The Planning, Zoning & Development process: Making Sense Of it all

1. The Planning, Zoning & Development process: Making Sense Of it all Cary Council/Staff Retreat, January 18, 2013

2. 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

3. Session Agenda • Introduction • Preliminary Goals For All Development Processes • Process Review & Evaluation • Plan Amendments • Rezonings • Development Plans

4. Session Agenda • Evaluate Development Results “On The Ground” • Revised/Refined Process Goals • Potential Process Changes, “To Do” List, and Wrap Up

5. 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 • ?

6. Council Goals ForDevelopment Processes Preliminary Thoughts

7. Preliminary Goals: Staff Distillation • Meet State Laws • Implement Adopted Town Plans, Policies & Ordinances • Enable Timely & Effective Decision-making • Ensure High Level Of Service To All Customers • Include Maximum Level Of Public/Citizen Awareness & Involvement

8. Preliminary Goals: Staff Distillation • Ensure Easy Access To Information About Specific Proposals/Cases/Processes • Provide For Balanced Discussion Of The Merits & Impacts Of Each Development Proposal • Allow Decision-Making To Occur At The Appropriate Level (Legislative versus Administrative) • Balance Property Owner Rights With Neighborhood Concerns

9. Council Goals ForDevelopment Processes Brainstorm Discussion

10. Process Review Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA’s)

11. “Typical” Plan Amendment Case

12. CPA “Fast Facts” • 29 Total Plan Amendment Cases During Last Three Years (2010-2012) • 23 Approved; 4 Cases Withdrawn; Two Still in Review • Average Review Time of 181 Days from Submission To Action By Town Council; Longest = 455 Days (Cooke-Futrell property); Shortest =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)

13. 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 • ? • ?

14. CPA Process Evaluation

15. Ideas For CPA Process Changes • ?

16. Process Review Rezonings

17. “Typical” Cary Rezoning

18. “MXD” Rezoning in Cary

19. Rezoning “Fast Facts” • X Total Rezoning Cases During Last Three Years (2010-2012) • One Case “Denied” • Seven Cases “Withdrawn” • Average Time From Application Submission To Town Council Action = 188 Days • Median Time = 165 Days • Longest Time = 334 Days • Shortest Time = 91 Days

20. Timeframe Comparison (“Fab 14”)

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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?

25. 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?)

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. Rezoning Process Criticisms • Schedule: • The Process Is Too Long And/Or Is Too Confusing • Unable To Give A Realistic Schedule For The MXD Process

31. Ideas For Rezoning Process Changes • Make “Regular” Rezonings Match MXD Rezonings Where P&Z Board Conducts First Public Hearing • Uniformity (Improves Understanding Of Process) • Use P&Z Board To Filter Public Input • Adjacent Owners Do Not Have To Rush To File A Protest Petition (And May Never Have To) • P&Z Board Not Influenced By Existence Of Protest Petition (Not Filed Until Case Goes To Council Hearing) • ?

32. Ideas For Rezoning Process Changes • ? • ?

33. Process Review Development Plans

34. Development Plan “Fast Facts” • ?

35. 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)

36. 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?

37. Ideas For Development Plan Process Changes • ?

38. Results on the ground Achieving Expected Outcomes

39. 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?

40. 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

41. Council Goals ForDevelopment Processes Revisited & Refined

42. Final Goals: Council Direction • Meet State Laws • Implement Adopted Town Plans, Policies & Ordinances • Enable Timely & Effective Decision-making • Provide High Level Of Service To All Customers • Include Maximum Level Of Public/Citizen Awareness & Involvement

43. Final Goals: Council Direction • Ensure Availability Of Information About Processes Themselves • Provide Easy Access To Information About Specific Proposals/Cases/Processes • Provide For Balanced Discussion Of The Merits & Impacts Of Each Development Proposal • Allow Decision-Making To Occur At The Appropriate Level (Legislative versus Administrative) • Balance Property Owner Rights With Neighborhood Concerns

44. Summary of changes for future consideration

45. Potential Planning, Zoning & Development Process Changes

46. Wrap Up The End