THE PLANNING, ZONING & DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL (IN 5 EASY STEPS!) Cary Council/Staff Retreat, January 18, 2013

INTRODUCTION Agenda/Purpose: 10 Minutes

Agenda/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

Some Guidelines For This Session  Covers The Three Main Development Processes  NOT Intended To Address Specific Rules, Regulations, Requirements  Will “Park” Those Ideas  Use Virtual Interactive Planner (VIP) Website To Review Processes & Share Process Information Already Available To The Public  ?

STEP 1: COUNCIL GOALS FOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES Brainstorm Discussion: 30 minutes

Preliminary Results: Council Goals 1. ? 2. ? 3. ? 4. ? 5. ? 6. ?

Preliminary Goals: Staff Distillation 1. Meet And Implement State & Local Laws And Adopted Town Plans & Policies 2. Allow Decision-Making To Occur At The Appropriate Level (Legislative (Council) versus Administrative (Staff)) 3. Enable Timely & Effective Decision-making 4. Ensure High Level Of Service To All Customers a) Include Maximum Level Of Public/Citizen Awareness & Involvement

Preliminary Goals: Staff Distillation b) Ensure Easy Access To Information About Specific Proposals/Cases/Processes 6. Balance All Interests a) Provide For Balanced Discussion Of The Merits & Impacts Of Each Development Proposal b) Balance Property Owner Rights With Neighborhood Concerns 7.

STEP 2: PROCESS REVIEW Comprehensive Plan Amendments (CPA’s): 15 Minutes

“Typical” Plan Amendment Case Application Pre-Application Meeting w/ DRC Public Notices Mailed Notice Newspaper Advertisements Public Hearing By Town Council Staff Report Public Hearing and Review & Recommendation By P&Z Board Staff Report Recommendation Action By Town Council Staff Report Recommendations

CPA “Fast Facts” Total Plan Amendment Cases During Last Three Years ( ) Approved; 4 Cases Withdrawn; Two Still in Review 3.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 Comments  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 & Potential Changes Application Pre-Application Meeting w/ DRC Public Notices Mailed Notice Newspaper Advertisements Public Hearing By Town Council Staff Report Public Hearing and Review & Recommendation By P&Z Board Staff Report Recommendation Action By Town Council Staff Report Recommendations

CPA Process Evaluation ??

Ideas For CPA Process Changes 1. ?

STEP 2: PROCESS REVIEW Rezonings: 30 Minutes

“Typical” Cary Rezoning Application Pre-Application Meeting w/ DRC Community Meeting By Applicant Traffic Study Proposed Conditions (If Applicable) or PDD Requirements Public Notices Mailed Notice Newspaper Advertisements Posted Signs Public Hearing By Town Council Staff Report Protest Petitions Review & Recommendation By P&Z Board (May Include Public Hearing If Conditions Change) Staff Report Action By Town Council Staff Report P&Z Recommendation

“MXD” Rezoning in Cary Application Pre-Application Meeting w/ DRC Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) & Conditions Community Meeting By Applicant Traffic Study Public Notices Mailed Notice Newspaper Advertisements Posted Signs Public Hearing By P&Z Board Staff Report Community Design Workshop (Optional) Public Hearing By P&Z Board Staff Report Public Hearing & Action By Town Council Staff Report & Recommendations Protest Petitions

Rezoning “Fast Facts” 1. X Total Rezoning Cases During Last Three Years ( ) 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 (“Big 14”)

Hearing Sequence Comparison (“Big 14” Jurisdictions)  10 Of 14: Planning Board Or Commission Hearing 1st  Council Hearing & Vote 2nd  1 Of14: Joint Council/Planning Board Hearing As 1 st 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 Typical Rezoning Case  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 Exchanges Representing Multiple Questions From One Adjacent Resident  2 s Exchanges And Questions From PZ Members  Calls Or Exchanges With At Least 3 Other Residents  4 Meetings With Neighbors Or Applicant And Council Members

Rezoning Process Assessment & Potential Changes Application Pre-Application Meeting w/ DRC Community Meeting By Applicant Traffic Study Proposed Conditions (If Applicable) or PDD Requirements Public Notices Mailed Notice Newspaper Advertisements Posted Signs Public Hearing By Town Council Staff Report Protest Petitions Review & Recommendation By P&Z Board (May Include Public Hearing If Conditions Change) Staff Report Action By Town Council Staff Report P&Z Recommendation Application Pre-Application Meeting w/ DRC Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) & Conditions Community Meeting By Applicant Traffic Study Public Notices Mailed Notice Newspaper Advertisements Posted Signs Public Hearing By P&Z Board Staff Report Community Design Workshop (Optional) Public Hearing By P&Z Board Staff Report Public Hearing & Action By Town Council Staff Report & Recommendations Protest Petitions

Rezoning Process Assessment  Application  Notices  Public Hearings  P&Z Board  Town Council  Other?

Rezoning Process Comments  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 Comments  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 Comments  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 Comments  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 Comments  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 Comments  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 Comments  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 Comments  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 Input c) 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) ?

STEP 2: PROCESS REVIEW Development Plans

Development Plan “Fast Facts” 1. ?

Development Plan Process Comments  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 Comments  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. ?

STEP 3: RESULTS ON THE GROUND Achieving Expected Outcomes: 45 Minutes

Nature Of Comments  Land Uses  Site Design/Layout  Building & Landscaping (Design/Aesthetics)  Signage  Other?

Nature Of Comments  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

Nature Of Comments  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?

STEP 4: FINAL COUNCIL GOALS & POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS CHANGES Revisited & Refined: 45 Minutes

Potential Planning, Zoning & Development Process Changes

STEP 5: WRAP UP Summary: 5 Minutes