HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 03 2011 PC MinutesAugust 3, 2011 Board of Supervisors (Regular Day Meeting)
Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board Joint Meeting With Board
(Page 1) FINAL MINUTES
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 3,
2011, at 9:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
3:30 p.m. — Room 241 - Work Session:
21. Joint meeting with PC/ARB/BOS on ministerial and legislative changes.
At 4:07 p.m., the Board took a recess.
Agenda Item No. 22. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board.
At 4:13 p.m., the Chair called the Board of Supervisors back to order in Room 241.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Don Franco, Mr. Thomas Loach, Mr. Calvin
Morris, Mr. Russell Lafferty, Ms. Linda Porterfield and Mr. Duane Zobrist.
ABSENT: Ms. Julia Monteith and Mr. Edward Smith.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. William Daggett, Mr. Charles Lebo
and Mr. Bruce Wardell.
ABSENT: Mr. Fred Missel and Mr. Paul Wright
Mr. Graham reported that this is a follow-up work session to those held with the Board last year in
response to a Board action plan adopted in January 2010, with the primary goal being that the processes in
the County do not make it unnecessarily difficult for development to move forward. He stated that one of the
things discussed last year was clarifying their goal because while the County is trying to work on shortening
approval times and get rid of unnecessary and burdensome regulations, there was also the goal of maintaining
opportunities for public information and input — as well as maintaining community quality. There was
recognition that this is a balancing act. Mr. Graham said that today Mr. Fritz would talk about the subdivision
and site plan processes, with questions taken after his presentations and some direction given from the Board;
following that, the rezoning and special use permit (legislative) processes would be discussed by Mr.
Cilimberg.
Item No. 22a. Community Development — Site Plan and Subdivision Review Process
The executive summary presented to the Board stated that in January 2010, the Board adopted an
Action Plan calling for staff to bring forward recommendations for "... reducing unnecessary and burdensome
regulations and shortening approval times" related to the County's review and approval of site plans and
subdivisions. On June 2, 2010, the Board heard a presentation on possible changes to the site plan and
subdivision review processes and directed staff to continue to work on these issues. On September 7, 2010,
a work session was held with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and on September 14, 2010, a work
session was held with the Planning Commission (PC). The minutes from those meetings are included as
Attachments A and B to this Executive Summary. On July 28, 2010, a public roundtable was held and a
summary of the comments received during this meeting is included as Attachment C.
Staff considered all of the comments received and considered how potential changes would advance
the goals set out by the Board of Supervisors. It is staff's opinion that a number of changes can be made that
will be relatively easy to implement and will slightly reduce review time without adversely impacting the quality
of design. Below are the recommended changes to the review process along with a brief summary of the
impact of the change:
ir.r 1. Preapplication submittal with review in 10 days to determine main issues and required waivers
This will allow applicants to quickly and easily identify major issues with a development proposal. This
action should streamline the review process somewhat because formal applications, when made, will
M
August 3, 2011 Board of Supervisors (Regular Day Meeting)
Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board Joint Meeting With Board
(Page 2) FINAL MINUTES
be more complete. This eliminates delays in the review process brought on by confusion over the
request or lack of necessary information to review a proposal.
2. Reduced plan content to the minimum necessary for review
Limited reduction in plan content may be possible for the preliminary plan. This will not reduce the
review period but may reduce some burden on applicants. This change has minimal impact.
3. Public notified of Site Review Meeting and asked to attend and provide comment
Notification to adjacent owners currently occurs. Re-evaluating when these meetings occur (day or
evening) and stressing that these meetings are an opportunity to talk to the applicant and County staff
may serve to improve public input and allow developers to respond to public comments.
4. Establish clearer submittal requirements for the final site plan
The current ordinance and review process does not provide clear guidance for the final site plan
approval process. Implementing this change will likely reduce the burden on the applicant and
shorten the time required for final site plan approval.
5. Establish that any comment not responded to within 6 months deems the proiect withdrawn
When revisions are received long after comments have been made considerable staff time is spent
on re -familiarizing with the project. In addition, the project may need to essentially be re -reviewed in
order to insure that no ordinance changes have occurred. In addition, only a minimal fee is required
for re -activating a project. A process for applicants to request an extension to the 6 month time limit
would be established. Implementing this change will allow staff to be more efficient in reviewing
projects.
6. Allow the issuance of grading permits with the approval of the initial (preliminary) site plan
This is consistent with the current practice for subdivisions and planned developments. Construction
of streets within a subdivision may occur currently after the approval of the preliminary plat and the
road plans. Grading within planned developments may occur after the approval of an erosion and
sediment control plan that is consistent with the application plan. Implementing this change will
shorten the total time required to build out a development.
Staff recommends that the above changes be implemented.
The changes listed above will serve to improve slightly the site plan and subdivision review process.
Staff also has identified two options for changing the site plan and subdivision review process that retain the
potential to have a greater reduction in review times. These options involve significant policy changes from
current procedures:
Option 1: Agent approval instead of PC approval with no right for site plans or subdivision plats to be
called up for review by the PC. ARB reviews projects in Entrance Corridor Districts prior to
preliminary approval.
