Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

How are you doing? I'm good. How are you doing? My set seat.

Yeah, did you today. Mhm. I'm director. I think maybe wrote some emails, but

I think I was on vacation.

What was it? All right. Next. I got six. One, two, three, four. We five. How many How many do we need? How many? How many do we need for a quorum?

How many do we need for a quarter? Did say she might not be here, but No, I think Jeremiah said he wasn't going to be here. Jeremiah, but I thought Where's our ETJ person? He did say he was not. Okay. Okay. But with four, we're fine anyway. We can get started then. All right.

Good evening. I would like to call to order the September 16th, 2025 town of Harrisburg's planning and zoning board meeting. Welcome everybody here. Anybody on line watching in? So, we have our agenda here before us. We need a motion to adopt the agenda. So moved. Second. Second. All in favor say I. I. I. Oppos? Nay. Okay. Next up on we have special presentations which we do have tonight. We have a UDO update. Mr. Zach's going to I'm going to I'm going to give a

quick introduction.

Okay. Um I think um most of you well maybe some of you were here the last time we had a present Chad was here Chad Meadows from codeight um Chad is joining us virtually this evening and he's going to give you all an update on the update. Um remember that the update is broken into two phases. Phase one is the assessment, what I call the X-ray, and then phase two will be the actual amendments or the surgery. Okay? So, we're just at the X-ray stage. Um the um the process uh that um we've been through and Chad will elaborate on this. Um to this point has uh has been uh thorough. Um we've had input from public sector, private sector, practitioners, staff, um management. We've heard from a lot of different people. Um and at the same time, our consultants are also doing their analysis. So they are um going to give you an overview uh update on where they're at. And um there will be opportunity for questions. and I will turn it over to Chad and let him take it from here. But uh we um we were uh whatever however much time you need, we'll we'll be here for you.

Can't hear them. Pull them up. [Music] Still can't hear.

Chad, is your mic on? It was there a minute ago. Can you guys see me?

We can hear you now. Now we can hear you. Ah, you can hear me? Yes. Just a little bit.

Fantastic. All right. Technology, it's it's wonderful when it works, right? Uh hi everybody. Uh this is Chad. Thank you so much for uh giving me some space in y'all's meeting tonight. Um and thanks to Zach for that introduction. Uh we're going to take I don't know 25 30 minutes, whatever it is that you guys need, uh to go over some of the information that we've received to to date. Um share with you some of our thoughts. uh we've got some discussion items uh things that you guys would like to talk about uh we think and so we want to cover that and then we'll do next steps. So unless you guys have any questions and by the way um I can't see the room so just shout out uh when if you've got a question. Okay I can't see you guys. So uh but I can hear you. So with that I'm going to go ahead and get started.

Hey Chad. Oh yes. A couple of the board members um are having trouble hearing, so we're still trying to work that out. Okay. It's just I'll stand by until you guys give me the all clear.

Can you get any closer to your mic, Chad? Uh yep. That's uh that's as close as I can get. Um let me uh Yeah. All right. And my microphone is is up at full volume. Okay. Can you guys hear me? Yeah. Go ahead. Go ahead. We're good. All the board members can hear. Yes.

Okay. Great. We We actually have been working on this technology a little bit. We've had an opportunity to test this a few times and it's it's gone pretty well so far. So, I'm sure that if there are problems, we'll get that straightened out. So, with that, I'm going to go ahead and get started. Um, let's see here. Okay. Um, so this is a status update from our last visit. You may remember we, Andrew and I were before you guys back on May 20th of this year, and we have uh made some progress since then. So, I'm going to give you some refreshers about the project background. Uh, we'll talk a little bit about some of the stakeholder input that we've received to date. We have some initial recommendations that I'll move through very very quickly because what we would really were really interested in covering with you guys tonight is topic four, the discussion topics. Uh, there's a handful of things there that we are excited to talk with you guys about. And then finally, next steps, where we go from here. So, that'll be the gist of tonight's meeting. As always, if you have questions, just jump in whenever uh and we'll stop and answer those. This is our four task work program. Um this is we're we're involved in task two right now. This presentation is the last part of task two engagement. Uh we'll begin drafting the assessment later this month and we'll be bringing it back to the town for consideration in October or November of this year. Uh and so the as Zach mentioned at the head of the conversation, there's there's two phases here. The first is sort of the assessment phase. We are not making any amendments to the UDO regulations as part of this phase. that will come in phase two likely to happen after October

or November of this year. Now, the code assessment, what is that? It's a list of recommended improvements, a shopping list of changes, um suggestions that we have for improvement. And those improvements will be organized into a series of of key themes. Often we include things like user friendliness uh as a as a theme. We often include procedural efficiency or procedural clarity. And this effort will be no different. We will absolutely be focusing on procedural clarity in addition to a variety of other other topics, other aspects of your current UDO. But our hope is to spend the rest of this month and October uh drafting the code assessment, reviewing that with staff uh and then coming back for code assessment consideration uh with you guys and uh town council yeah in October, November. Uh so that is our kind of trajectory uh on on this part of the project. Questions on that? Okay, I mentioned earlier that we've had an opportunity to speak to some stakeholders and Zach had indicated that yes, in fact, we have spoken to a variety of people. Uh in August, we conducted a series of 11 interviews with various town officials, uh members of the development community, town administration. Uh the purpose of these interviews was to learn more about, you know, their thoughts about what needs to be improved in the current UDO. One of the things we've heard loud and clear from planning and zoning board, from town staff, and from the development community and citizens is that when the UDO was drafted, there was insufficient

opportunity for people to be involved, to be engaged. And so we are um making engagement an important part of this project. And I'll just mention to you that engagement at this phase is probably a little bit more limited simply because we're doing an assessment. This is uh us reviewing what's in your document and making our recommendations. It is important to hear from from you guys uh from residents from from you know the development community but uh we would anticipate additional uh and more robust engagement after some recommendations might be put together. So that's uh that's you know that's kind of where we are. These stakeholder input interviews are designed to give us a quick sense of you know the community's pulse. Where are folks in Harrisburg when we talk about the UDEO? And we got a variety of comments. We organized them into eight topic areas. And so, you know, obviously document clarity, uh, structure, usability, um, you know, the the documents numbering system is is frankly a bit of a challenge. um like material is not organized together. You have to often make your way through the document and look in several different sections. Imagery isn't located with the text that it's associated with. So, some challenges there uh in terms of structure and usability. We've had a lot of conversations about the development approval process. Uh, and one of the things that I've said up to this point is, you know, Harrisburg has a reputation uh, for being a place that gets highquality development and has is

a community with a development review process that's not easy. And obviously that's done for a reason. Your staff and administration are operating in good faith and their pursuit is the highest and best quality development for Harrisburg that you can possibly get. and that's laudable. Um, at the same time, the development community has given Harrisburg uh a reputation of being a difficult place to work. There are uh a handful of folks who have mentioned to us that development standards that are suggested during the preliminary review process uh might differ in the actual text from what's being uh expressed by staff. staff might be encouraging developers to go above and beyond what's codified um you know with the knowledge that it's necessary to do so in order to secure an approval. However, uh that can be a little jarring for uh for a developer who's being asked to um you know follow additional requirements or include additional aspects that aren't codified. uh that can be a little little jarring for folks and that's something that takes place again not in bad faith but is part of the part of the lore part of the tradition of Harrisburg that that you know merits some discussion that said lot of respect for the staff lot of respect for planning and zoning board uh the knowledge that you guys have uh your ability to secure uh positive development absolutely is respected and people you know understand that they're great resources available for them in Harrisburg. A lot of conver comments, conversations about design standards and aesthetics, how important those things are. um and making sure that the the design provisions that the UDO incorporates are

achieving, you know, the the community's goals that we are in alignment in terms of community character, uh the development template that's desired and the standards that that are being enforced. A lot of discussion about sustainability and environmental standards. people in Harrisburg are committed to, you know, having a beautiful community that is environmentally sensitive, uh, that is welldesigned, that is sustainable, and you have some sustainability provisions to those ends. How might we improve those standards for clarity, for flexibility? How might we take the next step and and incorporate some incentives, some win-wins that might allow applicants to go above and beyond the minimum standards or give them reasons to do so. Uh is definitely a frontier issue for us to explore. tree preservation, landscaping. You know, the community is is is very desirous of of continuing its tradition of lush landscaping, being well landscaped and beautiful place to drive through, walk through, uh, etc. We also understand, you know, that the town has a desire to be a tree city and, you know, all of the trappings that that come with that protection of trees on public property. Uh perhaps further exploration of of current tree protection provisions, and we're actually going to talk a little bit more about that tonight. uh transportation standards and processes, being sure or clear that we've got continuity uh as staff members change. Making sure that our standards are giving us the the kind of development that we want, that we're getting transportation impact analysis and assessment that is is bringing um you know, traffic improvements to the community to protect safety. Finally, residential development and housing

density was uh a a perennial topic uh and was discussed at most meetings and it brought to light for Andrew and I uh some questions about whether or not or the degree of alignment I'll say between some of the current land use policies for types of development and and development density intensity and resident sentiment and whether or not there's there's good solid alignment between what the residents of Harrisburg are looking for and what the current long range plan long range land use policy is calling for. So, we understand that that process is ongoing, that the town is in in the in the process of updating, you know, the the policy guidance and we would expect to see some adjustments um in whatever direction is appropriate based on on that project. But we have noticed that you know it it seems that uh many applicants are pursuing residential developments incorporating what they feel to be significant amounts of amenities um including or or agreeing to follow a wide range of inducements identified during the preliminary stages of the development process. process only to come before um you know, town council and and be denied based on um you know, citizen input about you know, public facility capacity or traffic or you know utility capacity. So definitely need to check in with our policy guidance and what our standards are resulting in uh as we go forward. So that's a quick

summary of of the flavor of some of the the discussion that we've had with stakeholders up to this point. Um this information is a guide for us. It it's not a definitive guide. It's intended to help us understand where the problem areas are, where we need to be focusing our attention, but it we don't see these the stakeholder input as, you know, the definitive word for Harrisburg or how the majority or the plurality of people who live in town feel. Uh it's mostly just a a check-in to see what issues are relevant. And we've accomplished that. Uh and it's given us a flavor of of the things that we need to be looking at. Now I mentioned a second ago that engagement is really important. Um before before I go on to the next sort of piece of engagement I'll stop and ask are there any questions about the the stakeholder interviews that we conducted in August or the information that I've shared about them to this point?

