Right before Chapel Hillians carved their Thanksgiving Turkey, the Chapel Hill Councilors, absent Councilor Matt Czjakowski, unanimously amended the special R-SS-C zoning district, almost tripling the existing density limits (floor ratio) from 0.4 to 1.1.
The density increase is in direct response to two new proposed residential dense developments being plopped in the middle of existing low density Chapel Hill residential neighborhoods. Profits will increase dramatically for the Ayden Court development proposed by Ms. Carol Zinn, and the Grove Park development proposed by the Rams Group of Lot 5 fame.
In the case of the Ayden Court development, Ms. Zinn can go from building 102,000 square feet of housing on 5.8 acres of land to her desired 180,000 square feet, the new limt being as much as 280,500 square feet. In plain English, if the average apartment/condo for Ayden Court is 1800 square feet, then under the new density limits, Ms. Zinn can build, not just her desired 100 units, but as many as 155 units. That density translates to building between 17 housing units and 26 housing units per acre in the midst of low density residential neighborhoods.
In true Orange Progressive fashion, when local developers need, the Councilors delivers, a special turkey treat just in time for the holidays.
Ms. Julie McClintock speaking for the Neighbors for Responsible Growth group and Ms. Dell Snow speaking for the Citizens United for Responsible Growth group, each asked the council to limit the R-SS-C amendment to the TC zones, the existing Chapel Hill downtown. Such a request would have not helped the Councilors pals, and thus, was dismissed after much individual councilor handwringing about needing citizen input for where to density infill the town . In the words of Councilor Bill Strom, “redevelopment [to high density] is good for the environment.”
The Councilors appeared to be confused by the following map produced by the town staff to identify activity centers within Chapel Hill.(See Town Council Meeting Video.)
Focusing on the pretty “walkability” rings, Mayor Kevin Foy said he wanted to see the tripled density apply only to the downtown, where everyone was in agreement about wanting heavy density.
In response, the town attorney proposed amending the R-SS-C ordinance to eliminate the phrase “and/or neighborhood commercial/ employment centers”, seemingly eliminating the R-SS-C district from being placed outside the downtown. As amended and adopted, a developer seeking R-SS-C consideration has to show “support of a healthy downtown district by identifying or providing reasonably accessible pedestrian/bicycle and non-vehicular access to such downtown district.”
An undefined requirement to “show support for the downtown” does not legally limit the R-SS-C zone to the downtown. Who makes that determination? The council. Is the decision quasi-judicial requiring “substantial evidence”? No. Can it be applied at a whim of the council? Yes.
As adopted, the R-SS-C zoning is NOT limited to the downtown, but can be applied anywhere there is one of the following districts - TC-1, TC-2, TC-3, CC, NC, 0I-1, I, R-6, R-5, R-4, R-3, R-2, R-2A, R-1, R-1A, R-LD1, or R-LD5 zoning.
Councilor Jim Ward spoke about reducing the pretty ring radius distance. Apparently, he wasn’t aware that the ordinance didn’t include any distance standard. Why not? The town staff didn’t want a distance standard. It would have eliminated the Grove Park and Ayden Court redevelopments.
The local media completely miscovered this event. According to the real estate advertisers, the council decided “not to allow the new denser zoning near ‘neighborhood commercial/employment centers’ such as Meadowmont, Southern Village, Eastgate, University Mall and Timberlyne.” (See Chapel Hill News Dense Coverage.)
Unfortunately that local media description is inaccurate. Upzoning the proposed Ayden Court and Grove Park developments to these newly tripled densities IS allowed by the approved R-SS-C LUO amendment vote of 24 November 2008.
In a strategic planning aka cumbaya (see Phictionary) session, Chapel Hill Councilman Matt Czajkowski spoke up about the social engineering aspects of the craze for developer profits in pushing mixed use developments. Mr. Czajkowski had the audacity to challenge if families prefer to live in high rise, multi-family, mixed use developments. ”Guys, you're making a massive assumption that families want to move into high density development.”
Mr. Czajkowski’s remarks were in response to Mayor Kevin Foy’s comment that ”We assume that mixed-use development is the best development, and on top of that, we assume that people want to live in dense development.”
In an Orange Progressive put-down, executive director of yet another local tax-exempt organization, on-again, off-again political power couple paramour, and fellow Town Councilman Mark Kleinschmidt accused Mr. Czajkowski of “harboring a 1950s perspective”. Readers should note that Mr. Kleinschmidt wasn’t born until the late 1960s and is not a practicing breeder (see Phictionary).
Town councilman Jim Ward piled on indicating that he didn’t care what ordinary families wanted. He doesn’t care if people want to live in high density developments. He assumes that it's the best way to grow Chapel Hill. “And you're making the assumption that they will or will not [live in whatever the council wants them to live in],”
No word on why any social engineering councilman thinks that growing Chapel Hill’s population is desirable.
No word of any discussion of carrying capacity occurring to the social engineers of the cumbayah circle.
See Chapel Hill Herald Cumbayah Story.
