DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The City of Raleigh Planning Commission met on July 14, 2009, at 9:00 A.M, in Room 201 of the ‘Municipal Building, Members present: Chair Chambliss, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Bartholomew, Mr. Butler, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Gaylord, Mr. Haq, Ms. Harris Edmisten, Mr. Holt, Mr. Mullins, and Mr. Smith. ‘Members not present: Ms. Vance Staff present: Planning Director Silver, Planning Administrator Hellam, Senior Planner Crane, Transportation Engineer Manager Lamb, Deputy Attomey Botvinick, and Administrative Assistant Heyward. AGENDA ITEM #1: INVOCATION AGENDA ITEM #2: OLD BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM 2(A): COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE REPORT AGENDA ITEM 2(A)1: 2030 Comprehensive Plan — June 23. 2009 Meeting This request is for proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan update existing System Plans as Plan Elements; add new Elements addressing Land Use, Environmental Protection, Urban Design, Arts and Culture, and Regional and Inter-jurisdictional Coordination; replace the Urban Form Map and related idelines with a Future Land Use Map; and reduce the number of Area Plans from 67 to 21 ‘Mr. Bartholomew moved to approve the consent items, Mr. Mullins seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous, 11-0, AGENDA ITEM 2(A)2: 2030 Comprehensive Plan — July 7,2009 Meeting This request is for proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan update existing System Plans as Plan Elements; add new Elements addressing Land Use, Environmental Protection, Urban Design, Arts and Culture, and Regional and Inter-jurisdictional Coordination; replace the Urban Form Map and related guidelines with a Future Land Use Map; and reduce the number of Area Plans from 67 to 21 Mr. Bartholomew moved to approve the consent items. Mr. Haq seconded the motion. ‘The vote was unanimous, 11-0, AGENDA ITEM 2(B): 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Planning Director Silver informed that staff addressed the following outstanding items: Text Revisions ‘Coordination with State - Policy RC XX - County and State Government Facilities Planning At the July 7 Committee of the Whole meeting, a committee member (Harris Edmisten) raised the issue of coordination with the State of North Carolina in the draft 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Staff has reviewed language in the draft plan, and feels there is an opportunity to strengthen language (specifically in the Regional and Inter-Jurisdictional element), Senior Planner Crane presented stafi"s recommendation (revised language). Ms. Harris Edmisten (commenter) supports staff's revised language. ‘There was discussion regarding: whether “leverage” is defined included in glossary. the glossary; and what’s typically Ms. Harris Edmisten moved to approve staff's recommendation. Mr. Butler seconded the motion, ‘The vote was unanimous, 11-0.ical Comments LU2—FLUM and Zoning Consistency ‘The comment suggests that the specific sentence in question (“It is not anticipated that every proposal and project will implement every Plan policy”) be elevated to a policy statement. Senior Planner Crane indicated that the sentence is already a part of the Plan (Section 1.2). He noted that staff recommends incorporation by reference (which will include the entirety of the discussion rather than a single sentence). He presented stafi’s recommendation (revised language). Ms. Chambliss moved to approve staff's recommendation. Mr. Fleming seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous, 11-0. Policy LU 4—Placemaking Comment states that the policy as worded implies that every project, no matter its size, should meet the needs of people of all stages of life. Senior Planner Crane indicated that staff feels that a common sense interpretation could not reasonably support this conclusion, as the edit proposed is minor and the intent of the policy is not changed (staff raises no objection). He presented staff's recommendation (tvo minor additions). There was discussion regarding intent of policy. ‘Mr. Holt moved to approve staff's recommendation. Mr. Gaylord seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous, 11-0. Policy T 16 — Level of Service The policy as worded is not clear as to whether the LOS standard applies to the whole intersection or specific movements at the intersection. Further, the final sentence implies that any roadway operating above LOS E would not be allowed to deteriorate, The proposed edits will clarify the points. n (revised language/edits). There was discussion regarding: whether a Code change will be required; whether there would be a conflict between the Code and Comprehensive Plan; whether a text change will be required; potential conflict; fact that current standard level is more stringent; how policy will be handled if conflict occurs (variance); Code interpretation; and fact that text change should be recommended ifa lot of waiver requests are received. Senior Planner Crane presented staff's