Option 2: Agent approval instead of PC approval with no right for site plans or subdivision plats to be
called up for review by the PC. No ARB review of site design. ARB review limited to building,
lighting and landscaping design.
Proposal
Pros
Cons
Staff/Budget Impacts
Agent approval
Allows projects not within
PC review if waivers are involved.
Slight increase in ARB
instead of PC
Entrance Corridors to be
This will be minimized if waivers
workload due to switching of
approval. ARB
processed administratively.
are codified or made
public input from PC to ARB,
reviews projects
Maintains public hearing
administrative. Potentially
even though the issues are
in Entrance
process for some items.
reduces public input for non -EC
different. Reduction in PC
Corridor Districts
Maintains ability for design
projects. No reduction in review
workload. Time/budget
prior to
review. Allows for some
time for EC projects.
savings of PC limited to the
preliminary
reduction of review time for
time spent preparing staff
approval.
projects in EC.
reports, attending public
meetings and generating
minutes.
Agent approval
i Allows for reduced review
May result in reduction in quality
1 ARB staff impacts -Some
E9
August 3, 2011 Board of Supervisors (Regular Day Meeting)
Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board Joint Meeting With Board
(Page 3) FINAL MINUTES
instead of PC times. of the built environment. reduction in ARB staff
approval. No Reduces the potential for public workload due to elimination of
ARB review of input. Standard-ized Entrance requirement for review for site
site design. ARB Corridor design criteria may result design.
review limited to in "cookie cutter" style
building, lighting development. ARB review may PC staff impacts -Time/budget
and landscaping be required if waivers to design savings limited to the time
design. standards are sought. If waiver spent preparing staff reports,
requests become common -place attending public meetings and
no reduction, and possibly an generating minutes.
increase in review times may
occur.
Staff opinion is that Option 1 will best serve the interests of the County, development community and
the public. It will reduce review times for some projects significantly and will still allow design quality to be
maintained.
The full budget impact cannot be determined until a text amendment is prepared. The proposed
changes to the review process will likely reduce the impact on the budget. No adverse impact on the
budget is anticipated.
Staff recommends the following changes to the site plan and subdivision review process:
1. Preapplication submittal with review in 10 days to determine main issues and required waivers.
2. Reduced plan content to minimum necessary for review.
3. Public notified of Site Review Meeting and asked to attend and provide comment.
4. Establish clearer submittal requirements for the final site plan.
5. Establish that any comment not responded to within 6 months deems the project withdrawn.
6. Allow the issuance of grading permits with the approval of the initial (preliminary site plan).
7. Agent approval instead of PC approval. ARB reviews projects in Entrance Corridor Districts prior to
preliminary approval (Option 1).
Staff recommends that the Board consider the options identified by staff and provide guidance that will
allow staff to prepare a resolution of intent necessary to initiate the necessary zoning and subdivision text
amendments.
Mr. Fritz reported that in June 2010 staff came to the Board with some recommendations, with
guidance from them in the development of recommendations in this report: 1) clearly stating submittal
requirements and require appropriate level of detail; 2) specify time frames/limits for reviews and
approvals to ensure timely decisions; 3) allow more decisions to be handled administratively; eliminate
multiple public hearings; and presumption of approval (approve to minimum standards). He said they also
kept in mind time delays and the cause for any slowing down of the review process: 1) multiple
resubmissions; failure to provide necessary corrections; 2) Certificate of Appropriateness (ARB); 3)
Planning Commission approval of waivers or modifications; 4) Planning Commission review of plans; and
5) outside agencies (e.g. VDOT, ACSA, Health. Mr. Fritz stated that the County doesn't have much to do
with addressing the outside agencies but did try to ensure that their review times are not extended.
He said that the key concepts used when staff was trying to determine whether they were doing
the right thing in terms of recommendation: 1) predictable for applicants and citizens; 2) maintaining
opportunity for public input; 3) maintaining quality development; and 4) reducing approval time.
With that in mind, Mr. Fritz stated, staff is recommending six proposals to be endorsed for the
subdivision and site plan process — but there will not be substantial improvement in the review process
timelines with these changes: 1) preapplication submittal with review in 10 days to determine main issues
and required waivers. This would identify any information needed in order for the waiver to be reviewed.
He said that in many cases applications are incomplete and there is a back and forth just getting the
application ready to be reviewed, so this could help reduce review time as well as reducing confusion and
August 3, 2011 Board of Supervisors (Regular Day Meeting)
Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board Joint Meeting With Board
(Page 4) FINAL MINUTES
the burden on the applicant as far as what to submit; 2) reducing plan content to the minimum necessary
for review. This does not significantly reduce review time, but it could reduce the burden on the applicant
in terms of submittal. Staff does not see a lot of opportunities for reduction in plan content, but there may
be some possibilities there; 3) public notification of Site Review Meeting and asked to attend and provide
comment. He said that staff already does that but they looked at enhancing it in terms of when the
meeting is held. He said they considered whether the timing of the meeting was the best and most
appropriate time, noting that it is currently done on Thursdays at 10:00 a.m.; 4) establish clearer submittal
requirements for final site plan. Currently the final site plan processes are not written out clearly in the
ordinance or County policies — so clarifying that would help avoid confusion for the applicant and should
improve staff efficiency, which may help reduce review timelines; 5) establish that any comment not
responded to within six months deems the project withdrawn. That could have a potential impact on the
review process because staff spends a lot of time refamiliarizing itself on old projects that come back.
