart growth" holds at its core the idea of density. Density is fine where densities are commonly used -- in cities. Downtown Chapel Hill (as in downtown Asheville or in any other urban space) is a great place for density. A complete community of small garden apartments with lush vegetation (which adds back to the green grass and soil below it) of trees and parks is not a great place for density. It is a place to be cherished. It's not broken, so don't try to "fix" it. As a neighborhood, it works, so why not keep a smart neighborhood intact?
And lastly, most people hate mid-century architecture, but, as a preservationist and historian, I don't. (And neither do the members of the NC's Twentieth Century Society.) The small shopping center that is part of Glen Lennox is the only remaining example of a mid 20th century retail space still in existence in Chapel Hill.
Hundreds of Victorian houses and bungalows in the Triangle were torn down in the 1960s-1980s because they were considered "monstrosities" according to tastes of the day. Let's not repeat that mistake, either.
For all of these reasons (and probably some more I could think of later), I believe the destruction of Glen Lennox apartments and retail is a particularly bad idea for Chapel Hill.
Jan Schochet lives in Chapel Hill and Asheville, produces documentary projects related to historic preservation and history, and has a master's of arts degree in folklore.
2008 The Chapel Hill News
Guest Column -- By Jan Schochet Published: Aug. 5, 2008 5:56 PM | Full story
By Jan Schochet
As a person who has lived in Chapel Hill on and off since I first went to college here in the '70s, and as someone who also spent time fighting against the complete razing of downtown Asheville, my hometown, in 1980-1982, I am very disappointed that the town of Chapel Hill would even consider the Glen Lennox destruction project.
Given that there are already two "urban villages"-- one going up across the street (54 East) and one down the street (Meadowmont), both of which were built on one-use properties (54 East a former motel and Meadowmont on a former farm) -- the destruction of a complete neighborhood to build yet another densely populated shopping/high-end residential project is entirely inappropriate for a town that likes to think of itself as a progressive community.
There needs to be green space left somewhere. And for those who ask "where should development happen?" my answer is that it should happen downtown -- now there's an area that needs help very much.
Because the people who have owned downtown buildings for 30 years or more are aging and/or dying and the property is changing hands for the first time in decades, the property values have risen so much that the mortgage costs to the new owners necessitate extreme increases in rent prices. Hence, the problem with empty storefronts.
Also, as has been shown in Asheville, my hometown, which now has a thriving downtown of restaurants and galleries, a main turning point in revival of the downtown occurred when residential was brought into the downtown equation. (Why doesn't Grubb do their project downtown?)
Glen Lennox has always represented a moderately priced, safe neighborhood that a student or a grandmother (or anyone in between) could live in; currently the newest developments all over Chapel Hill aspire to appeal to the richest of the rich, a sad comment on who society values. Does Chapel Hill really want to exclude "regular" people from its population?
So-called "smart growth" holds at its core the idea of density. Density is fine where densities are commonly used -- in cities. Downtown Chapel Hill (as in downtown Asheville or in any other urban space) is a great place for density. A complete community of small garden apartments with lush vegetation (which adds back to the green grass and soil below it) of trees and parks is not a great place for density. It is a place to be cherished. It's not broken, so don't try to "fix" it. As a neighborhood, it works, so why not keep a smart neighborhood intact?
And lastly, most people hate mid-century architecture, but, as a preservationist and historian, I don't. (And neither do the members of the NC's Twentieth Century Society.) The small shopping center that is part of Glen Lennox is the only remaining example of a mid 20th century retail space still in existence in Chapel Hill.
Hundreds of Victorian houses and bungalows in the Triangle were torn down in the 1960s-1980s because they were considered "monstrosities" according to tastes of the day. Let's not repeat that mistake, either.
For all of these reasons (and probably some more I could think of later), I believe the destruction of Glen Lennox apartments and retail is a particularly bad idea for Chapel Hill.
Jan Schochet lives in Chapel Hill and Asheville, produces documentary projects related to historic preservation and history, and has a master's of arts degree in folklore.
2008 The Chapel Hill News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)