recommend ‘Ms. Chambliss moved to approve staff's recommendation. Mr. Butler seconded the motion. The vote ‘was unanimous, 11-0. Action EP 33 ~ Tree and Landseape Ordinance Amendments The comments raised three points: (1) that the action should not imply a commitment to revise the tree and landscape ordinance; (2) that the phrase “most ecologically beneficial trees” could not reasonably be codified without undue property impacts; and (3) that any ordinance amendments that would undermine the current priority placed on thoroughfare frontage should not be part of the action, given recent actions by the ‘Tree Conservation Task Force. Senior Planner Crane noted that staff responded that (1) some revisions will be required to implement plan policies for urban and multimodal corridors and therefore a commitment is appropriate; (2) ecological benefit is a valid basis for prioritization, but staff would be comfortable with wording that kept it as a priority while providing flexibility as to coding; and (3) this issue must be confronted as it relates to urban ‘and multimodal corridors, and calling it out in the action is appropriate. Planning Director Silver presented staff's recommendation (revised language). At the July 7 Committee of the Whole meeting, Mr. Holt was directed to draft alternate language. Mr. Holt presented his proposal, noting that he prefers staff's new recommendation, ‘Two of the commenter’s indicated that the revised language is an improvement, but the issue still remains.There was discussion regarding: whether historic trees will be considered; staff's new language; and need to strike word “waiver.” Mr. Mullins moved to approve stafP's recommendation as revised (strike word “waiver” to be replaced with word “alternate”, which is consistent with Code). Mr. Anderson seconded the motion. ‘The vote was unanimous, 11-0. Note: Staff will look at historic district regulations as it relates to historic trees. LEED Standards: Action EP 6 — LEED Incentives and EP 11 —Rooftop Energy ‘The comments indicate that the original comment would be resolved by implementing the Environmental Advisory Board recommendations. Senior Planner Crane indicated that staff"s original proposal involved a change in Action EP6. This action would be further revised to match the intent of the EAB’s recommendation. He presented staff's recommendation (revised language). ‘There was discussion regarding: fact that staff will soon look at incentives (general practices for City of Raleigh); and definition of “explore.” ‘Ms. Chambliss moved to approve staff's recommendation, Mr, Fleming seconded the motion, The ‘yote was unanimous, 11-0. Policy PR 20 — Floodplain and Upland Dedication ‘The legal advisor on the consultant team has advised that this policy should not speak to dedi reservation, but should focus on the public purpose, which is protection. Senior Planner Crané staff's recommendation incorporates this advice and maintains a strong statement of policy intent that is a critical part of the City’s commitment to environmental sustainability. He noted that staff proposed no change from the prior recommendation. He reviewed staff's recommendation (prior). ‘There was discussion regarding intent of the policy. ‘Mr. Holt moved to approve staff's recommendation. Mr. Mullins seconded the motion. The yote was ‘unanimous, 11- Deferred Land Use Hem PD-11: Hillsborough to Morgan; west of Saint Mary's Street Senior Planner Crane indicated that staff has met with neighborhood representatives and the Hillsborough CAC to discuss altematives. The neighbors have requested that the area more closely resemble the Hillsborough/Morgan Small Area Plan. They have also requested that the area be shown as a special study area without any future land use designations. ‘Mr. Crane informed that staff is proposing to use a combination of stronger policy guidance on transitions, changes to the extent of the CBD designation, and introduction of a new “Edge Areas” map to address issues raised by the neighborhood representatives. ‘The Small Area Plan gives land use guidance, but does not speak to intensity or density. Mr. Crane indicated that staff recommends bringing the extent of the CBD designation into consistency with the areas designated for “Mixed Use” on the Small Area Plan. Staff does not recommend showing the area asa special study area, as this provides no guidance until a detailed planning study has occurred. Staff has also revised and added policy statements that provide guidance in ‘edge areas’ of the CBD. These policies ‘would reference an “Edge Areas” map that includes the subject area. As part of this ‘edge area’ analysis, staff has revisited several CBD transition areas, and is recommending revisions to the FLUM as a result. Planning Director Silver advised that the Hillsborough CAC still stands by their request. ‘There was discussion regarding: Hillsborough/Morgan Small Area Plan; staff's review of the area; fact that the small area plan provides no guidance on intensity; downtown edge areas; transitions; and whether the edge area policy would be relevant for downtown (south).