The public also loses track of the status of the project so this would help maintain public input and improve
staff's efficiency — with extension processes built in; and 6) allow the issuance of grading permits with the
approval of the initial or preliminary site plan. This would potentially shorten the overall time it takes for a
development to occur — not necessarily what the review time would be.
Mr. Fritz said that staff has looked at the process from concept to actual occupancy of a building
and is aware of issues there in terms of dealing with certificates of appropriateness, design guidelines,
landscaping, etc. He stated that this work session will not get into that level of detail, but staff is proposing
that a concept be formed with early grading permits — which is already done with two other types of
developments. Mr. Fritz explained that with subdivision approval you can start road construction before
your final subdivision is approved, and planned developments can be graded as long as it is consistent
with the application plan approved with the planned development — staff is proposing to treat preliminary
site plans the same way.
, Ms. Mallek asked if this would only leave the final site plan process to be able to move forward.
Mr. Fritz responded that there would have to be some initial preliminary approval that would have
had to occur, just as in a rezoning, without all the details worked out yet.
Mr. Loach asked if there would be no pending waivers on the site at that time.
Mr. Fritz explained that the concept staff has shared with the Board, Commission and ARB was
that the preliminary approval would be granted with the stipulation that early grading could be done when
specific things such as a landscape plan or waiver are accomplished.
Mr. Lafferty asked if this would include installation of utilities as part of the grading.
Mr. Fritz replied that it could potentially include stormwater and other utilities, which can be done
now with road plans, but that is something to be finalized in the text amendment. He said that it is
probable that some utilities could be done, but the work wouldn't be done to determine where lines and
such would go or what size of pipe would be needed.
Mr. Rooker stated that there are some advantages to this approach, but also some risks to the
applicant noting that Albemarle Place does not have final site plan approval but is doing substantial
grading and stormwater work. He said there is always the possibility they could never come to an
agreement with respect to their final site plan, or final ARB approval for what they are trying to do, but they
are making a substantial investment while those decisions are still pending. You are not necessarily doing
the applicant a favor all the time by advancing grading.
Mr. Dorrier asked if Stonefield (formerly Albemarle Place) has the records and permits needed to
do what they want.
Mr. Graham replied that they cannot even do the preliminary grading without some installation of
storm utilities because once the ground is disturbed the drainage patterns are affected, and there must be
some utilities put in just to make the site work.
on
August 3, 2011 Board of Supervisors (Regular Day Meeting)
Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board Joint Meeting With Board
(Page 5) FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Fritz mentioned that Branchlands was graded for a long time before the first buildings went in
and some people were concerned that it sat graded but idle for a long time.
Mr. Fritz said that the proposals he mentioned are what staff recommends, but they also have two
other options that are significant changes — both of them shifting approval of site plans or subdivisions
from the Planning Commission, with the agent making that decision. Mr. Fritz noted that the Commission
would still be involved with waivers and modifications, but staff recommends that over time more of those
waivers and modifications have standards developed so that they are performance standards or
administrative waivers. He said that the first option is agent approval only after ARB review occurs, with
the second option being agent approval without ARB review. The ARB would not be involved in site
design. The ARB would be involved in only the review of the site for the building design - lighting and the
structure itself.
Mr. Lafferty asked if this is a different agent than the previous. Mr. Fritz responded that this would
be him. Currently the agent approves the site plans and subdivisions after the Site Review Committee
has approved it, with VDOT, the Health Department, the Service Authority and others as members of that
Committee. He said that this shift would make the ARB like the Service Authority or VDOT whereby they
will have to have reviewed the project before it gets preliminary approval, applying only to projects in the
Entrance Corridor District. Option two, he said, would have no ARB involvement and would be done just
like it is now except there would not be an appeal process to the Commission for site plans and
subdivisions. Mr. Fritz added that staff currently approves some now if they are not in the EC.
Ms. Mallek asked if there was an appeal process for those circumstances.
Mr. Fritz explained that a project can be appealed to the Planning Commission but there are a lot
of projects that do not get appealed. He said if the Site Review Committee finds it meets the standards for
r preliminary approval, staff can approve it with whatever conditions must be satisfied for the final — and this
new recommendation is that it be done in all cases, with no appeal process.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out that any member of the Planning Commission can call it up.
Mr. Fritz said that abutting property owners, the Planning Commission, the applicant, or staff can
appeal it — but this would mean there would be no appeal process.
Mr. Boyd commented that the Planning Commission has no authority to do anything with it
anyway.
