DRAFT
(Contact the town clerk's office at 919-469-4011 for official minutes)
Work Session Minutes of the Town of
Mixed
Use Development
Present: Mayor Harold
Weinbrecht, Mayor Pro Tem Julie Robison, Council Members Gale Adcock, Don
Frantz, and Ervin Portman
Mayor
Weinbrecht called the meeting to order at
Council
Members Jennifer Robinson and Jack Smith arrived late and their arrival is noted
in the minutes.
Jeff Ulma of the Planning
Department stated that the purpose of the work session is to discuss staff’s
approach to dealing with mixed use centers in
Mrs. Robinson arrived at this
point in the meeting at
Mr.
Ulma reviewed issues and concerns regarding the process.
He said that staff would like to know how much flexibility should be
incorporated into the process and how much should be predetermined, canned and
programmed to achieve a particular result. He
reviewed the general concerns about the process as well as concerns about
geography (applicability and location and scale), public involvement
(participation and protests), and evaluation considerations (impacts, context
and benefits). (Staff’s PowerPoint
Presentation is attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit
A.)
Mayor Pro Tem Smith arrived at
this point in the meeting at
Mr. Ulma reviewed the general
concerns about the product (vision) and requirements (construction, mix,
maximums for development and specificity). He
also provided an overview of staff’s approach to the overall process—retain
mixed use overlay district (MUOD), modify sketch plan procedure, and revise
sketch plan requirements—and details for the proposed process.
Mayor Weinbecht asked when in
the process the applicant is allowed to make a change.
Mr. Ulma said staff would have to look at the timing.
He said depending on the outcome of the public hearing there may be
continued changes, which would be reflected in what is presented at the council
public hearing. Mrs. Robinson said
changes should be kicked down to the community workshop.
Mr. Smith said the difference
is that the current practice is that council has the public hearing, it goes to
the Planning and Zoning Board (P&Z), and then comes back to council for
action. He asked if council could
consider taking action at the second public hearing.
Mr. Ulma said yes. Mrs. Robinson said that if significant changes need to
be made to the project it should go back to P&Z for another hearing.
She said it should keep looping back until it is ready to come to the
council without any changes. She
said that after council holds the hearing, if there are any changes, it should
go back to P&Z again for hearing until all of the changes have been
completed and council can vote on the proposal without any changes.
Mayor Pro Tem Robison asked
about the difference and triggers for the community workshop.
Mr. Ulma responded that it’s P&Zs’ reaction as they conduct
the hearing. He said it is up to
their determination on how well the submission meets the Town’s ordinance and
requirements.
Mayor Pro Tem Robison asked
about the framework for the community workshop and the difference from the
neighborhood meeting. Mr. Ulma said
that staff and P&Z board members aren’t involved at that point.
He said with staff’s proposal you are letting the applicant work with
the neighborhood first. He said if they are unsuccessful that is when the
involvement is elevated to Town and P&Z involvement—it is in reaction to
the case at that time.
Mrs. Robison asked why not
start out the process with the community workshop where everyone is brought
together at the beginning. She said
it would help the developer by understanding what citizens want from the
beginning. Mr. Ulma said it could go
either way; the process is reserved for the sticky cases, which they don’t
always know about up front.
Mr. Portman said he doesn’t
think everything should necessarily go to the community workshop.
He said there needs to be a third option for P&Z to recommend denial
before the community workshop.
Mr. Frantz said he likes the
idea of the first public hearing coming to council so that they get to see it
upfront, then sending it to P&Z, and then having it come back to council
with any changes made at the end. Mrs.
Robinson said before the P&Z hearing it should go as a “for information
only” item to council. She said
that the applicant should be required to give council the same presentation he
will give to P&Z so that council can get a feel for what’s going on.
She said the process should be applications submittal and then go as a
presentation to council for information only so that council knows what’s
going to P&Z for hearing. Mr.
Ulma said that staff will look at adding time elements and what it will take to
go through that process.
Mr. Portman said it’s a more
logical process to go to a review board, get work recommended, and then come
back to council. He said he
doesn’t think any value is being added by going to council first.
