PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD WORKSESSION TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE
Monday, February 24, 2003, 5:30 p.m., 318 N. Academy Street, Building B, Lower Conference Room

Ricky Barker opened the meeting by providing an outline of what the group hoped to accomplish during the worksession. The outline included the following:

  1. Stating Objectives for the Worksessions
  2. Summarizing the Components of the LDO Project
  3. Summarizing the schedule of the LDO Project
  4. Agreeing upon ground rules and expectations for conducting the worksessions
  5. Summarizing chapters 1-4
  6. Summarizing the Code Amendment
  7. Producing a list of results from the meeting
  8. Establishing an Agenda for next Worksession

I. The objectives of the worksessions were stated to be the following:

    1. Educate the Board on the Draft LDO
    2. Receive direct feedback on major changes
    3. Create a list of recommendations concerning the changes
    4. Complete list of the Board’s proposed changes along with a recommendation to forward to Council by 4/24/03
  1. The components of the LDO Project were stated to be the following:
    1. the LDO document
    2. the official Zoning Maps
    3. TCAP and the Map Amendments
    4. the Town Code Amendment
  1. The schedule for the worksessions and adoption process is:
    1. four to five P&Z worksessions

        B.  Council Adoption on April 24th, 2003
        C.  Council Ratification on June 26th, 2003
        D.  Effective Date of July 1st, 2003

  1. Staff and the Board agreed upon the following format and guidelines for conducting the worksessions:
    1. Major changes will be presented by chapter as well as proposed solutions to comments staff has already received
    2. Board members will provide feedback
    3. Members are prepared to provide feedback at meetings
    4. Meetings focus on major issues
    5. Minor issues are noted, then discussed outside of sessions
    6. Staff generates list of issues and changes

As Staff summarized Chapters 1-4, the Board members had the following questions and comments:

  1. Consider time limits for modifications to applications in process
  2. Ideally, two public hearings is a nice idea, however in practice, don’t see how putting certain issues at a second public hearing would work; speakers will be embarrassed when told "… that is not being heard right now…", also even if you tell a speaker what they are supposed to be speaking about and they say okay, they still might talk about something else once they get up there; people will not pay attention to if the time is right for them to talk, they just see it as another opportunity to make there points and be seen; meetings would take all night if this element was added, something else would have to give to lighten agendas; publicity would be a problem because what if two public hearings were advertised, but then only one was needed, so the second is cancelled but not everyone knows that and they miss it all together (Jeff says the second hearing could be advertised only as a maybe); do feel that it is important to have mechanisms in place to make sure everyone is heard that wants to be; Bottom line- mechanics need a lot of review and discussion.
  3. Why do we now need a two step process for rezonings and then conditional use, that is not how it is today (staff explains this was because of the Massey vs. Charlotte case, however now that the decision had been appealed and decided that a one step process was ok, the text would change to reflect that and therefore stay as it is today).
  4. Modification limits for Council are a bad idea; never tie your elected officials’ hands; How can P&Z do modifications? 20% is an arbitrary number.
  5. Money in lieu is not intent of school APFs
  6. Does P&Z Board see plans that Council sees? Staff answers yes
  7. How many of 37,000 notification letters reflected substantive changes: (staff answers 7,000).
  8. What is composition of Town Center Review Committee? Why is it a separate body?; Does it overlay at all with P&Z Board?; Why is it needed?
  9. Who is the Development Review Committee (Jeff answers this is composed by staff but he realizes this needs clarification)
  10. For next meeting: Show areas on zoning map of current R10 to R8 and current R30 to R20 and R40, also show Mobile Home (MH) districts and point out ones where owners have brought up the issue.
  11. Add wording to describe benefits on pre application meeting to applicant
  12. Fix flow chart and language on page 33 to clarify that rezonings to PDD require a public hearing as well.
  13. Change all PUD to PDD
  14. Site Plan Flow chart for process needs to show P&Z commented
  15. Formatting at top of page 67 (sentence cut off)
  16. For Vested Rights section- 2 P&Z public hearings? (staff answers NO)
  17. Why is no timing delineated for Pre Application meeting? (staff answers they
  18. Do we feel confident that we have gotten to (notified) all impacted groups? (staff answers yes)
  19. Is 100ft. buffer set in stone; Can it be encroached upon? (staff answers not without a variance)
  20. Were people upset about downzonings? (staff answers generally no)
  21. What was threshold for uses to be classified Industrial versus Office Research and Development?
  22. Was there much concern about R10 to R8 classifications and other upzonings in general?
  23. Are Town Center and Planned Development District considered districts? (Staff answers YES)
  24. What is appeal process for those who have been downzoned? (staff answers they could speak out at public hearing and that comment would then be presented to Council and the P&Z Board)?
  25. Why discrepancy between impervious surface requirements for Swift Creek and Jordan Lake?  (staff answers determined by state).
  26. Is the Mobile Home (MH) district removed?

Overall Topic Areas for Additional Consideration by Chapter
 Chapter 1

None

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4