Yeah. Who are the 13 people were these people and an additional is it on the next page who the 13 people are. So, some of the people are listed on on this page. This page, the page on your screen is a portion of the 14page report. There were 13 people that we interviewed and that included a variety of planning staff members. Uh we spoke to members of the development community. We spoke to members of this body, the board of adjustment. We spoke to elected officials. And these people were identified by the town uh as people who were knowledgeable about the current UDO and the current development process.

So who are the other five people?

Give me one second and I will answer that question. Okay. So, the other five people include Ian Patrick, member of town council, Matt Mandal, uh, director of landscape architecture at ESP, TK Hamid, Morrisburg architects, Laura Reed, Kimley Horn, and Nick Bushon of DRG Associates. So, those are more members of the development community. So ESP Morrisburg and I didn't catch that last one.

Kimley Horn and DRG Associates. And Kimley Horn is is y'all's contract engineer who reviews and assists your staff with transportation impact analysis review as part of development applications. So um out of the 13, how many were developers and builders? Let's see. There are one, two, three, four, five, six. So, I mean that bothers me. That bothers me a lot.

That almost half of the stakeholders are developers or builders. I have a problem with that. I would agree.

Okay. The reason that we speak to developers and builders is that they are knowledgeable about the aspects and dimensions of the current regulations and the current procedure. Um it's pretty common for us to talk to them. um we understand the importance of speaking to the public and we have tried to uh to reach out to the public. I'll talk about that uh in a minute. Um and I will mention to you that generally speaking uh public meetings with members of the public aren't well attended when it comes to unified development ordinance updates or assessment projects. We wish they were, but they're not. And one of the main reasons for that is that this I'm sorry.

I didn't I didn't see anything for public engagement for this. They didn't do one, right? But he's saying they did. Oh, I wasn't aware of they either.

So, um, couple of things. One, um, we're following a contract that was, uh, approved by the town. Two, we counseledled staff on the kinds of folks that we, you know, typically interview. The decisions about which stakeholders would be interviewed were made by staff. We do anticipate uh additional discussions as this process goes forward. We did conduct a series of two webinars. I'll talk about those now. Um it sounds like this issue of public engagement is one that's very important to you guys and that's that's good. Uh and we agree. Um we did conduct webinars for the public on September 3rd and September 11th at different times of day. We had a total of about 10 people attend those webinars and that information or those recordings are available on the town's YouTube site and hopefully the town will will highlight that on its web page and point residents to those opportunities uh to to view those tapes uh and to share comments and questions. Uh at the time staff indicated to everyone watching whether they were live or or on the you know watching the recording afterwards that they had an opportunity to to reach out to town staff, ask questions, uh make statements, uh share information. Um one of the questions that came up during the interviews was one that you raised. What are the stakeholder qualifications and how were they identified? And I mentioned to you that we use stakeholders who uh are familiar with the development review process and the development code because they have

an understanding of of where the problem areas are. Um there was a comment about support for current greenway requirements as well as fee and loopho open space and to be sure that we continued uh to make sure that those kinds of requirements were carried forward in the new uh unified development ordinance regulations when those were adopted. And there's concern expressed over um you know what what was characterized as as an excessive amount of administrative decisionm on applications that um if we went too far in favor of of administrative decision-m in other words staff decided applications that that could potentially lower the bar for development quality um you know in Harrisburg. So that that was the input that that we've received. Um and you know we do anticipate additional meetings, additional opportunities for uh people to get involved, share their views. Um but this is very much an assessment. This is not the revision the the revision part of the process. Um, and the amount of uh of contact that that's taken place is pretty consistent with with these kinds of projects. Any other comments or questions about this?

Yeah, I guess I would just like like it stated that I hope that those developers or builders don't have any more sway because there's more of them or that they, you know, are not the ones that we're looking to for main guidance. So, Just sure that noted.

Absolutely. Um I I will you know I can't speak for those developers. Uh I can tell you that to a person they shared with us um the difficulty of of obtaining approvals in Harrisburg. um the the the advocacy on the part of town staff and town administration on uh in pursuit of highquality development um and the commitment that exists to make sure that new growth and development is is the best possible. Um and so that was you know that that stance or that perspective was shared uh through all of the people that we spoke with. Um and and so I I say that to just point to the fact that town staff, the administration, um the elected officials, I think do take to heart and and care about development quality, design quality, and are really trying to get, you know, the best development that they possibly can. I don't see that commitment changing. Um and I hope that, you know, adjustments that ultimately get made to the UDO, uh are reflective of that. One more thing I want to mention to you. Um just just just so you know codeight is on board to do phase one to do the assessment of this work. Um the the the revisions to the UDO, the drafting of the UDEO. That might be a different firm. It might be town staff. It might be codeight. I don't know the answer to that question. But we've been asked to come in and give our thoughts and perspectives about what should be improved or how to make the document more clear, more predictable, easier to use and and easier uh outcome uh for you know the qu the kind of quality that the

town wants. And and that's kind of our role here. Um, and you know the we we have tried to reach out to uh to folks if if if you guys think or feel that there's a way for us to reach out to the public and get their comments about how we need to improve the existing development re you know development ordinance or the development review process. Um be great to hear your thoughts about that. I am also a little disappointed that we didn't have as much public input. In hindsight, I do remember receiving the emails about the two webinars. I did not attend them.

I did not see much push on social media about it. I I didn't I saw limited in um advertisement on on these particular webinars as well. I did not attend because I got the notice late. I was busy. I mean, if the it just wasn't well I don't feel well advertised. You're right. I think social media would have been a great email. It was Yeah, we just got an email. I don't remember seeing it on the Harrisburg forum or But I do remember you saying in May um Chad that like you know when we have when we're revising our comprehensive plan like that's where we really need to like ramp up public engagement because that's more like this you're right like this is

you know it's the UDO it's not It's not fun. It's not like people are not going to be as engaged. Um, so I do recall this conversation that we had prior. Uh, I and I I don't know that I'm so much concerned with the lack of of public engagement with this. I think I'm just more concerned that the stakeholders that the majority of the stakeholders were developers or builders, right? Like I don't know that and I could you know I have an open mind but I don't know that it's a problem for me that builders or developers find it difficult to get approval here. Like that's not

in my opinion that's not necessarily a bad thing. Um I do think obviously it does we do need to revamp it. So we I'm fine with have I think it's great to have input but to have the majority of the stakeholders be developer builders that was just where I'm um you know have a concern about um sure but I think we can you know move forward you've explained it very well in my opinion and okay I I do encourage you if you haven't had a chance to watch the webinars um check it out see what you think um it it's

they're about an hour or so in length, which it, you know, to be fair is a lot to talk about when it comes to, you know, development regulations. Um, what we've found over our years is that people are very, very interested in the development regulations that affect their property, right,

or that affect their neighbors property, not so much on the other side of town. Um and it's very difficult to to get people motivated to participate in those kinds of discussions. Um because the subject matter is a little technical. Um it is a little dry and uh and and we understand that and you know that's perhaps one of the reasons why we we often utilize development community members or or or design professionals or whatever because it's their livelihood and and you know we can we can get them to participate. Um we we try hard to to get residents to participate and you know we did get 10 people which is great. Um, we always want more. Uh, to be honest with you, I haven't done a code project in the last 15 years that had uh a quote unquote sufficient amount of public participation, at least as far as the town or the county felt, um, as much as we would love for people to be interested in this material, just aren't.

And, you know, we we try to we try to break it down. We try to make it interesting. We try to to help people understand the relevance. Um, and you know, frankly, that's why we do the webinars and why we record stuff so that people can kind of participate with this when it's convenient for them in doses that that are are suitable for, you know, for their interest level and in ways that, you know, they can kind of control how how the how the input process works and how they share their thoughts. Um, it's it's it's not a big public meeting for sure. uh but it does give people a chance to kind of consume this material on their own on their own terms uh and then share if they if they feel compelled to. So I I do appreciate your concern and your comment about it. Um, and you know, we I have notes about that and you know, how how we navigate the balance of the project because I do agree with you that it's important for people to know about this and if you've got a comment um the ability to share that with us.

