Presentation on theme: "THE PLANNING, ZONING & DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL Cary Council/Staff Retreat, January 18, 2013."— Presentation transcript:
THE PLANNING, ZONING & DEVELOPMENT PROCESS: MAKING SENSE OF IT ALL Cary 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. Introduction 2. Preliminary Goals For All Development Processes 3. Process Review & Evaluation 1. Plan Amendments 2. Rezonings 3. Development Plans
Session Agenda 4. Evaluate Development Results “On The Ground” 5. Revised/Refined Process Goals 6. 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 FOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES Preliminary Thoughts
Preliminary Goals: Staff Distillation 1. Meet State Laws 2. Implement Adopted Town Plans, Policies & Ordinances 3. Enable Timely & Effective Decision-making 4. Ensure High Level Of Service To All Customers 5. 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 FOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES Brainstorm Discussion
PROCESS REVIEW Comprehensive 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CPA “Fast Facts” 1. 29 Total Plan Amendment Cases During Last Three Years (2010-2012) 2. 23 Approved; 4 Cases Withdrawn; Two Still in Review 3.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 ?
“Typical” Cary Rezoning Pre-Application Meeting w/ DRC Community Meeting By Applicant Traffic Study Not Needed If “Downzoning” Results Due Before Public Hearing ApplicationPublic Notices Public 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 & Recommendatio n By P&Z Board Community Design Workshop (Optional) Public Hearing & Recommendatio n 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
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 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 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 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) ?
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 FOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES Revisited & Refined
Final Goals: Council Direction 1. Meet State Laws 2. Implement Adopted Town Plans, Policies & Ordinances 3. Enable Timely & Effective Decision-making 4. Provide High Level Of Service To All Customers 5. 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.