Mr. Fritz responded that that's the primary reason staff is recommending this change, as there
have been situations where people have appealed and it has to be approved by the Commission because
it meets all the requirements of the Ordinance.
Ms. Mallek said she likes the idea of the ARB review being earlier.
Mr. Fritz said that option two simplifies the process and shortens review times, but also
significantly reduces the role of the ARB — so in an effort to maintain quality, staff is recommending option
one.
Ms. Porterfield said that her concern when she first saw this is that it removes people who have
direct input from a magisterial district, as there are six people who are appointed to handle a district — and
when this is moved to the ARB this is not really their purview. She asked if there had been no appeals in
the past that could not have been overturned by the Planning Commission.
;* Mr. Fritz replied that he cannot think of a by -right project that has ever gone to the Commission on
appeal that staff was recommending approval for, that the Commission could deny. He also said that
some of those cases were appealed to the Board and they overturned the denial, but he cannot recall a
August 3, 2011 Board of Supervisors (Regular Day Meeting)
Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board Joint Meeting With Board
(Page 6) FINAL MINUTES
time when the Planning Commission found a provision in the ordinance where an application was not
meeting those requirements.
Ms. Porterfield asked what items would be considered for public hearings, and who the public
hearing entity would be.
Mr. Fritz said that projects in the Entrance Corridor would be going to the ARB and would have a
public hearing process, and other projects would only go to the Site Review Committee — not to the
Planning Commission.
Ms. Porterfield responded that none of the people on the Site Review Committee are the people
who have been appointed to look out for residents and businesses in the community.
Ms. Mallek said that before this would happen there would have to be a really careful set of
guidelines and criteria, so the application is already meeting a high standard.
Mr. Rooker stated that site plan approval is statutory so an application only has to meet the
requirements for that approval.
Mr. Fritz said at any time design criteria could be amended within the limits of the State Code.
Mr. Rooker noted that when he was on the Planning Commission, projects would be brought
forward and because there was local input sometimes things would be changed at that level in responses
to concerns. He said that while the Commission does not have discretion to deny an application, that is a
point at which voluntary changes can be made. Mr. Rooker stated that it is up to the Commission as to
what the value of that is.
+►` Mr. Loach stated that it is often a double-edged sword as there is an expectation that cannot be
met due to statutory requirements, but there are changes and agreements made in certain circumstances.
The problem with the other issue with the site review only is that it is done mostly during the day so
community access is limited.
Mr. Fritz said that part of this proposal is reevaluating when the site review meetings are held, and
stressing that the meetings are the opportunity to talk to the applicant and County staff. He stated that
there are members on that panel representing a certain area of expertise, with staffs role being protection
of the community's interests at large. Staff would be trying to utilize these meetings much like the
Commission meeting by facilitating conversations between abutting owners, nearby owners and the
applicant, and talking through and doing the kinds of things the Commission does now. The ordinance is
the same for the staff as it is for the Planning Commission. Staff is proposing that there be a revitalization
of the site review meeting and a refocus of its purpose.
Mr. Loach said that the Planning Commission member for a certain district can be there for those
meetings as well, and process -wise it may work out better.
Mr. Fritz reiterated that staff has not worked out the details of this but it is the concept.
Mr. Rooker noted that the site review meetings are not really public hearings, noting that often
there is no public comment at ARB meetings.
Mr. Daggett stated that it is infrequent, but is invited at every meeting. The public is asked to
comment on each and every project, and if they are there they do comment.
Mr. Rooker commented that option one seems to be a good option, if it does not just result in a
r shift from the Commission to the ARB.
Mr. Franco stated that most of the Commission items are related to land use, and typically their
hands are tied because of zoning. He said his concern is that it expands the ARB's power or puts more
August 3, 2011 Board of Supervisors (Regular Day Meeting)
Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board Joint Meeting With Board
(Page 7) FINAL MINUTES
Vft,W gray area into the situation, as architectural standards could be endless in terms of what might be required
of the applicant. He said part of question is what should be the role of the ARB.
Mr. Wardell reiterated that the ARB's jurisdiction is only the Entrance Corridors, so anything falling
outside of that does not go to them.
Ms. Mallek said that the site plan level is often where the biggest decision is made that does affect
the Entrance Corridor, so there is a role for the ARB there.
Mr. Franco stated that if the ARB's role is focusing on architecture, they may actually impact
things such as building size and height.
Mr. Graham said that what Mr. Franco is getting at is the difference between option one or two,
with option one maintaining the ARB's role for site layout and grading, and option two saying that
performance standards would be adopted, thus removing that role.
Mr. Daggett responded that the ARB has discussed this among themselves as they are often
challenged in terms of making anything out of the buildings that are presented, and Mr. Wardell has
addressed this well in the past.
Mr. Wardell said there are times when the ARB is really just dressing up the back of buildings,
and there is public concern of roads and intersections that are under their purview — but when they receive
a site plan that does not promote the quality of public concerns the ARB is challenged with making the
building palatable. He stated that the question is how to get expertise and input sooner in the process so
the Commission and staff can benefit from that instead of having it there and "painting a mural on what
you're given."