I was one of the 10 that attended those sessions. Yes, it was there and I will also wasn't a sexy meeting and it's not that the general public's going to get interested in at all. I I do say I will say though that I do I can appreciate the fact that I I do think it's important to have the people who use the UDO as part of their job and on a daily basis are part of this part of the assessment process because they're the ones that live and breathe it. You know, I don't know that I really need my nosy neighbor having input on this part because they don't even understand what it means. So I can appreciate having developers and architects and folks who actually have to read through this process and run through how it works to make it happen at this phase because this is just the assessment phase. I do feel when we're going to get good public involvement is when we have recommendations.

When they can have something to read and see and understand say these are the changes we are we are proposing and let's get your input on those changes. that's when we're going to get the public input and and that there would be opportunity to address those changes or and fix and and maybe not always say you said this let's check let's go with that so I understand and I think perhaps you know this is the assessment phase he's already said it right now we're just gathering information and looking at some some opportunities phase two is where I feel like we're going to get a lot of public involvement um especially when it gets to the point and I would hope that we would have publicized recommend the changes and people were really brought a hold of that.

Yeah. I just guess I just don't want the recommendations to be, you know, leaning towards builder development. So that's that's where I'm hesitant. So I had I'm pretty confident the town staff or the contractor they use to write are not going to be sitting down with the developer say, "All right, let's work this thing out." I I can assure you that will not Don't keep your enemies close. You know, you need to work with the people that and they No, for sure. I agree. But you know, you have to consider the consistency, too. The biggest thing for the town is to avoid litigation.

So, we need to tighten up where those potentials are there. And you have to hear where people aren't satisfied on the development side of the community because if you're going to get sued, that's where you're going to get sued from. And especially if if in the current UDO we perhaps are not maybe expecting things that aren't written and that's when we can be held liable. So that's important to understand what that looks like and developers and those folks who read through that every day are the ones who can shine the light of that process. Good. Great. Right. Okay. I'm not a developer. I got no skin in that.

I I I'll say this. you uh Harrisburg is in a is is in a wonderful position. It's a very desirable community and you have a very strong market and those things are very much in your favor uh and and will allow you to go further with your development regulations than could a community who didn't have who didn't enjoy those attributes who didn't have strong demand. So in that in that regard you are in the so-called fabled catbird seat if you will. um you you have opportunities that other places don't have. Uh you have a town staff who is very interested in capitalizing on those opportunities. Uh and our job is to make sure that that can happen in ways that don't create unnecessary legal exposure for you.

Okay. Okay. Great.

Okay. Let's talk about recommendations um before we get into the develop the the the topics themselves. And I'm going to go through these very very quickly. Um, based on the the the discussions that we've had up to this point with with you guys, with the stakeholders, with town staff, um, etc. Uh, our initial kind of set of recommendations falls into three different baskets. Um, structure and formatting, procedures, and substantive change. And again, I'm going to go through this stuff really fast because I want to get to the discussion topics, the things that were highlighted as topics that planning and zoning board really wanted to talk about. Uh, but I do want to share this information with you so that you know uh where our heads are. Um, self-codifying uh your regulation instead of using a third party vendor. focusing on what people use and what people need instead of a lot of the bells and whistles that are available in the current platform that you spend money on that that people don't take advantage of. Making sure that people have access to a digital version of the document that's very robust even when you don't have internet access. Um changing the structure so that it's more intuitive. Uh put the like material together. be sure that purpose and intent is well explained. Um, fixing your code's numbering system, which is one of the most confusing I've ever seen in my in my career. Um, making it easier to get around the document, better navigation, more robust cross referencing that works but not excessive. And then finally, just making sure that graphics are consistent with the text and proximate to the applicable text that they apply to. So, just kind of tightening up, making it easier to use, um, a little bit more streamlined,

and probably some more illustrations than exist today. Okay, so those are your kind of structure formatting, initial recommendations. There'll be more, but this is kind of our our first blush at it. procedures, um, codified minimum standards, avoiding the need for excessive interpretation by staff. You want a code that says what it means and means what it says. Um, it's you do need a process that allows negotiation. Uh, you do have to accommodate interpretation. Interpretation should not be your first line of defense or your go-to for every single application that comes into the office. Um so establishing some some clear minimum expectations for development quality for design quality. Um establishing those those minimum expectations but then also creating incentives or ability for applicants to come in and do better voluntarily uh and giving them reasons to do better voluntarily. And I'm not suggesting that the floor be set low that we lower our expectations or have allow you know what everybody would consider quote bad development. Uh but rather we we we say what we're looking for. We make that very clear and we create a path for somebody to to do even better than that and give them a reason to do it. Um consider some pre-approved building site design work. uh some things that are already consensed upon in the community in terms of what we're looking for uh and allow staff to to make those decisions. The idea is let's spend time figure out what we want. It doesn't have to be a gimme. It doesn't have to be a giveaway. It can and should be uh a high bar. Let's be very clear

about what that bar is and then when somebody brings us that, let let it go forward. Um, don't put obstacles in front of it because they're giving you what you said you wanted. Simplify the process for conditional reasonings. Generally, um, these are are powerful tools. Um, and to the extent that you can use them well, uh, you can stay out of court and get very high quality development. Um, those are your procedural suggestions. We'll cover more of that in a moment. Substantive changes. Again, these are the the the nuts and bolts, the meat and potatoes of the ordinance, the the standards, the requirements. Um, again, like before, state those clearly. Uh, and you know, put the standards in the code so the applicant knows what's going to be expected of them. Yes, staff is a resource. Yes, staff should be available. Yes, an applicant should come in and talk to staff, but an applicant shouldn't depend on staff to tell them what the code says because it's too hard to figure out. Be sure that all of your your standards are consistent with state and federal law. That is not the case right now. Um there are a variety of areas of your current regulation that need to be updated. To be fair, some of those updates are necessary because of state law that's changed since this document was adopted. So, you can't point to all of these these aspects and say, gosh, they should have known. Um, there have been changes since the document was adopted. And, you know, these UDOs's, they're living documents. The general assembly is going to continue to change planning law every year and local governments are uh are going to have to be making sure that their regulations are updated frequently. Um again, all your uh requirements codified. Um that's

that's some basic basic best practice. lean into your high-quality suburban design uh where that's appropriate instead of uh attempting to superimpose uh an urban development template uh in in air in all areas of town. This was um a a an underlying issue that we heard. Uh a lot of questions from applicants about very urban standards and and development applications that were prepared uh to serve up a very urban development template that ended up falling flat um in front of the elected officials over concern of resident sentiment about it. So definitely more stuff to talk about in in that regard. Sign regulations need an overhaul. Um the the Supreme Court of the United States made some rulings a few years ago that are are are complex and difficult to live with and we need some further adjustment in that regard in Harrisburg. The parking standards are a little complicated. um a lot of a lot of suggestions for reviewing overhauling your sustainability provisions and tree protection and we'll talk a little bit more about that tonight. Uh and then finally addressing appearance of single family development from off-site roadways. Uh a lot of people experience Harrisburg um not just on foot but also uh driving driving through the community uh and making sure that that experience is as good as as walking. So those are our substantive sort of change recommendations. Again, there'll be more of this, but just wanted to give you the flavor of some of the things that have bubbled up up to this point. Um, does anybody have any questions about this?

No. No. No, I think I'm okay. No.

Okay. All right. Um, again, this is very preliminary. You know, the code assessment will go into much more detail of about these recommendations and many others, but for now, uh, I'd like to move into the discussion topics portion. Um, and so we have four topical areas, um, that were identified as as topics that planning and zoning board would like to talk about. And I'm going to in many ways defer to you guys. Um, you're the experts more so than I am at this point on what your current regulations say and do and and what you would like to change. That said, I wanted to give you kind of our highlevel uh view, our, you know, our elevator speech version of of what we picked up in looking at tree protection, sustainability, street connectivity, and your other procedures. Uh, and give you some suggestions or things to think about as we go forward as part of a discussion um in pursuit of y'all's ideas. Okay? So, I thought we would go through each of these one by one if that sounds acceptable to you.

Yeah. Mhm. Yep.

