PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD LDO WORKSESSION
March 11th,
2003
The following board members were in attendance: Paul Broderick,
Carla Sadtler, Christy Perrin, Wally Dawson, Ed Yerha, Don Hyatt and Erv
Portman.
Jeff Ulma opened the meeting by first introducing Assistant
Town Manager Ben Shiver to make a brief presentation on the upcoming Bond
Referendum.
The first topic area covered was Activity Centers and Amendments Related to the
Comprehensive Plan. The following
questions/comments arose:
1. Ensure that
any development plan be considered in accordance with the Activity Center
Concept Plan.
2. Limit petitions for buffer widths
3. Limit petitions on proposed use
types
4. Limit petitions which seek to thwart
the intent/goals of Activity Center
5. Concern about no protest being
allowed for new developments that do not require a new traffic study. Aware that the safety valve is that the
development plan still goes through review process.
6. Concern about incentives to build
out existing Activity Centers. What are
they, would be okay if the concept alone is the incentive, however not okay
with varying buffering, parking standards, densities while having no options
for protest by neighbors. Believe that
these developments are coming in fast enough, why the need to make it easier;
concept alone should be enough, proceed cautiously on this issue
7. For existing and redevelopment
sites, honor existing site conditions (like streetscaping).
8. It is a bad precedent to restrict
protest petitions to just cases with new traffic studies; the flex/general
concept is good
9. Is the Town still trying to maintain
the 60/40 ratio for residential to business?
What will the building out of the Activity Centers do to this mix?
10. How will safe crossing be ensured
for the major intersections and mixing of uses in these Activity Centers?
11. What are the mechanics for removing
one Activity Center in response to adding a new one in
close proximity? Must include
notification measures; add as amendment to comprehensive plan.
12. Consider setting guidelines for
reasonable protest petitions, setting limits, consider underlying/existing
zoning requirements (some members against this).
The next section presented was the Town Center.
The following questions and comments were raised:
1. Can an individual amend the
Comprehensive Plan? (yes)
2. Concern about
granularity/specificity of zoning in Town Center.
More than a concept plan. Is a
Town initiated rezoning issue.
3. Do not throw away option to protect
Champion Trees, as an exception to standards.
4. Concern that road infrastructure will
not be able to handle the amount of people Town Center Area Plan will generate
if assumptions of transit and people living and working in the downtown do not
solidify.
5. Rezoning the downtown to concrete
stipulations is drastic and a big deal, is forcing the change; this is
unacceptable. Why are we doing this if
downtown in its current state works?
6. Suggest tabling this till after the
July 1 deadline, and then address it by looking at specifics and considering
another process.
7. Is the market behind this? Want to see market research that was
done. If market isnt behind this why
are we doing it?
8. Suggest turning Town Center into an overlay, after tabling the
rezoning for now.
9. Can we show that this rezoning
stimulates infill and redevelopment that offsets sprawled development in open
space and greenfields?
10. Majority of members have a concern
about Town Center Review Committee; Erv believes it is not a good practice to
have a Town Planning Board that does not have anything to do with the
downtown of that Town, focuses should be whole; desire for some connectivity
between this body and the current P&Z Board (overlapping members).
11. Why is there an overt action to
force this change in downtown, economy will take care of it.
12. Allow the auto uses to be
conforming, but do not allow any new ones.
13. Concern that we have not heard from
all the affected groups from this rezoning, some may not understand what is
happening to them, may not know how to approach the system
14. Suggestion to allow the Land Use
Plan to prevent new auto uses from coming to the downtown without affecting the
zoning.
15. Incentives for environmental clean
up?
The Conservation Overlay District was presented next and the
following questions and comments arose:
1. Lots with single family houses are
exempt, yet language says anything requiring a grading permit (staff will
remedy).