1Mr. Lebo noted that the ARB has stated that they would rather be a resource than a hurdle.
Mr. Rooker said it has been a problem for years because by the time the ARB sees something,
there is a site plan presented that is not amenable to doing their job.
Mr. Lebo mentioned that it happened with the Target store at Hollymead and with the Regal
Cinema at Stonefield.
Mr. Wardell said it could be addressed through the composition of the site review committee so
that representation could happen earlier. The committee could include someone from the Commission or
ARB. He said that option one would have no design review if the project is not in the EC, and those that
are would fall under the ARB's jurisdiction.
Ms. Porterfield stated that she does go to site review meetings, and it has not been a place where
there is a tremendous amount of give and take — and often the applicant does not even come. It is not
required that the applicant attend the meeting. Most of the time the staffs report comes out the day
before the site review meeting and that is not enough time to expect the populous get to a meeting and
especially if the meeting is at 10:00 a.m., in the morning. She emphasized that she does not want to see
people in the County disenfranchised if they want to speak on an issue. There have been many
applications at the Commission level that should probably have not been there, but they ended up with
some compromise. At least it allows the public to talk. If the Board is going to appoint a Commission that
is magisterial based, then their input should be used. Also people should be able to use and call their
Commission member when they have a problem.
Mr. Loach commented that if the process changes so the meetings are moved to the evenings
with better notification, perhaps the site plan would be a better venue than the Planning Commission's
three minutes.
Ms. Porterfield said she doesn't have an issue with changing the process, but wants to ensure
that the public has an opportunity to provide input. She has a problem with eliminating someone
August 3, 2011 Board of Supervisors (Regular Day Meeting)
Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board Joint Meeting With Board
(Page 8) FINAL MINUTES
1%d"` (Commissioner) that the people know about. The site review committee is not what the Commission
does.
Mr. Franco stated that some decisions have to come out of the process, and part of what makes it
work at the Commission level is guidance from decision makers.
Mr. Rooker added that they actually take a vote.
Mr. Franco said that confusion comes in at that point also, because the Commission is really just
voting on the standards already in place.
Mr. Loach asked if it could be changed so that there is still a right to appeal.
Mr. Franco asked who would the appeal go to.
Mr. Fritz stated that staff went back and reviewed the concepts considered in June, one of which
being approval if minimum standards are met. If it meets the standards for approval, the application would
get approved. He said they were envisioning the site review meeting as an opportunity to have the
applicant and concerned individuals try to negotiate — but if opponents do not like a project and it meets
ordinance requirements, the project would be approved. Mr. Fritz noted that they were not looking at any
appeal process, because it is a ministerial process and if it meets the requirements of the ordinance, it
must be approved. There would not be an appeal process of an approval, but a denial or conditions the
applicant wasn't in favor of could be appealed. He added that there are very few projects that have ever
been appealed to the Planning Commission that were purely administrative and had no waivers
associated with them. Mr. Fritz said that many of the items before the Commission have been dual
appeals — with the site plan or subdivision appealed but also a waiver associated with it. He said if you
backed out the administrative portion and kept just the waiver, it would still go to the Planning Commission
— and it is a completely separate conversation as to how those waivers would be changed.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is some change made in the site plan at that level in order to gain
approval of the waiver. Mr. Fritz responded that they are associated with the waiver and would have
occurred regardless.
Mr. Rooker explained that if there is an application, for example, with three waivers and a pending
site plan approval with a lot of public comment, sometimes the applicant will propose changes in the site
plan after hearing community input. Mr. Fritz said that those opportunities would still exist under option
one as long as the waivers existed because the agent could not approve it until the waivers had been
approved because it would not meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance.
Ms. Porterfield stated that under that scenario, the ARB would only hear projects in the Entrance
Corridor — so anything that is anywhere else would only be heard by the agent.
Mr. Fritz explained that if there was a project that involved no waivers and no modifications and
was not within the EC district there would be a notification, then a site review meeting, and then
administrative approval if it met the minimum requirements.
Mr. Franco noted that the site review meeting would provide the opportunity for the public to
speak. Mr. Fritz responded, "yes".
Mr. Wardell said the vast majority of EC projects are relatively straightforward site plans and
applications, with some being a little more complicated — and Ms. Margaret Maliszewski will often approve
things administratively. He stated there is a second category where she will bring forth several questions
to be answered by the applicant, with the third category being things she thinks the ARB should hear. Mr.
Wardell said that there is essentially a judgment call to be made as to the input needed on issues, and
those could go to the Planning Commission. The complicated issues with a lot of neighbor involvement
would actually go to the Commission.
August 3, 2011 Board of Supervisors (Regular Day Meeting)
Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board Joint Meeting With Board
(Page 9) FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Franco responded that that doesn't work because the Planning Commission's role is less
subjective with site plans, and once something has been rezoned it must be reviewed by specific existing
standards.