He said council need to be sensitive to the flow, ensuring plenty of
neighborhood input. Mr. Ulma
said most communities use their P&Z boards as the first body to hear
rezonings and other cases—they work as a filter so that the council doesn’t
spend time dealing with those early on.
Ms. Adcock said that she likes
the streamlined approach. She said
hearing it at the council meeting and then sending it to P&Z seems
backwards. Mr. Smith said for the
ones that don’t have problems the model works fine. He
said for the more difficult cases they can add the step to go to council FYI.
Mr. Ulma said staff could find a way electronically to let council know
about the upcoming cases. He said
that staff can summarize the presentation and send it to council.
Mayor Pro Tem Robison asked
what they are losing by helping to improve the product from beginning.
Mr. Barker said what’s been missing in the current process is the
metrics. He said those are things
that come up as issues. He said the
key for success is for council to decide the metrics and standards to alleviate
a proposal coming forth that doesn’t meet the standards.
He said it’s setting a vision for mixed use standards.
Mr. Portman says it uses
P&Z more effectively than it has been in the past.
He said that the pre-application meeting will clean up some of the
issues. Mayor Pro Tem Robison said
that this process merits more community work up front because of the mix of
uses. She said each case is unique.
She said there should be a more substantive community discussion about
the mixed use sketch plans at the early stages so that the mix of uses has a
strong fit. Mr. Ulma said staff
already defines those methods and requirements for applicants.
Mr. Smith said it is a learning
curve for the citizens and the neighborhood meetings are the first step.
He said you need a neighborhood meeting and sharing of information to
have a more powerful community workshop. Mr.
Portman said with this process the neighbors have the power and can influence
the P&Z hearing.
Mr. Ulma directed council to
the draft metrics and evaluation criteria chart.
(The Preliminary Metrics and Evaluation Criteria for Mixed Use Centers is
attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit
B.)
Mr. Portman said he would like
to see council put specificity back in the PDD section of the ordinance and
repeal the mixed use sketch plan section because of the problematic nature of
regional, community, prescriptive, and square footage. He
said he likes the idea of mixed use and being able to do it anywhere in Town
under a PDD guideline. Mr. Ulma said
that staff sees this process as functioning that fashion.
He said it is a way of providing boundaries, and the sketch plan is
supposed to reflect the design and product.
He said if council gets something that doesn’t fit they can say no.
Mr. Portman said they need to
consider the public good and what they are achieving by being so prescriptive on
the mix. Mr. Ulma said the plan
called for neighborhood scale centers with a certain kind of mix.
He said it predetermines the vision of what goes in certain areas.
Mrs. Robinson said the benefit
of matrix is that it gives citizens a sense of comfort or stability in knowing
what to expect. She said what’s
missing is the level of storm water retention and impervious surfaces.
She said they need to work at getting community input.
Mr. Portman asked if there’s
a way to incorporate into PDD so that we have one tool.
Mr. Ulma said they can come up with some middle ground in giving
community, staff, decision-making and developer guidance on what to propose when
something his brought in.
Mrs. Robison asked staff what
they wanted to take away from the meeting. She
said council needs to take time individually to look over metrics.
Mr. Ulma said staff would like to know if they are going in the right
direction with the process and if they are target structurally.
He said they would like feedback on considerations to include in the
matrix, the process or other aspects, and then come back to council with some
recommendations. He said they would
also like feedback on size and scale and whether they should be using this tool
every time.
Mr. Weinbrecht said on the
process Mrs. Robinson would like to add the loop so that it is final when it
comes to council. Mrs. Robinson said
that P&Z’s recommendation should be based on a final product so that the
final thing council votes on is what they received the recommendation on from
P&Z without changes.
Mr. Ulma provided a summary of
council discussions:
Process:
Product
Flexibility/Incentives
Geography/Applicability
Other
Mr. Barker said it sounds like
staff hit the process well. Mr.
Portman said they also addressed a lot of the weaknesses.
Mr. Ulma said staff will figure out a way to bring the next round to
council, narrowed down and focused on the pieces on which they need to keep
working.
Mayor Weinbrecht adjourned the meeting at