ATTACHMENT 1
The Chapel Hill Planning Board met in public session on Tuesday, March 3, 2009 at 7 PM and discussed a proposed ordinance amending the LUMO R-SS-C zoning district. It should be noted that the Planning Board never reviewed the R-SS-C zoning amendment adopted by Council on November 24, 2008. In October or November of 2008 the Planning Board reviewed (and voted to not recommend) an earlier draft of that amendment, a draft that was much less rigorous than the adopted (Nov. 24th) amendment. For its deliberations on March 3rd, the Board considered only the proposed amendment to the currently-existing R-SS-C zone as presented by Staff. After a thorough discussion, including questions to Planning Staff Development Manager Gene Poveromo, the Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend to the Town Council that the proposed amendment not be enacted. A brief summary of comments and issues raised by Planning Board members are as follows:
(1) Board members felt that there was a lack of metrics associated with many of the proposed requirements.
· For instance, although requirements B.1. and B.2. have metrics based on current policies or standards, none of the remaining requirements (B.3., B.4., C.1-5.) have metrics associated with them. These requirements are based on ambiguous concepts such as “encouragement (B.3., C.3.,C.5.), support (B.4.), promotion (C.1, C.4.), and appropriate (C.2.)”.
· Lack of well-defined metrics make it difficult for the public to understand what might be built under such a zone; make it difficult for developers to understand what might be expected of them under such a zone; and make it potentially difficult for future Town Councils to understand what was the intent of the current Council in developing such a zone.
(2) The proposed text amendment changes B.4. to include “and/or neighborhood commercial/employment centers” but there is no definition of what a neighborhood commercial/employment center is. For instance, would the corner of MLK Jr. Blvd. and Hillsborough Street, where Fosters, Hunam and Flying Burrito (amongst others) are located, constitute such a center? Is the definition of such a center based on the number of employees, the volume of sales, the tax valuations? And over how large an area? Is it employees per acre? Sales per acre?
(3) The proposed text amendment changes B.4. to include a requirement stating that “in support of this objective the proposed development shall be located within a reasonable walking/cycling distance from downtown or a neighborhood commercial/employment center,…”
What constitutes reasonable? Reasonable for whom? Students, mothers pushing strollers, retirees? At the very least this requirement should use an existing standard such as the one we apply for eligibility for Shared Ride service on CHT.
Planning Board members understood that Council’s objective was to create a tool that they could use, in conjunction with an accompanying Special Use Permit, in implementing the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. However, while this proposed amendment might give the Council the flexibility that they desire, its general ambiguity sends the wrong message to both citizens and developers and could result in unintended uses by future Town Councils. We believe for that reason that this amendment does not satisfy the explicit language of Article 4.4 of the LUMO or the implicit intent of the Comprehensive Plan that zoning regulations and the Zoning Atlas be modified only as reasonably necessary to promote public welfare, or achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan.