THE PLANNING, ZONING & DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: MAKING SENSE OF IT ALLCary Council/Staff Retreat, January 18, 2013

Purpose Of This Session

Verify Council’s Goals/Expectations For The Town’s Planning, Zoning & Development Processes

Review The Purpose & The Major Steps In Each Process, Including Legal Considerations

Assess Each Process Against Goals Evaluate Results Achieved In The Built

Environment Refine Process Goals Identify Potential Future Changes to Processes

Session Agenda

1. Introduction2. Preliminary Goals For All

Development Processes3. Process Review & Evaluation

1. Plan Amendments2. Rezonings3. Development Plans

Session Agenda

4. Evaluate Development Results “On The Ground”

5. Revised/Refined Process Goals6. Potential Process Changes, “To

Do” List, and Wrap Up

Some Guidelines For This Session NOT Intended To Address Specific Rules,

Regulations, Requirements Will “Park” Those Ideas

Existing Virtual Interactive Planner (VIP) Website Will Be Used To Review Processes & Inform Council Of Process Information Already Available To The Public

?

COUNCIL GOALS FORDEVELOPMENT PROCESSES

Preliminary Thoughts

Preliminary Goals: Staff Distillation

1. Meet State Laws2. Implement Adopted Town Plans, Policies

& Ordinances3. Enable Timely & Effective Decision-

making4. Ensure High Level Of Service To All

Customers5. Include Maximum Level Of

Public/Citizen Awareness & Involvement

Preliminary Goals: Staff Distillation

6. Ensure Easy Access To Information About Specific Proposals/Cases/Processes

7. Provide For Balanced Discussion Of The Merits & Impacts Of Each Development Proposal

8. Allow Decision-Making To Occur At The Appropriate Level (Legislative versus Administrative)

9. Balance Property Owner Rights With Neighborhood Concerns

10.

COUNCIL GOALS FORDEVELOPMENT PROCESSES

Brainstorm Discussion

PROCESS REVIEWComprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA’s)

“Typical” Plan Amendment Case

Pre-Application Meeting w/

DRC

Application Submission Public Notices

Public Hearing By Town Council

Public Hearing and Review &

Recommendation By P&Z

Board

Action By Town Council

CPA “Fast Facts”

1. 29 Total Plan Amendment Cases During Last Three Years (2010-2012)

2. 23 Approved; 4 Cases Withdrawn; Two Still in Review

3. Average Review Time of 181 Days from Submission To Action By Town Council; Longest = 455 Days (Cooke-Futrell property); Shortest = Historic Preservation Master Plan (87 Days)

CPA Process Criticisms

Order/Sequence Of Public Hearings? (Council Or P&Z First?)

Difficult/Unrealistic To Separate Plan Amendment Aspects From Rezoning Considerations When The Hearings Are Held At The Same Time

? ?

CPA Process Evaluation

Ideas For CPA Process Changes

1. ?

PROCESS REVIEW

Rezonings

“Typical” Cary Rezoning

Pre-Application Meeting w/

DRC

Community Meeting By Applicant

Traffic Study • Not Needed If “Downzoning”

• Results Due Before Public Hearing

Application Public NoticesPublic Hearing

By Town Council

Review & Recommendation By P&Z Board• May Include Public Hearing If Conditions Change

Action By Town Council

“MXD” Rezoning in Cary

Pre-Application Meeting w/

DRC

Community Meeting By Applicant

Traffic Study • Not Needed If

“Downzoning”• Results Due

Before Public Hearing

Application• Includes

Preliminary Development Plan (PDP)

Public Notices

Public Hearing &

Recommendation By P&Z

Board

Community Design

Workshop (Optional)

Public Hearing &

Recommendation By P&Z

Board

Public Hearing & Action By

Town Council

Rezoning “Fast Facts”

1. X Total Rezoning Cases During Last Three Years (2010-2012)

2. One Case “Denied”3. Seven Cases “Withdrawn”4. Average Time From Application

Submission To Town Council Action = 188 Days

Median Time = 165 Days Longest Time = 334 Days Shortest Time = 91 Days

Timeframe Comparison (“Fab 14”)

Jurisdiction Typical LengthGreenville 3 monthsJacksonville 8 to 9 weeksCharlotte 4 monthsWinston-Salem 2.5 monthsAsheville 2 months; 3 months if CUFayetteville 2.5 monthsChapel Hill 9 to 12 monthsRaleigh 5 monthsGreensboro 38 to 60 daysWilmington 3 monthsConcord 45 days (up to 75)High Point 11 weeksGastonia ?

Cary3 to 4 months (straight or conditional), 6 to 8 months MXD

Hearing Sequence Comparison (“Fab 14” Jurisdictions)

10 Of 14: Planning Board Or Commission Hearing 1st Council Hearing & Vote 2nd

1 Of14: Joint Council/Planning Board Hearing As 1st Step (Charlotte) (Note: Prior Process In Cary Under UDO)

1 Of 14 (Concord) Has Special Legislation Allowing P&Z Board To Render Final Decision If Vote = “Supermajority;” Otherwise, Continues To Council

Managing A Rezoning Case

Summary Of Staff Work Effort   1 TC Public Hearing, 3 PZ Public Hearings, And 2 TC Meetings 8 Sets Of Letters For Property Owners And 400-foot Property Owners 8 Trips To Property To Place And Remove Public Hearing Signs 4 Ads In Cary News 6 Staff Reports (Multiple Staff Involved In Writing, Review, And Placing Ad On

Web) 6 PowerPoint Presentations Prepared 3 Sets Of PZ Minutes Prepared By Planning Staff  Multiple Calls And Meetings With Applicant Regarding Meetings With Neighbors

And Changing Conditions 15 Email Exchanges Representing Multiple Questions From One Adjacent Resident 2 Emails Exchanges And Questions From PZ Members Calls Or Email Exchanges With At Least 3 Other Residents 4 Meetings With Neighbors Or Applicant And Council Members

Rezoning Process Criticisms

Application: Why Is A Traffic Study Not Required For Some

Rezoning Cases? Where Is The Detailed Site Or Subdivision Plan?

Notices: Letters Sent To Adjacent Property Owners Are

Lengthy Timing Of Notice Is Insufficient (Note: State

Law) Notices Sent To Owners Too Far From

Property/Not Far Enough

Rezoning Process Criticisms

Public Hearings: Order/Sequence Of Public Hearings

(Council Or P&Z First?) Why Do Some Applications Not Have A

Public Hearing Before The Planning And Zoning Board?

Why Do We Have A Public Hearing With The P&Z Board?

Rezoning Process Criticisms

Zoning Conditions: Type Of Zoning Conditions (Desire To Specify

Value, House Construction, Construction Traffic, Timing Of Road Construction, Etc.)

Since The Developer Hasn’t Shown Us A Site Or Subdivision Layout, Don’t Consider Rezoning Until There Are More Specifics (Fix: Consider Attaching The Site Plan As A Condition)

Separation Of Development Plan Issues From Rezoning (Why?)

Rezoning Process Criticisms

Protest Petitions: Why Aren’t Protests Allowed For Initial Zoning?

(Note: State Law) Why Does Department Send Protest Petitions To All

Properties Within 400 Feet Of Rezoning If Only Properties Within 100 Are Eligible To Protest (Creates False Expectations)

Sending A Copy Of The Protest Petition Out To Property Owners Biases The Process Against The Applicant

Protest Petitions Do Not Show Up Until Late In The MXD Process, After The Applicant Has Spent Thousands Of Dollars On A Proposed Project

Rezoning Process Criticisms

P&Z Board: Acts Political Vs. Advisory P&Z Board Should Focus Discussion On

Appropriateness Of Proposed Change With Regard To The Land Use Plan.