Okay. All right. And there's a lot of words on these slides and I apologize. This is a great example of how this is this stuff is not exactly edge of the seat material can be very technical uh but but very important. So, tree protection. Okay. Um this is section 14104 tree protection standards and ultimately what these standards do um is describe the requirements for prot protecting existing heritage trees and quote significant vegetation. Unfortunately it doesn't really clarify what significant vegetation is or what has to be protected. Now, the UDO does currently allow vegetation that exists to be used for required landscaping, uh, but it stops short of encouraging existing vegetation to be used. And there's not really any incentives for existing trees to be retained. And let me give you a sense of of what an incentive might look like. Um, some communities give you uh double the the the caliber inch credit or the basil area credit that exists for existing trees if you keep those existing trees in the in the perimeter buffers or the streetscape buffers or or on the site. And you know that practice helps limit mass grading. Uh it helps encourage development being located away from streets and being well screened. Uh it saves and protects, you know, natural environments, the ecological landscape and it helps with storm water, etc., etc., etc. um just that basic incentive to to not

just get credit for what I kept but to have an incentive to to keep more because it's less expensive uh than it is to cut it down or I get some other benefit that you know compensates for the cost of of keeping those trees. Um you do have in your sustainability points um your sustainability system does include uh a parameter for retention of 20% of existing trees over a a threshold size 8 in in in diameter at breast height. You get 1.25 sustainability points which to be fair is a pretty good point amount given some of the other sustainability points that you have there. So you guys are trying to walk the talk, but um if you choose not to use the sustainability uh provision, then you know there's there's not really any sort of incentive uh to to save those trees. Um the heritage tree definition relies on outside documents uh which can be a little confusing. Um, if if a tree meets the standard under a state or a national document, then okay, we consider it a a heritage tree. Or if it reaches 80% of that state or national standard, it's considered a heritage tree. Um, a lot of communities simply identify a a a size, uh, a species and a size and and use that for the sake of simplicity so that people can understand what trees are expected. The current UDO does have limits on clear cutting. Um, there's a three-year delay if you clear cut, but um, there's some procedural stuff missing. A lot of places have a tree removal permit

requirement that's in place if you want to timber your property outside of the development review process. And it's the failure to obtain that tree removal permit that triggers these kinds of delays on subsequent approvals. And I'll mention to you that 3 years uh is in the statutes. There's also a five-year delay uh that you guys don't have in your current regulation that you might avail yourselves of uh under some different standards. Also, you've got an exemption for forestry from clear cutting, but you do not have uh the exemption for agriculture uh which is also mandated in the statutes. So, little bit of adjustments needed on your clear cutting stuff. Um, you you do require tree preservation for conditional zoning. Uh, and that's good. Um, it looks like you you're trying to require it for site plans, and that's good. Uh, this should also be required for subdivisions, and it sort of looks like the standards attempt to do that, but it's not as clear as it could be as it should be. Any residential subdivision that comes forward in Harrisburg should have a tree requirement associated with it. And that tree safe area should not be permitted to be inside buildable lots um and and should be credited towards open space standards and should be credited towards landscaping requirements. Um should be built in to to your provision. So lastly, I'll mention the heritage tree requirements appear to be pli applied to development of a single platted single family detached home lot. Um, I would suggest that's a difficult thing to enforce. Um, and would suggest that, you know, the tree preservation standard, whether it's a heritage tree or a tree

retention requirement in general, be applied at subdivision phase. Uh, but perhaps consider some adjustments so that you're not chasing individual single family homeowners who might be trying to take a tree down on their property. um that can be uh difficult to to enforce. So that is our you know kind of 30,000 ft um you know expectation uh or or observation on your current standards. I've got some stuff on the screen about some other points or thoughts that we've had. Um, you've got some mitigation requirements for heritage tree removals in the city center that are simply too difficult to achieve. Um, the requirement is that you put back double the amount of tree that you remove. There's inadequate space for that in the city center. Um, you can locate offsite, which is great. Um, there are also uh fee and loo alternatives, tree banking, off-site placements, etc. Um, but you know the the the mechanics of the heritage tree mitigation, at least in city center, I'm sorry, outside of city center is too is is just too difficult to achieve. Um, and and needs some uh needs some adjustment. When somebody has to cut a heritage tree down, uh there's some requirements that that tree be kept alive. Uh but the the standards stop short of a very clear performance guarantee regimen. um where a a performance guarantee, a bond, a letter of credit, cash, something is posted by the person who cuts that tree down that keeps funds available for the town to use if they fail uh at the mitigation, whether they fail to put the trees in

the first place or the trees die or whatever. um these performance guarantees that money helps make sure that those trees uh are put back if something bad should happen. So there's some kind of things that we're suggesting. Uh I've talked about accelerated credit uh you know for towards landscaping. Um you should be requiring tree retention as part of open space for subdivisions. We need to enhance your clear cutting permit and limitations. Um, and you might s you you if if if Harrisburg truly wants to save trees above and beyond heritage trees, then I would suggest um some exploration of retention requirements or even reforestation after development as as an alternative. So, I'll stop talking and and hear from you guys about your thoughts about the tree protection standards. Um, and and what what you think we should be doing.

This is all you, Bill. I was giving everybody else a chance. Chad, you're heading in the right direction. I like what you said. I think that's good. Um I think we also need to capture the soil space in this too. We're talking trees and remember we need to think about root protection zones too when you know

in our in our calculations that's a lot of times that's where the trees go bye-by oh yeah we give you the tree yeah but you didn't give us the soil space that tree needs to survive if you're going to try to keep a heritage tree in place. I do agree with just picking a number for a size diameter, trunk diameter. Um, bonding would be great. I think you should be bonding the trees and all the landscaping. You know, think outside of the box on that, too. And requiring a certain percentage of the open space to remain undisturbed. Again, you're capturing the soil and the trees with that, you know, at least 50% of it, maybe more up to 75% of the required open space.

Reserve the tree. That might be a big ask right now, but something starting somewhere. Even 50% of the required that's that's not many acres for, you know, our required open space. So, yeah, I like it. It's all when I start seeing the text and nuts and bolts of how it's going to be achieved, that's when sure more comments. But thank you. Absolutely. Absolutely.

We we do a lot of work with tree protection. Uh it is one of the most um divisive issues in communities, if you can believe that. Um and you probably can. Um it it's a difficult issue. Uh, and it's one that we we've had a lot of practice on and we have a lot of strategies that we can kind of help you guys think through and navigate and and settle on an approach that that makes sense for you. The the key watchwords are integration of the tree protection provisions so that they fit seamlessly with your landscaping requirements, your open space requirements, and your development review procedures. They really need to be integrated with those elements so that tree protection is thought of as part of the site development just like you might think of water or sewer or a driveway or electricity and

right kind of integrating that into the thought process. Really, really important.

Other comments on tree protection? Think we're good on our end. looks like.

Okay, let's talk about sustainability. Um, so my first so this is a a a body of planning theory um that is still in its evolution. Um I have had the pleasure of drafting sustainability provisions for development codes here in North Carolina for the last 10 years or so and we've really come a long long way. Uh and and we're still evolving. And if you think that we've got all of the the questions answered and the things settled and on on how this stuff works, that would be a misperception. Uh tree protection, got a pretty good handle on that. Sustainability, yeah, we're still we're still kicking tires. We're still teething uh on on these provisions. That said, uh we have looked at y'all's stuff. This is 1410201N sustainability requirements. Uh and it's found in your building design provisions. Okay. Um and the first comment I'll make is they feel very buried. Uh it it's you really have to be deep into the guts of the building design provisions to even realize that there are sustainability requirements that you've got to meet. Um, so we would want that to be its own section. We want to bring that more front and center uh and make people aware that sustainability that's important. You need to be thinking about that in Harrisburg. Now, your current sustainability provisions read like they're mandatory. All development, redevelopment, substantial improvement, everybody's got to comply with this. Well, no, actually, uh, the sustainability

provisions, uh, aren't applied to quote smaller development. Uh, subdivisions of less than 10 units, uh, non-residential development of less than 10,000 square ft, they don't they don't have to comply with with any of these provisions. Um, I don't know that I have a terrible feeling about that as far as residential goes. that 10,000 square foot exemption for non-residential, that one gives me pause. Um I I think if you guys are going to have mandatory standards, you should really consider lowering those thresholds. uh at least for non-residential and mixeduse development, those feel um a little high to me and I think that you could probably benefit from picking up some of the smaller sites um that that you know could come through. Um I'll also float out a radical idea for you guys, which is maybe we consider a blend. Maybe there's some mandatory standards and some incentives. And and here's my challenge to you. If there are sustainability provisions in your current UDO that the town thinks are important, then why aren't they standards? Shouldn't they be standards? How can we encourage applicants to go the extra mile and put in these kinds of provisions uh and make the world a better place and give them a reason to do it? If the town felt like it was super important for people to preserve trees or or use renewable energy, make that a standard. don't make it uh a point-based uh means uh of of of getting an approval where an applicant can can opt out if they so chose by by selecting another

alternative. So, some soularching about which of these maybe should be mandatory and should we pick them up and and make them standards uh and and consider utilization of the sustainability provisions as incentives. And I'm not saying give it away. Oh, no. um include sustainability provisions that are um expensive uh that are meaningful that will move the needle uh but then also you know create some reasons to have that stuff and so a couple of things that I noticed um in in the current standards it's this issue of value mismatch and it's one of the things that plagues these sustainability kinds of provisions A lot of this stuff is really really expensive to do. Um, and we don't have a lot of great data from anybody on exactly how expensive it is to to install initially or to maintain over time. But we do know structured parking is one of the most expensive things that ever gets built. Uh, and that's why we only see it in areas that have the highest uh, land values. Now, in Harrisburg, I get one point for structured parking. Uh, for a development that might require two points or three points. Um, I've I I put in structured parking. That's every bit of half if not more of my investment. Um, and the and the sustainable development uh point that I get isn't commensurate with that. So, let's talk about that and and and you know, consider should should we be tweaking that? I'll note there's some city center. You get points if you develop in the city center. Well, that's cool if you own property in the city center. What if you