Mr. Rooker commented that there were six recommendations made by staff before these options
were considered, and asked if there is a consensus if those recommendations are worth doing — as he
supports them as a good starting point. He said that he would support the first option for items in the ARB
corridor because it makes sense, as right now they are having to deal with site plans that are virtually
impossible for them to do their job. Mr. Rooker stated that eliminating that tension would save applicants
time by eliminating the need to redesign their site to meet some ARB guidelines, which leaves the issue of
what to do with things that are not in the corridor. He said that he is concerned about site review
committee meetings at night, as it may create staff overtime in dealing with them. He is not sure that that
is going to be a great approach. He thinks it narrows down to do you want to continue to allow call-ups on
things that are not in the corridor.
Mr. Dorrier said that the issue of appeal needs to be addressed, as Ms. Porterfield's point about
representation by district is an important one — as neighbors and the applicant need a way to have input.
He stated that if a Commissioner called up a problematic site plan, people would leave feeling that the
system is working for them — even if they lost.
Mr. Franco stated that most of the appeals he was considering were those the applicant was
appealing. He thinks many times the Commission has been used as feedback on how they interpret a
provision when there is a hard disagreement between staff and the applicant — but once that decision is
made whether it complies or not, he does not know that there should be an appeal process for the public.
Mr. Loach asked what impact this would have on Commission work sessions.
Mr. Fritz responded that the Commission can have a work session on any item they want to.
Mr. Rooker said they would not have a work session on an item they would not be seeing.
Mr. Franco stated that the pre -application meeting is the more appropriate time for the ARB to be
present, as any constraints desired need to come early in the process.
Mr. Rooker noted that someone had recommended having an ARB member on the site review
committee.
Mr. Daggett said that he said that he heard from all members of the ARB that they would be
happy to join in and be a resource as an advisory body for projects outside of the corridor, without being
an imposition on the applicant whereby they might be able to stimulate some conversation and get the
applicant and neighbors together to think in a different way.
Mr. Franco stated that with the Hollymead Town Center, for example, design drove a lot of it — but
he would want to have an agreement early on as to what level of mass grading would be acceptable,
adding that Stonefield needed mass grading also.
Mr. Wardell asked if there is a bond requirement at the preliminary site grading level.
Mr. Franco responded that there is an erosion control plan that must be bonded.
Mr. Wardell said that the worst case scenario would be that stormwater runoff could be handled,
but only site stabilization can be mandated.
Nlkw Mr. Daggett stated that a project in the Entrance Corridor is different, as conditions could be
imposed.
August 3, 2011 Board of Supervisors (Regular Day Meeting)
Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board Joint Meeting With Board
(Page 10) FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Porterfield noted that the big piece missing here is the rest of the County that is not on a
corridor, so the opportunity for public comment would be lost. She does not know that the third
recommendation would work unless a lot is changed in the process. She agreed that there would be a
financial burden by having staff attend night meetings, suggesting that projects outside of the EC be
appealed to the Planning Commission if necessary — with a subcommittee of the Commission to look at
them, comprised of the Planner, the Commission member of that district, and two others. Ms. Porterfield
said it could be done as a Consent Agenda item if the item should be moved up to a full hearing.
Mr. Franco responded that his concern is that gives the perception that the public has the ability to
influence the decision.
Mr. Daggett stated that if it meets the letter of the law and there are no waivers or issues, then
there is nothing that can be done other than approval. Mr. Fritz stated that that is correct.
Mr. Fritz noted that often people walk out of a meeting more frustrated than when they came in
because they appealed an item, and there was nothing that could be done.
Ms. Mallek agreed, stating that public input without any use for it just makes people angry
because they feel like they have wasted their time.
Ms. Porterfield said that a smaller group would be a nicer way to explain that from the
Commission, and at least it gives them an ability to come and talk.
Mr. Loach commented that there are ways not to incur too much additional staff expense and said
he agrees that providing an opportunity for the public to speak is important, expressing concern that the
perception may be that government is making decisions without them.
Mr. Franco said if that is the goal then the first public contact should happen at the pre -application
committee.
Mr. Loach agreed that the best way to engage the public is early in the process.
Ms. Mallek said that that's why developers who reach out to the neighborhood before a project
even gets to the pre -application stage are way ahead of the game, offering a non -confrontational
environment to get really good suggestions.
Mr. Franco noted that those meetings are not always non -confrontational.
Mr. Graham said this conversation is talking about increasing public input, but the development
community may not perceive what is being discussed now as a significant improvement.
Mr. Franco stated that it may take something longer to get off the ground, but to at least have the
constraints on the table ahead of time would be helpful — then an applicant can listen to the input and staff
can react to what is or isn't included. He said that it is a good idea to spend more time at the early phase
of design, before a developer is too far into a project. He thinks they are prioritizing what the important
[constraints] are.
Mr. Daggett commented that at that stage things are in the concept phase and you cannot
legislate good design, but a group of people at the conceptual level can lend some point of view to a
project that will positively impact it — including community concerns.