2. Plan is inherently inequitable;
small lots are affected more, bigger development is discouraged
3. Christie agrees with the mandatory
approach, research shows when the option is voluntary, no matter what the
incentives, developers do not take it
4. Does the Conservation Overlay
district inspire the use of other Conservation Tools?
5. Find out the total amount of acres
that this will preserve (How much open space will we get out of it).
6. Concern about taking of land, in
some cases the 40% of a parcel will be undevelopable.
7. If you have to save a certain
percentage because of resources documented on that property, but there is also
a stream buffer on the property that makes up the entire percentage required to
be saved so that credits first so other resources that originally caused the
parcel to be put in the Conservation Overlay are allowed to be destroyed, isnt
that missing the point? Consider buffer
flexibility of credit in Zone 3.
8. Is this even legal? Is the Conservation Overlay taking?
9. Concern that effort is creating
leapfrog sprawling because of economic differences it creates.
10. Need to revegetate with specifically
what was removed- replace hardwoods with hardwoods, not a pear tree.
11. The taking of land assumption is a
big one because in some cases the result could increase the marketability of a
site
12. Identify valuable parcels for
banking to conserve contiguous forests.
13. Consider fixed percentage across the
board regardless of size to address equity issue.
14. Flexibility in restoration.
The last section of the meeting was LDO chapters 9,10,11,
and 12. A few questions and comments
were raised:
1. 3 years is not enough time to
amortize something.
2. Do not like idea of amortization at
all. Are the items amortized really a
nuisance? 13 owners of pole signs can be
notified so that they will participate in process, but this is not the case for
nuisance lighting, it will stick those people with an unexpected expense.
3. Is there any legal standing giving
nonconforming sexually oriented businesses only 30 vacant days as opposed to
the standard 180?
4. Definition for windblown devices
allows them if they are of non-profit origin.
This is a big loophole.
5. Finish blank and question marked
definitions.
6. Fix day care definitions, religious
assembly definitions, and champion tree definition (to include small but rare
trees).
POWER
POINT PRESENTATION TEXT
·
Activity Center Overlay District
Town Center District
Conservation Overlay District
Chapters 9-12
Summary of Results
Next Meeting Agenda
Note: Staff will present item and
then comments on each major item will be taken.
Activity
Center Overlay District
Purpose: Facilitate development or redevelopment of activity centers as
set forth in the Land Use Plan
Approach:
Existing/partially
developed: Town initiates rezoning and maps centers with new overlay district
New:
Activity centers allowed only through a rezoning to Planned Development
District (PDD) & Activity Center Overlay
Activity Centers:
Existing/Partially Built
Activity Center:
Existing/Partially Built
Activity
Center Overlay District:
Review of Key Concepts
Development must meet guidelines of Land Use Plan
Option to develop under existing zoning available
Previous use/buffer conditions still apply
Allows mixed-use, flexibility of development
Process includes involvement of adjacent owners
Activity
Center Overlay District:
Review of Process
Requires pre-submittal meeting with staff, adjacent owners (100) &
HOAs (1/2 mile)
Requires concept plan for entire quadrant
Focus on addressing design, not on uses
Protest petition by adjacent residents possible in some cases
Concept plan requires full Council review
Public hearing required
Subsequent development plans consistent with approved concept plan for
staff review
Staff may grant minor changes that meet intent of approved concept plan
Amendments Related to the
Comprehensive Plan
in support of the Draft Land
Development Ordinance and Draft Zoning Map
Amendments
are needed for two Comprehensive Plan volumes:
Town-wide Land Use Plan, text only to Chapter 6
(originally
adopted in 1996; map last amended in 2002.)