don't? Well, you don't get any points. That doesn't feel fair. Um maybe I tried to buy land in city center and I couldn't. nobody was selling, so I I don't get to use those points. That's something to think about. Um, there are some provisions in the sustainability standards that grant you uh or or that set down the parameters for for this is what sustainability means to us. So, one of those is exceeding the connectivity index. And we'll talk more about the street connectivity index in a minute, but if you exceed it, then you get points. Okay, that's cool. Um, how do you exceed it? Well, I don't know. That's not as clear. The alternative energy generated offsite, you get points if you use alternative energy from offsite. How are you guys going to track that? How how will you keep up with that over time? Um, the buffer classification, if you increase the buffer classification, you get some some points for that. Is that every buffer? Uh only certain buffers, which ones? Um that's not entirely clear. So being more thoughtful about what exactly are the the sustainability features that we want to include uh and being very clear about what exactly those are, how exactly they're going to be determined, and how exactly they're going to be proved. Um, and I really do encourage you guys for to to think about standards that we can administer and apply during the development review process, not standards that are going to require the town to have to go back every year and make sure, oh gosh, is is is Chad still buying energy from the solar farm? Uh, you know, is he is the rainwater harvesting stuff that he put

on the building still functional? Is he still using graywater? Um try to find sustainability provisions or aspects that we can uh review uh and accept or not accept at the time of the the application itself rather than ongoing um maintenance or ongoing enforcement. So those are um some some quick thoughts uh about this stuff. I I I commend you guys for having mandatory standards. There's not a lot of local governments that do that in North Carolina. Uh it's very cutting edge. A lot of people use incentives. The incentives are not well taken advantage of. My guess is that the mandatory requirements haven't worked that well for you guys. Uh, and I think that you could explore some incentives, a broader array of options, given points for things like better single family design or provision of affordable housing units or use of green storm water infrastructure. Uh, and making these things more scalable so that I have different different levels. uh I can give you 30 affordable units or I can give you 50 affordable units or I can give you 100 affordable units and the amount of points or the the schedule of of of things that I can take advantage of grows commensurate with this with the scale or the the the breadth of the sustainability piece that I'm including. Um and so those are those are some of our initial thoughts on the sustainability stuff. I don't know if you guys have any reactions to that. Our sustainability guru isn't here.

Yeah. Understood. Understood. I'll just say I like where you're going with it. Um it definitely seems to be a lack of consistency to your point in a lot of this. So um there definitely it's more work that needs to probably be done here. But um I I definitely agree with some of your recommendations that you've listed. Good.

Well, we we'll continue the discussion. Um, and you know, just continue to try to make, you know, make this stuff be functional and effective. Um, and I really do encourage you guys if there's stuff in your current sustainability standards that you think needs to be a standard, make it a standard. Go ahead, you know, um, and and use these sustainability things as incentives. Um, that that's perfectly legitimate and you're probably more likely to to actually get some of this stuff. um if there's a an a an an upside to doing so, you maybe won't get as much push back um and you might actually get better quality development. So, okay. Um if there's no other questions on sustainability, I I will move on to the next topic. Okay. Street connectivity. This is section 14203. Um street network and design. So, Harrisburg has a street connectivity index and a minimum number of access points for major subdivisions. Um, and those are two basic elements that modern development codes incorporate into their street network provisions. Uh, and they're good things to have. I'm a big big fan of both of those sets of provisions. Um, the connectivity index is a is a measure of connection. Um, it's a way to to quantify how easy is it for a person to move around this neighborhood or from this neighborhood to other places. Um, and your connectivity index values at this point range from 0.0, zero. We'll talk more about that in a minute. Up to 1.5. Okay. Now, I'll mention to you in case

you knew this or you didn't know this. Um, and if you did, I apologize. Um, a city street, an orthagonal grid street network that you would find in a in a in a you know, 1930s community. Uh, you know, square blocks and all the streets are connected. Um, a perfect street connectivity index score is 2.0. 0. Okay. And a 2.0 score is that, you know, grid iron neighborhood where there's square blocks and all the streets are connected to one another. That's perfect connectivity and that's an index value of two. Um, your code sets down two um connectivity index scores that are relevant, 1.4 and 1.5. And they're applied um in in some interesting ways. I I'll come back to in a minute. Um, let me talk about your points of access for a second. So, the other thing that kind of goes along with this, you've got the street connectivity index, which is how well connected are the streets. Do we have a lot of, you know, culde-sacs or deadend streets? We don't like those. They interfere with the ability of transportation to to function properly. They make it hard for us to move around. They cause traffic backups and suburban gridlock, and it's bad. Another aspect is the kind of minimum number of access points to a subdivision. How many ways in and out are there? That goes handinand with the street connectivity goal of reducing traffic and distributing trips evenly over space. It also is really important for public safety. Right? If we have a storm or some kind of inclement weather or a fire or whatever and you know you there's one way in and out of the neighborhood and that way gets blocked, that's a bad setup. And so how do we be sure that that doesn't happen? By having

multiple points of ingress and egress out of a development and you guys have those standards and that's important. So you've got some of the the basic parameters of an effective kind of street network standard. There are some adjustments or improvements, you know, that that could be made. So for example, um your street connectivity index is applied by development type, not district. And so that's conservation. Um you have one development type that I'm not sure what it is. It's called countryside. Um, I'm not sure what countryside is. I may have missed that in your other other parts of your UDO, but you know, most places apply the connectivity index standard by zoning district, not by development type. Um, and it's assumed that any development in that particular zoning district is going to meet the minimum street connectivity standard that's established for that district. Now, how you get to these indexes is you divide the number of street segments by the number of street intersections. It's a very simple equation, but it often requires some examples. Um, and actually in your ordinance having you guys have a couple pictures and that's great and that's cool. You don't explain the difference between you know what is what is a segment or what is an intersection or what is a link in a node. Um, and that needs to be explained and you need to show the math so that people can calculate this on their own. U that's a really important part of this. So having a well- definfined equation, um you you do have the minimum access points to major subdivisions, that's cool. What's not clear is whether or not

those minimum access points also apply to nonresidential subdivisions. Typically, the access point standards for non-residential are based on square footage, not on unit counts, not on number of lots. So, if you decide that you want to apply these minimum access points to non-residential or mixeduse development, then we would suggest and can help you with standards that are also applied for building square footage in non-residential contexts. Street stubs vital, right? That's how you build out your street network. When somebody comes along and builds, you ask them to put street stubs to their lot lines. That's very important. How and where that's done needs to be codified. Often we see standards that say, "Look, we need you to run a street stub to every piece of vacant property to each cardinal compass point that abuts your property uh where the adjoining land is vacant, unless there's a stream crossing or some kind of diff difficult topography uh or the land is already developed. If it's if it's vacant land, we'd like to see a street stub run to that lot line. And it doesn't stop there. You also have to include provisions for how you address situations when adjoining property owners won't permit the applicant to access their property to finish the street to the edge of their development. Um, when you're operating roadway equipment, it can't just stop at the lot line. It has to cross the lot line. It has to be on the other side of the lot line to lay the asphalt down. Uh, and bulldozers and and and drainage and all of those things have to happen on adjacent properties, even when the street stub stops at the lot line. So

you need to have some provisions in place for performance guarantees, for easements, for situations where adjacent property owners don't want that street connection to be run to the lot line or they don't want to allow people to access their property. The larger question, and I'm sure you guys have grappled with this, you've probably already settled it. It's a big issue in most places and that is there's a lot of residents out there who frankly don't want street connectivity. They're not interested in having their street connect to next door or or the next property or whatever. Maybe you've experienced that phenomenon uh there in Harrisburg. If you have it, you're you're in good company. Um a lot of people have those concerns. Um, one of the ways that uh we address that is thinking about connectivity not just with vehicles but also on foot or with bicycles. Um, so we ask for sidewalks. If you can't make a vehicular connection, make a sidewalk connection or a bicycle connection. um you know supplement your street standards that you've got now with these continuation requirements so that stubs are going to all adjacent vacant properties where a street could be put through. Um try limiting the number of units on culde-sacs. Um, you can set up your regulations so that you don't have culde-sac fed off of culde-sac off of culde-sac where you know at the end of the day you've got a system of six culde-sacs serving 300 400 uh units and you know uh having some access problems therein. So consider limiting the number of units on a culde-sac carry forward your street connectivity index standards um explore that 1.4 for um that's that's on the high side and and maybe that's

okay. Uh may maybe that's okay. Uh that is really a policy matter for you guys. Um in suburban contexts I am used to seeing connectivity index scores in the 1.3 to 1.25 to you know maybe as high as as 1.35. But that 1.4 4 uh and up is is kind of an urban standard. So,

you know, maybe may and maybe you guys want to stick with that. That's totally cool. Um that will give you more roadways. Uh it will give you better street connectivity. Uh it will also give you more impervious surface. Uh it will make your development more expensive to build and it will make your community more expensive to maintain. So, those are some things to think about when you're thinking about what should those connectivity policies be. That was a lot. I know. Um, do you guys have any any any questions or thoughts about the street connectivity stuff?