Mr. Wardell said that as a designer you are hoping to get some guidance from the ARB person,
the engineer, the stormwater planner, the fire department, etc. — but the only designer ultimately is the
applicant.
Mr. Franco said that the designers are putting their concerns on the table so they can be
addressed, and having that all up front might be a better way to standardize the process.
n
August 3, 2011 Board of Supervisors (Regular Day Meeting)
Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board Joint Meeting With Board
(Page 11) FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Loach pointed out that the community has come a long way through master planning, and
people can look around at the plan and know what to expect — so the more they know up front, the less
likelihood for confrontation.
Mr. Franco agreed, but said that a lot of what was decided years ago has now tied hands at the
site plan level. He emphasized that people need to understand that they need to be engaged at the Comp
Plan level.
Mr. Zobrist commented that this process being recommended doesn't really simplify anything
Mr. Graham responded that he does not see any improvements here that the development
community would perceive as simplification.
Mr. Wardell said that if he went into the process and got feedback early, and knew there was not
a possibility of running into the Commission or the ARB, that would be an improvement in his scenario.
Mr. Fritz stated that there is nothing to prevent someone from doing that now. The pre -application
being considered here is a process whereby the applicant would submit and within 10 days fundamental
issues identified with the project would be identified — things related to zoning, parking, waivers, ARB
issues, etc. He does not even know if the County could require a public process. The staff is going to
give them that information in 10 days so they can go and prepare their plan. He stated that if there is a
requirement for public process, they will likely forego a pre -application process and file their application
because the County has 60 days to act on it.
Mr. Wardell said they have been in other jurisdictions where a pre -application conference is
required.
Mr. Fritz stated that it could be required now.
Mr. Zobrist said that if the objective is to speed up the process, the process itself needs to be
examined because this process takes time and money.
Mr. Rooker noted that Mr. Graham had indicated that if these things were adopted with one of the
two options, it would save time, and it would assure that similar quality measures in place.
Mr. Graham responded that these six steps would provide minimal improvements to the time; the
options would improve time.
Mr. Rooker said that if a member of the Commission or ARB is on the site review committee, he
thinks you create a whole lot more certainty early on in the process. He stated that he would be in favor of
adopting option one, as all of the waivers are still going to come up to the Commission and most projects
of significance have some waiver requirements attached to them. Mr. Rooker added that at some point it
needs to be decided what the goal is and what should be taken forward.
Mr. Graham responded that the question is whether the Board of Supervisors agrees with the six
recommendations, and whether option one is moved forward as staff is suggesting.
Mr. Rooker said that if an ARB member and Commission member is added it would be a better
process than what exists now.
Mr. Franco agreed, stating that the time saving will be less back and forth between a developer
and staff.
Mr. Daggett added that it is the certainty earlier that is almost more important than the time,
because the time spent in the design process is where time is really lost.
August 3, 2011 Board of Supervisors (Regular Day Meeting)
Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board Joint Meeting With Board
(Page 12) FINAL MINUTES
1164" Ms. Porterfield said that the items that come to the Planning Commission are not just all plain
vanilla.
Mr. Rooker asked her how many times they have come up with no waiver, that they would not
have come up anyway.
Ms. Porterfield responded that there have been at least a few in recent memory, but in the long
run there were a couple of changes made by the applicant because they listened at that level. Ms.
Porterfield said that another vehicle would be use of community councils, because that is who they are
representing.
Mr. Loach asked if the percentage of applications appealed is so high that it is problematic, with
no waiver involved.
Mr. Fritz responded that the number of appealed applications where there is no waiver is very low,
which is why staff felt comfortable with option one.
Mr. Loach said that if the percentage is that low, then it should not be a problem to add some kind
of appeal process.
Mr. Zobrist stated that even in 2006 and 2007 — at the peak of activity — there were very few site
plans called up.
Mr. Thomas commented that he agrees with Mr. Rooker on the six recommendations, and asked
what the issue would be with adding two more members to the site review committee.
Mr. Fritz replied that there would be no problem, as Commissioners come to those meetings now,
but their role would need to be clarified. He said that the controversial projects are the ones that get
appealed but staff does not know until it happens.
Mr. Wardell said that when public discontent arises with a project, the question is how to "poke the
bear early." He stated that there is an assumption when things come before a board for review that the
community has already had input, and good developers will do that anyway as a matter of course — but
there are some jurisdictions where you know you will get hammered at every corner until the public input is
allowed.
Mr. Loach stated that, to some degree, that is already happening, as some of the growth areas
that are master planned have advisory boards — which tend to come forward early on with feedback they
have received at the early stages. He added that at one time there was a planner assigned to each
growth area, who was sensitive to the community and knew what their expectations were.
Mr. Wardell said that perhaps another box to check could be added that asks a developer if they
have met with the neighborhood.
Ms. Mallek stated that the idea was discussed seven years ago on the Development Review Task
Force as being a really important element.
Mr. Rooker asked how often execution on a site plan takes place as opposed to a rezoning, which
already has a process to go to the Commission and the Board.
Mr. Franco responded that rezonings happen a lot more, with far fewer by -right site plans, with the
biggest unknown usually being the ARB because it is very subjective.