Town Center Area Plan, map & text
(originally
adopted in 2001)
Goals
of the Plan Revision
Condense & simplify existing text;
Clarify and focus on the vision, intent, & purpose of
ACs;
Allow greater flexibility in the amount and arrangement of uses within
ACs, provided that the vision, intent, purpose are
fulfilled;
Goals
of the Plan Revision
The flexibility provided by the Plan is
balanced with an expectation that:
development
conforms to a set of defining Activity Center elements/ characteristics;
an
appropriately-balanced mix of uses within the AC is achieved (com., ofc., and
hi-density resid.);
Goals
of the Plan Revision
Provide specific guidance for infill and redevelopment parcels in ACs;
Provide comprehensive guidance on the types of uses appropriate within
ACs.
Town
Center District
Objective: To effectively implement the Town Center Area Plan
Approach:
Town-initiated
rezoning of all properties within Town Center Area
New district
with 13 sub-districts to regulate allowable uses/density
Implemented
through development plans
Town Center Area Plan
Amendments
Add map note to clarify timing of proposed northward extension of Hunter St., from Chatham St. to Cedar St.;
Omit the Use Table from text and move it
to the LDO;
Identify future parks on the map with a symbol over the underlying land
use recommendations, for consistency with other plan maps.
Conservation
Overlay District
Purpose
Allow development while preserving significant resources identified in
adopted Open Space and Historic Resources Plan
Conservation
Overlay District
Approach
Place parcels containing significant resources as determined by Plan in
Overlay
Exempt property within approved Planned Developments and existing valid
development plans
Require a preliminary and final resource conservation plan that protects
certain amounts and types of resources
Exempt non-development plan activity
Conservation
Overlay District
Key Concepts
?
Requires minimum resource protection based on the amount of resources.
Original Approach
% of Resources
on Property % of Total Property Protected
75 to 100% 40%
74 to 50% 30%
49 to 25% 25%
24% or Less Percentage equals the
percentage of significant resources on property
Conservation
Overlay District
Key Concepts
Latest Approach
% of Resources
on Property % of Total Property Protected
40 to
100% 40%
39 or
Less Percentage equals
the percentage of significant resources on property
Conservation
Overlay District
Key Concepts (Continued)
Requires protection of prioritized resources
Allows development flexibility to meet overlay requirements (clustering,
reduction in development requirements)
Intent is to get pre-2003 development yields through design flexibility
Allows off-site credit
Allows for restoration on-site when forested area must be disturbed
Provision for discouraging removal of resources prior to an approved
resource conservation plan
Recently Approved PUD: Glenkirk
Ecologically, highest ranking parcel in Open Space Plan
Identified as highly significant resource area because of mature hardwood
forests on north-facing steep slopes
Significant Resources comprise 46.6% of parcel
Recently Approved PUD: Glenkirk
Would equate to 40% requirement under proposed Conservation Overlay
District ordinance
Initial proposal showed required stream buffers but no additional open
space
Stream buffers comprise ~20% of parcel, leaving ~20% (20 acres) to meet
COD requirement
Recently Approved PUD: Glenkirk
Resources concentrated in steep slopes at parcels eastern edge.
Applicant agreed to preserve most of steep slopes that contain the
resource.
Results: nearly 25 acres of protected open space, 31.4% of total tract;
additional protection in lots (not sure if reached 40%)
Recently Approved PUD: Bishops Gate
Would equate to 40% requirement under proposed COD ordinance
Stream buffers comprise 26.7% of total PUD area
Identified as significant resource area because of mixed hardwood forests
and riparian buffers
Recently Approved PUD: Bishops Gate
Applicant set aside additional open space & recreation areas
Results: total open space
preserved is 26.3 acres, or 32% of tract below latest the COD requirement.
Chapter
9: Signs
Summary of Contents
Reformatted 2000 Sign Ordinance
Incorporated new Town Center sign requirements
Minor changes will be made
Chapter
10: Nonconformities
General Provisions
Purpose/Intent
Damage or Destruction
Abandonment
Maintenance & Minor Repairs
Enlargement/Major Repairs
Provides flexibility for re-use and redevelopment of existing developed
sites
Amortization of pole signs & nuisance lighting
Chapter
11: Enforcement
General Provisions