Well, yeah. This is this is all me. Um, I'm definitely one of those ones who is against street connectivity and sure, this is probably more for like a town, but I don't think like communities, subdivisions want to be connected to at least by vehicles, right? Sure. Want to be connected to other subdivisions like that's like you have a community. You have like now you have like you know you have your own groups and that's your community. Sure. in the, you know, in the larger Harrisburg community, I think pedestrian connectivity, uh, is a lot more important and prevalent. And I think what people want now more than street connectivity.

Sure. Um, I don't know why we have to have all these substrates and and I know people say for emergency vehicles, but an emergency vehicle is not going to go through one subdivision to get to another subdivision. They're going to use the main entrance of that subdivision. And because there's going to be more than one, so they're going to choose one of those main entrances to a subdivision rather than go through stop signs and, you know, kids on bikes walking to the pool doing this. People walking. I mean, we are a community of walkers. People are out all the time. All the time. Um, so I love that you said that our 1.4 1.4 is on the high side. I would like to see that

lowered. And then when you did explain that the perfect index code is 2.0 and that's based on using um I think I'm paraphrasing but a city block is you know we don't live in a city right people who moved here chose not to live in a city. We don't want and I say we generalizing I'm sure some people do but that street connectivity. So I think we definitely need to move and I think it needs to be individualized. Our current UDO says has the word shall in it.

So it does not give the town council the ability to u make individual decisions for different developments. So because of that word shall. So I think that that word needs to be taken out and every plan needs to be scrutinized individually. um separately versus it has to have it because the UDO says the word shall.

Sure. Agreed. Uh and and that is absolutely a policy issue that is best worked through with with you guys and your residents and your elected officials. Um you know, the the question of should we be requiring street connectivity? Um absolutely sh is is is a policy matter. Um one of the things that's not on the slide and isn't necessarily street connectivity but is very very important um and also can kind of raise eye of of local residents are is what we call cross access along parking lots. Um, one of the things, one of the kind of traffic management tools that's come along over the last 20 years are standards that require surface parking lots to be connected to one another so that I can go from one out parcel to another or from one commercial establishment to another or from one apartment complex to a non-residential development without having to get on the main roadway. And that like street connectivity is also a policy matter. You know there are there are strong feelings for and against um you know we we can't counsel you guys on on the policy stance. Your your comprehensive plan you know should take that up. I will say this, um, we're working in, uh, in Newburn right now. Um, and they are they they they have an orthogonal grid. Obviously, you know, historic Newburn is very much a city. There are also suburban areas um, more akin to, you know, the kind of development template that that you guys have. And the reason that I'm telling you this story is, you know, there at the coast they have bogs

um and and swamps and and things like that. You know, there's these kind of areas of low-lying land uh that become pee bogs or or or become swamps or whatever. Every so often, interestingly enough, these things catch on fire. Um which is kind of a surprise, but it does happen. Uh and and and when they do, they burn for weeks, sometimes months, and they're very very difficult to put out. And in Newburn, they have experience with that kind of situation blocking street access so that people can't get in and out of the subdivision, whether to go from work or or come home. These aren't catastrophic paradise level forest fires. They are slow burning things um that you can easily walk away from but that don't stop and can't really be stopped. And you know it's just an example that there are natural phenomenon that take place. Um I know that your comment about well the emergency service providers aren't going to use the back streets or the other neighborhood. probably not under normal operating conditions, but when there's an emergency, when there's a storm, when there's something that's not normal, um, having those alternative access ways does make some sense. One of the compromises that that's that's out there today, uh, and maybe you guys have seen this in some of the other places where you've traveled, um, are these quote unquote fire access roads, these emergency access roadways that are set up to permit ambulances or

fire trucks or police to move through these roadways in an emergency, but that normal day-to-day work a day folks in vehicles can't. uh whether those are ballards or ga or gates or other devices um that you know are are movable when necessary uh so that emergency service providers can gain access when they have to but uh are there for the majority of the time when it's not an emergency to interfere with the ability of of of tra of of you know cut through traffic so-called cut through traffic or or people who might be you know speeding through the neighborhood or whatever. um to to try to stop that. So, lots of stuff to unpack there. Lots more stuff to to consider. Um I do think your connectivity standards, you know, could could use some tweaking, could use some improvement, but before we spend an awful lot of time on that, I think y'all need to kind of do some selfexloration about whether or not, you know, the policy to connect all streets is is something that you that you want to do. Uh I think that that is important. Um there are real safety reasons to do it. There are also real resonant concerns about having connected streets and there's there's just not an easy answer to to this question.

Thank you. You're welcome. And I'm sorry to have such a non-answer um about about this issue. It's a toughy. Okay. Other questions on street connectivity. I'm okay. I'm good. Good.

Okay. You guys are doing great. One more slide. Okay. Procedures. Right. This is chapter 145, your development review procedures, and it's organized into five sections. There's a set of common review procedures. Then you've got the administrative or the staff decision uh kinds of applications. this legislative review things. These are things that you guys weigh in on as a planning and zoning board. Um, and that town council decides. Um, there's the quasi judicial procedures, these, you know, the appeals, the variances, the the things that require board of adjustment, and then subdivision. And so, you know, I think that your development review procedures are are fairly comprehensive. So, that's cool. and I appreciate that, but this format that they're in is very strange and it requires code users to understand the distinctions between what is an administrative procedure versus a legislative procedure versus a quasi judicial procedure. If you don't know those differences, you don't know where to look. I just want to build a deck. Is that legislative? I don't know. Being more clear about which procedures apply um is one thing that could be done. And we would suggest that you use an alpha an alphabetical sequence for your permit names. Okay? And and depart from from this this this construct of administrative versus legislative versus quasi judicial. The only people who understand that stuff are the Zack Gordons of the world. Okay? They're the they're the ones who get that. everybody else is like I don't know what's quasi judicial mean suggest using a different approach to organize your information. Um the these common review procedures these are

things that are followed with every kind of application. You know you submit and there's a staff review and then there's you know public notice and we have meetings and then there's a decision. That's what the common review procedures cover. Um and your current provisions are are pretty good in that regard. You also have a summary table of the procedures. Thumbs up. Good stuff there. Um, but there's some challenges. Um, you know, we we need to address those concerns about staff applying uncodified standards. Um, or advising applicants that meeting the code standards is insufficient. All right. uh if an applicant comes in and they've got a development application that they want to propose and they're looking at the code and staff says, "Oh, well, you could follow the code, but you're not going to get approved." That's a problem. Um you know, if you're not in a negotiated format, um where there's where there's give and take and negotiation, um you know, the the the town you got no business telling somebody they can't be approved if they meet the standards. that's where lawsuits come from. Uh so we definitely want to try to avoid that. Um so you know again good good organization for the most part at least it's in one chapter. Um consider a slightly easier way to to kind of crack this material for the for the lay person. um you have an adequate public facility ordinance and I don't want to belabor this for you guys tonight but this is definitely something that needs to be talked through um some so first off adequate public facility ordinances are standards that are intended to make sure that roadway capacity or water sewer capacity or school capacity or park capacity that these things exist prior to new development coming online

and that the that the infrastructure exists in order to to serve this new development and in North Carolina adequate public facility requirements are against the law cannot have them. Now, some some places may have special authority to do these and Harrisburg may be one of them. Um, but by and large, the the the typical APFO kind of approach isn't authorized um in North Carolina. So, that's something that we need to explore uh and and understand a little bit more. Um, so I don't know if anybody has any thoughts about the APF thing. Okay. Um, it it's it's a great concept and I'll be honest with you, I really wish it wasn't illegal because boy, sure would make life a lot better. But unfortunately, the general assembly has not authorized local governments to enforce adequate public facility ordinances, at least to this point. But there's still some other things that we also need to talk about. Um, the appeal procedure is embedded in the common review procedure section, and we would suggest that it have its own process. Um, most things require a pre-application conference. Fantastic. Hurrah. You guys are right on target there. Keep doing that. That's good stuff. In fact, I would suggest to you that minor subdivisions also need pre-application conferences. Why? Because back in the day, we used to be able to rely on the health department to certify that the lots that were being created could accommodate septic. Well, the general assembly took that responsibility away and now the health department is not required to certify these small subdivisions. Uh, and what we wind up with is applicants who come in, get their subdivision approved, go out to to build their houses, and their

lots won't perk because nobody checked to make sure that the lots are big enough to accommodate septic tanks. So consider adding pre-application conference minor subdivisions to make the point to the applicants that they need a soil scientist report as part of the preliminary for a minor subdivision. Um it is unfortunate that the health department's role has been abdicated but you know that doesn't change the fact that we need to protect um the town and those people from creating subdivision lots that are not buildable. Neighborhood meetings. You guys do a lot of them. In fact, anything that increases development potential um requires a neighborhood meeting, which is an interesting approach. I've not seen that before. I kind of like it. I think it's new and different. I like that part of it. one caveat or or or thing I'll mention to you which which is this um quasi judicial applications variances special use permits appeals reasonable accommodations certificates of appropriateness in historic districts these are quasi judicial proceedings and people who do not have standing to participate in those reviews don't get to talk. They don't get to say anything. They don't get to testify. They're not allowed to. And it's not the town's rules. That's the state's rules. Okay.