P&Z Board Is Swayed By Protest Petition Staff Role:

Staff Recommendation Not Provided

Rezoning Process Criticisms

Citizen Involvement: Neighbors Have Too Much Power One Or Two Residents Claim To

Represent Entire Neighborhoods When Dealing With Citizens, We Need To

Be Customer-friendly, But Not Customer-overboard

Rezoning Process Criticisms

Town Council: Council Delays The Process Rather Than Making

A Decision. If The Rezoning Conditions Are Satisfactory To Address Neighborhood Concerns, Then The Council Should Approve The Project. If Not, The Council Should Deny The Project.

Council Is Not Willing To Support Land Use Plan If Adjacent Citizens Oppose

The Costs Of Development Are Often Ignored Potential “Solution” To A Project Is Often Not

Practicable

Rezoning Process Criticisms

Schedule: The Process Is Too Long And/Or Is Too

Confusing Unable To Give A Realistic Schedule For

The MXD Process

Ideas For Rezoning Process Changes

1. Make “Regular” Rezonings Match MXD Rezonings Where P&Z Board Conducts First Public Hearing

a) Uniformity (Improves Understanding Of Process) b) Use P&Z Board To Filter Public Inputc) Adjacent Owners Do Not Have To Rush To File A

Protest Petition (And May Never Have To)d) P&Z Board Not Influenced By Existence Of

Protest Petition (Not Filed Until Case Goes To Council Hearing)

e) ?

Ideas For Rezoning Process Changes

2. ?a) ?

PROCESS REVIEW

Development Plans

Development Plan “Fast Facts”1. ?

Development Plan Process Criticisms Notification:

Town Notifies Adjacent Property Owners And Creates False Expectations That Citizen Input Can Significantly Change The Outcomes

Citizens Provide Comments That Are Not Always Reflected In The Approved Plan (If Administrative Review, Plan Only Needs To Meet Requirements Of LDO And Other Regulations)

Notification Of Plan Review Is Sent After Second Submittal (For Some Projects, Only Two Submittals May Be Necessary)

Development Plan Process Criticisms Schedule:

Process Takes Too Long Too Many Regulations; LDO Is Too Complex

And/Or Lengthy Changes/Flexibility:

More Flexibility Needed When Dealing With Colors And Architecture; Trying To Legislate “Taste”

How Much Change Is Allowed To A Development Plan Before It Has To Go Back Through The Rezoning Process?

Ideas For Development Plan Process Changes

1. ?

RESULTS ON THE GROUND

Achieving Expected Outcomes

Nature Of Criticisms

Land Uses Specific Use Proposed Is “Not Needed” Or

“Not What We Expected” Too Many Drugstores, Grocery Stores, Apartments, You Pick The Use

Site Design/Layout Difficult To Navigate The Site Or

Arrangement Is Considered “Not Safe” Signage Other?

Nature Of Criticisms

Building And Landscaping (Design/Aesthetics) Just Plain Ugly Cheap Construction; “Wavy Vinyl Siding” On Buildings Need “Good Architecture” On All Four Sides Of

Buildings Drive-through Locations Too Visible View Of Rooftops Or Service/Support Areas High Quality Architecture Is Required…But Then You

Also Require Me To Landscape To Hide It And Then Won’t Let Me Trim It

How Much Buffering Do We Really Need To Separate Similar Uses??? Especially If Only A Different Subdivision

COUNCIL GOALS FORDEVELOPMENT PROCESSES

Revisited & Refined

Final Goals: Council Direction

1. Meet State Laws2. Implement Adopted Town Plans, Policies

& Ordinances3. Enable Timely & Effective Decision-

making4. Provide High Level Of Service To All

Customers5. Include Maximum Level Of

Public/Citizen Awareness & Involvement

Final Goals: Council Direction

6. Ensure Availability Of Information About Processes Themselves

7. Provide Easy Access To Information About Specific Proposals/Cases/Processes

8. Provide For Balanced Discussion Of The Merits & Impacts Of Each Development Proposal

9. Allow Decision-Making To Occur At The Appropriate Level (Legislative versus Administrative)

10. Balance Property Owner Rights With Neighborhood Concerns

11.

SUMMARY OF CHANGES FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION

Potential Planning, Zoning & Development Process Changes

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

WRAP UP

The End