Further material that is that is put forth outside of the public hearing where the decision on the quasi judicial application is made is inadmissible. The body who is deciding that application cannot and should not be relying on testimony, evidence, anything that happens outside of that public hearing. Okay? And these neighborhood meetings can give false hope to residents who show up to the neighborhood meeting, state their concerns, state their claims, maybe feel better after the neighborhood meeting, maybe don't. But if they don't have standing, they don't get to talk. So put that kind of fold that away and think about whether or not neighborhood meetings for quasi judicial applications make sense. Are we giving people a false sense of security that they can impact these kinds of applications when when maybe they can't? Silent on permit choice. Um this may have come out after y'all's ordinance was adopted. So, to be fair, I don't know that we can criticize anybody for missing this. Um, very quickly, permit choice allows applicants to choose which set of development regulations they want to follow if the rules change between the time that they got their approval and the time they finish. Okay. Um, the current code is is silent on this and that that cannot be we have to address that issue in the development regulations. Um, you've got application completeness requirements. Fantastic. That's great. Let's enhance those. Get as much detail in there as we can. Um, I encourage you guys to follow the North Carolina general statutes on public notice rules. And that means notifying abudding and adjacent property

owners, not property owners who are within 300 ft of the subject property. Now, important point. I'm not saying don't send notice to the people within 300 ft. If you want to, that's fine. Do it. But don't say that in your code. Just say we're going to follow the state law with respect to public notice. We may as a matter of policy and in our sole discretion at times of our choosing provide additional notice above and beyond state mandate. But we're going to provide state mandate in our code. If we provide more, that's our decision to make. Why am I suggesting that? Because if you have in your standards a requirement that you will notice people beyond the state limit and you fail to do so for whatever reason and somebody sues you, even if you had a really good reason or you made the right decision or whatever it was, you're going to lose. Um, and it's not worth it. You can still give notice to 300 people. You just don't have to put that in your code. Okay? follow the state law and say that you're going to provide more as a policy matter. Okay, great. You've done what you need to do. More detail on quasi judicial hearings. There are a lot of steps in these things. um what kind of evidence can be presented, how testimony is taken, how rebuttal happens, hearsay, findings of fact, conclusions of law, some some more detail on how those procedures roll out, uh need to be included in your UDO. Um we need to spend more time talking about conditions of approval. And I know you guys are big on these because we heard a lot of this from the the development applicants who we spoke with. What I found surprising was there wasn't much in your code about conditions of approval. These are the negotiated terms

that everyone agrees to um as part of a conditional reasonzoning or plan development or what have you. Um there's some very specific rules about how these things are formed, how they're agreed to, and at what time. Um and you know there's a lot of limitations on some of these um and and those need to be codified. that stuff needs to be set down in your ordinance and it's missing. So, that should be in there. Um along those lines, there's five, six, seven procedures that that we would suggest be added. Um you know, add the annexation procedure. Uh you guys use development agreements a lot, but there's no procedure in here. Um use performance guarantees as a procedure, use fee and loo as a procedure. Um add the appeal as its own procedure. you need to address expedited subdivisions. Um the state has a different flavor of subdivisions. Um and they've got rules that they mandate local governments use when considering those so-called expedited subdivisions. Your ordinance is silent on it. So get that stuff in there. Um so a handful of things that we would suggest be added. maybe storm water permitting, maybe some vested right certificates, some other kinds of kinds of procedural things that just kind of ease the way. Um, all of your procedures should have a flowchart uh with all the steps in the process and who's responsible for what and and what's the sequence. Um, and being very clear about how that works, uh, is just really really important and something that's missing in your ordinance. And with that, do you guys have comments, thoughts about your procedures? No.

Sounds like No, but you talked a lot about it. That's not We're biggies on these. These are important. Um, you know, they they really are. You know, at the beginning, you heard me talk about predictability and and and you know, this is this is the pudding right here. This is where the proof is. Um, if your procedures are clear and well thought out and comprehensive, um, then people know what to do and and it makes everybody's life better and it keeps you out of court. Yeah. So, these are really important. Thank you. Thank you. Others, any anything else

that you guys want to want to raise that we should be thinking about? There is some other stuff, but just to keep things moving, I'm going to pass for now. I can send you an email or run it through staff and let's let's talk about some other topics in the ordinance, but let's we'll just fantastic what you've presented up to now. I mean, we appreciate it. Okay. Well, I you know, hope it wasn't too too much. Um, no, it was good.

It very good. If nobody else has any other concerns, I have one last slide and then I'll let you guys get on with your business. Um, next steps. So, as I mentioned at the head of the conversation, Andrew and I are now in the code assessment drafting phase. We are preparing this this code assessment. Think about it as a blueprint for your UDO layout. Um, we'll identify the seven, eight key themes for improvement and the sets of recommendations under those um that you'll see. We'll we'll have a look at your policy gaps. Although, I will say that because you're updating your land use policy, that part of the code assessment won't be super robust, but we absolutely will be exploring legal sufficiency and pointing out areas where you guys need to make change in order to comply with law. Um, and so hopefully, you know, end of October, we'll have that material available for people to look at and we can continue the conversation. And I I really really appreciate y'all's time and your attention. Um, I know this stuff is not edge of the seat. Uh, it's very technical. Um, and it can get a little boring. So, thank you for your attention. Um, and with that, I will stop sharing and, uh, hand it back over to Zach.

Thanks, Chad. Thank you.

Thank you for that tour to force through our UDO. Um, I just want to remind everyone again, this is the very beginning of the process. We are diagnosing where there's issues. I'll tell you one quick uh thing and then I will sit down and let let us get to the agenda item. Uh last summer when I was um on medical leave for three months, I read the UDL from the beginning until the last page. I came up with 24 pages and Chad adds the notes uh in in table format. Um and so those are all going to get corrected. Everything from links that don't work to misspellings to relettering the same section. Um, but the things that Chad touched on tonight are really, really important. But that's not all. We couldn't talk about everything. Uh, but if there are things that you do want to talk about, and I think what what'll happen is once the assessment is done and you all have it, you'll say, "Oh, there's some other stuff that I'm really interested in." And that will be again part of the next phase. Um and it will be I think a process. So um thanks for all hanging in there. I'm going to turn it over to Shelley.

Thanks guys. Y'all have a great night. You too. So next we do have the public comment. We only have one person signed up to speak. Do we have anybody on the line signed up? No. Um, and I believe this gentleman was speaking in reference to our would you like to introduce it first and then allow him to speak or Well, we'll just go down the agenda. So, uh, the gentleman who signed up to speak to the specific case tonight. So, when we get to that, we'll go on that. We'll follow the

Okay, sounds good. All right. So, then we're moving on to the consent agenda. Anybody see any problems with last month's consent agenda? Do we have a motion to to approve? Motion to approve. Second. Second. All in favor say I. Okay, we've got that. No old business. So, now we're on to new business H203-R.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and board members. This specific case is H20 R. This is titled Pit Road Property Map Amendment. So the request is to amend the town zoning map reszoning of property from a Cabaris County zoning classification to a Harrisburg zoning classification associated with an annex request. I'm going to pause for a minute and talk about how we process annexations and resent. So the act of an annexation is when a property owner is requesting to come into the town's jurisdictional boundaries. It's in the unincorporated area of the county. They want to be part of the town. So in doing so we have to establish a Harris group zoning classification. So uh what we do is we process these requests concurrently because they operate separately. The annexation in state law is a consideration by the town council and a decision by the town council. A free zone or zoning map amendment is a legislative act. heard about different titles. Uh so what that means is it goes before the planning and zoning board for consideration and a recommendation to the town council. The town council makes the decision. So in both cases they'll make a decision but a map amendment has to stop at the planning and zoning board for a recommendation. Both are heard in a public hearing. So as I mentioned we run them concurrenly. It's already the

annexation scheduled for next month. You're hearing the map amendment, the reason request for recommendation. It will be gaired up together at the October 13 public hearing presented and at that time. So with that, I'll go back to this request. Uh so the subject property is located on road It doesn't have an address. I have the parcel ID number uh up on the screen. Uh it is vacant. It is just under 2 acres in size and it's actually located within an existing industrial park Charlotte Motor Speedway Industrial Park. So the request is to establish Harrisburg zoning classification of employment center which is EC. Let's take a look at where this parcel is. So, uh, the arrow photograph on your screen, it provides a general location. The star down here is the subject site. Um, as you can see, it's located off of Morehead Road just south of the Charlotte Motor. And I provided Just a small picture of the industrial park entrance here that's right off. So interesting enough this is where three jurisdictions come together. So uh the subject property that does not have a color on it is the subject property has the star. As you can see to the norththeast is the city of Concord in the green. The blue

area is the town of Harrisburg. Now the town of Harrisburg has annexation agreements in areas such as this. We have an annexation agreement with the city of Concort. So as you can see that parcel will be going to the city of Conport or the town of Harrisburg. that particular parcel is identified as a future annexation area or possible annexation into our jurisdiction. looking at the zoning into project area. Uh as you can see on this map properties located within the town of Harrisburg or uh actually within our ETJ area which is employment same classification as the applicant request tonight. Uh other classifications are I2 which is an industrial I1 I2 uh the existing zoning on the property GI which is general industrial county. Uh the P is a uh designation and it stands for public interest development and that is tied somehow to the speedway over in that area. But you can see most of the zoning is light industrial RC is comparable to light industrial zoning classification. So just to share a little more information about the proposed zoning classification, the appointment center zoning classification provides opportunity in the town for industrial multi-en flex space in office. Um the uses that are allowed within the EC district are consistent

with existing land uses in this project area. neighboring properties. I've provided uh the EC dimensional standards in the staff report as well on page three. Uh these type of standards are minimum lot size height is all consistent is consistent with the neighboring zoning and the area. I need to take a minute to talk about the helup. So the helup stands for the Harrisburg area land use plan. This is comparable to a comprehensive land use plan. So according to the EC zoning classification should align with future land use category of light industrial founded. Looking at our land use map, it is identified in the future as private recreation. So we enter into the record that the proposed zoning is inconsistent what is envisioned in the land use map. However, so state law says that whenever the planning board considers a zoning map, there are a couple that need to be made. Is it a reasonable request in the public interest? And second, is it consistent with an adopted comprehensive land use plan or in this case? It says it needs to be considered. It doesn't say that you can only approve recommend approval if it's consistent with your future. So what that means is if a project goes all the way through up to council, council

and understands it's believe it's a reasonable request and it's something more appropriate for that area they can approve it by doing so it automatically updates your land use plan okay

so there doesn't have to be a separate process so I just wanted to point that out so staff does support uh this proposed map amendment we believe that the math amendment for the EC district is appropriate for this location. It's consistent with the goals of the health of the area fostering economic uh development land use and encouraging a mixture of land use. Uh so staff's recommendation is to support this request among other task for the board is you'll need to consider of our math amendment criteria. So this is one section of the video that our consultant is really going to be working on. Uh so we have two areas that this board should consider uh the criteria again that is common design criteria and it's on I have it for you on page five and section 14502. So I'm not going to go through these completely I provided an outline response from staff analysis on how we believe it supports all of this criteria. I do want to point out under section 14503 uh the board is supposed to consider whether the proposed reason is compatible with the surrounding area or the adopted. So that to support state law and the the option for the board to consider what's before you. It doesn't necessarily have to be consistent with plan. Uh other areas are that the board should consider whether the subject property is suitable

for the uses to restricted existing zoning district. So the existing zoning district on the property is GI industrial classification. the town or the applicants requesting the town supporting the request to establish EC which is a comparable zoning classification and whether the zoning is compatible with the adjacent neighborhood especially residential neighborhoods this site is not located in any residential district this is where you want to see an EC district with similar uses away from residential and not in areas uh environmentally sensitive areas. So staff recommend uh staff recommends that the planning and zoning board recommend approval to the town council because it we believe is consistent with the decision criteria of the as outlined on page five and six within the report. It is a reasonable request in the public interest and although inconsistent with land use map. It is consistent with the goals of the and we believe it's an appropriate zoning classification for the subject property. So the planning and zing board's action tonight is uh we need a couple of motions. A motion to uh recommend to the town council to approve approve modification recommendation to disapprove the zoning map amendment. You need required findings and again they consist is it a reasonable request and although inconsistent with the future land use designation of the you know is it still in compa

such as fostering economic development and encouraging a mixture of land use. So with that I stand by questions you may have. So if we approve it, um the staff doesn't have any conditions. It would just get approved. Not condition, no conditional,

right? This is not this a great question. So there are two types of W amendments. There are conditional where usually are accompanied with a site plan. is already identified and such that that is not this type of petition. This is what we conventional meaning it's good to go approved any development on the site comply with all the regulations of the uses setbacks performance standards parking and so forth. So it still has to fall under the regulations. And does the does he currently own the land or

we can have if you're done with questions for me then I don't have I don't have any additional questions yes so we have Justin Bloxman. Am I pronouncing that correctly? Bloxman. Blockman. Yes. The applicant would like to come speak. Thank you for waiting. Waiting. We appreciate you. I didn't know I was gonna get [Laughter] you know a lot now, don't you? Learned a lot. So, do you currently own the property or is it going to be based on the annexation and resoning?

So, we're currently under contract to purchase property and that also includes the neighboring property that's developed. So, currently under contract for that purchase and in the due period. And so this effort is because we purch the other property is already Harrisburg, correct? Okay. It's just to the southwest. Oh, okay.

The lot lines are probably a better picture. Just show that. Um, one to the left. And can we ask you what you plan to build? Yeah, absolutely. So, um, we what we currently operate a little bit background. So, we do

we operate at the speedway currently just on the other sideway. So we're looking to relocate everything to this portion. So the ination resot So this is in support of your improvements on the Concord parcel.

So where the All right. So you've got the new project where the driving school is. You got the upgrades. So this will be to help support that structure and move some of your remote parking. It'll be all in support. So then it's just viewed as one. When people come and you know the programs they're coming to a parking lot essentially which will be on this current lot and everything will be out the current building to performing operations. Okay. Speedway property currently is going to relocate here. Mhm.

So the other two properties there that I can see you you are you purchasing those now as well or you already have no it's just these two that are part of one purchase it's the current the existing property and this but okay I already understand well that includes some type of track are you building some type of we We from the speed. Okay. And so we currently are in the blue building. You can see performance racing school right there.

That's where we currently operate and have been since 2020. So we just track and space from the speedway. Okay. And do we worry about trees? No, I I don't have any concerns about it. It makes sense. You know, you can even look at the old zonings. You know, Concord had that PI district. Harrisburg kind of went along with zoning. It was compatible with that, not knowing what would end up in

even the Concord side of this parcels. Now, they have turned it into light industrial and it's consistent with us. We've got light industrial, they got light. This part didn't turn into P type developments more north. So, all right. It all fits to me. It's a no. I'm ready. Yeah. Make it. All right. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. I will uh make a motion. Okay. I'm going to make a motion to recommend to the town council to approve the zoning map amendment and make uh make the required finding that the map amendment is a reasonable request and in the best interest of the public.

I mean, please bring that back. I need that back. Thank you. And although it is inconsistent with the future land use designation of the HALUP, it is in compliance with other goals of the HAL in the areas of fostering economic development and encouraging a mixture of land uses. Second. All in favor? I Okay, no. You did an excellent job of that. That was a lot to put together. You did good job. First take, too. Okay. So, that's um any other staff updates real quick? Development map.

Development map. No, just the development map. And I want to say about that development map. I Everybody loves it. Yay. No, I get so many comments on it. So, I want to just say out loud to you, hooray. It's so fun. I like it better, too, because I I can look at it quickly and I don't have to scroll through it. It's It's an improvement.

Certainly a project in the works for quite a while now and it actually took coming together of various department management. Um so we're we're very proud of it. We're happy. Yeah, we know it works. We know it works. Fuel fires.

There we go. Okay. So, when this was revealed last month, I was not in attendance, but I did go back and listen to some of the questions. So, I just wanted to answer some of the questions that you had and the biggest I should say the most frequent question that why is it notable? I ask the same thing. So the way it was devised is a lot of the general public doesn't always know the name of the project, right? So it's alphabetical, you know, they they have to figure out where it is and then when you click on uh pick on the select the tiles alphabetically, you would have it jumping all over the map on the project. So the reason it's not alphabetical is we someone who for example lives over this area and wanted to know okay what's all this development in my neighborhood all of these tiles are are grouped together geographically correct sooutheast Harrisburg and I'm like what is this group over here I can jump through the tiles right after each other so that is why it was set up that I think I heard the question you know how long will projects be on this map. So the answer to that is once completed 60 days. So that would include if somebody withdraws their application because someone could be following a project and all of a sudden it disappears one day. So the intent was for example somebody withdraws a project we would put on there just It's been withdrawn on this date and it will be up

on the site for 60 days. So that gives plenty of time for anyone to we hear about development on a daily basis. We get all kinds of people are talking to us about concept. Uh this development map is intended to display projects that have filed an actual sketch application that point they've already worked out with us. Is that enough allowed use? You know, is that consistent with the complex before they even get started? So, um the project you'll find on here categories of administrative planning and so forth. Um they uh they will start at sketch phase. Then of course it goes to the planning boards. Uh we have a couple projects on here that may have a conditional zoning approved. Here's a good example here, but we haven't and that was approved back in 2021.

Well, it's in this holding pattern that runs with the land. So, it is an approved project, but they've never gone to the next step. They may may not, but we keep it on there. So, if I bought a property adjacent to it and looked at this map, I would know, although I don't see any dirt moving out there, there's still an approved plan. Uh, so some of these projects are somewhat permanent in this stage, but we thought it was important that we let the general public know that there is an approved project just in case. you know, they want to consider that. Uh, so I guess I'm just gonna ask, do you have any other questions? I'll be glad to answer it. We update it weekly, new plans, new project. The quick road project is on here. It's under the category of PNZ and we are going to move it to the town council category now that we have your recommendations. So, We'll get to that.

Good.

Get some new color, right? I love it. So, if you ever played around it, you find something that doesn't work or anything, please call It's great. I love it. I really like it. I really like it. Thank you so much. Any other comments from any board members about anything tonight? And that we make a motion to adjourn. So move. Second. Second. I You all have a great rest of the month.

Thank you. You too. I'm heading to the