Mr. Rooker commented that that's why it makes sense to have an ARB member on the site review
committee, and if option one is adopted that prevents a conflict between a site plan and the ARB's view of
it.
August 3, 2011 Board of Supervisors (Regular Day Meeting)
Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board Joint Meeting With Board
(Page 13) FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Boyd stated that he concurs with Mr. Rooker and Mr. Thomas, and suggested asking staff to
move forward with the six recommendations and option one. There is still plenty of time for public input
and further discussion. He added that he appreciates this discussion; it has been very helpful.
(Consensus of the Board to move forward with the following six recommendations and to
follow Option 1:
Option 1:
Agent approval instead of PC approval with no right for site plans or subdivision plats to be called up for
review by the PC. ARB reviews projects in Entrance Corridor Districts prior to preliminary approval.
Six Recommendations:
1. Pre -application submittal with review in 10 days to determine main issues and required waivers.
2. Reduced plan content to minimum necessary for review.
3. Public notified of Site Review Meeting and asked to attend and provide comment.
4. Establish clearer submittal requirements for the final site plan.
5. Establish that any comment not responded to within 6 months deems the project withdrawn.
6. Allow the issuance of grading permits with the approval of the initial (preliminary site plan).
Item No. 22b. Community Development — Legislative Review Process.
The executive summary presented to the Board stated that On September 1, 2010, Mark
Graham, Director of the Community Development Department, provided the Board an overview of the
variables affecting the quality and efficiency of the legislative review process for applications for re -zonings
and special use permits, and requested direction on possible changes to the process (September 1, 2010
executive summary provided as Attachment A). Mr. Graham noted that the four variables to consider are
1) efficiency of the review process, 2) the number of review issues, 3) the extent of review to assure
quality development, and 4) the number of decision -makers. Mr. Graham said that additional
opportunities for change realistically could be found in two areas — review efficiency and delegating some
review issues to the ministerial process. Mr. Graham identified the following changes to the legislative
review process that would help reduce time and costs:
1. Codify expectations as application requirements.
2. Codify the requirement for a pre -application conference.
3. Formalize a community meeting process.
4. By policy, avoid indefinite deferrals.
In concurrence with Mr. Graham's conclusions, the Board directed staff to prepare a resolution of
intent to initiate the zoning text amendment for the recommended process changes for consideration by
the Board at a future meeting.
In preparation for the September 1, 2010 work session, staff consulted with several of Albemarle's
peer counties that have similar expectations for re -zonings to evaluate their review processes. Staff visited
Hanover and Fauquier Counties to gain further insight into the processes that they use. The common
theme that staff found in both counties was a focus on pre -application preparation with prospective
applicants, quality control for application acceptance and community awareness regarding application
proposals. These findings further verified the approach Mr. Graham outlined on September 1 st. With this
in mind, staff believes the following are relevant goals in making changes (see Attachment B for flow chart
of changes):
A. Create a value-added process for both the applicant and staff keeping in mind that time is
money for both parties
August 3, 2011 Board of Supervisors (Regular Day Meeting)
Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board Joint Meeting With Board
(Page 14) FINAL MINUTES
11%W B. Provide clear expectations — it will be the responsibility of staff to tell the applicant what is
required in an application and the applicant should provide it
C. Reduce iterations of re -submittal — it will be the responsibility of staff to provide complete,
clear and unchanging comments of what is required for a project to be acceptable and the
applicant will provide it
D. Get decisions made — avoid deferrals. Provided applicable criteria and expectations are
met then the matter is approved; should applicable criteria and expectations not be met
then the matter should be denied
As such, staff recommends the following changes to the legislative review process:
A. A pre -application conference is to be required prior to application submittal
B. A pre -application form is to be completed by the applicant and submitted before
scheduling the pre -application conference
C. Staff completes the pre -application comment form and provides it to the applicant within 7
days of submittal
1. Includes checklist of information required for application submittal
2. Includes requirement(s) for a plan of development, a traffic study and other
special studies or documentation if determined to be applicable
D. The application form will address expectations, including those based on the staff pre -
application comment form
E. Fee is not paid with submittal — applications are to be reviewed for completeness before
acceptance
F. Applicant is to be notified within 7 days of acceptance/rejection
1. If the application is accepted:
a) The fee must be paid within 5 business days of the notice of acceptance
to activate the review during that application submittal review period
b) If the fee is not paid within 5 business days the review does not begin
until the next submittal date after the fee is paid
2. If the application is rejected:
a) A checklist of missing information is provided by staff to the applicant
b) The applicant is eligible to reapply with the required information as early
as the following month's submittal date
c) A new pre -application conference is not required, but a follow-up meeting
with staff can be scheduled before re -applying if the applicant so desires
G. Community meetings:
1. Would be applicant -sponsored and required after the application is submitted to
provide public information about the project; community meetings must be held
within 46 days of the application submittal date for which the fee is paid
2. Staff attends the community meeting to observe and answer process and policy
questions
Staff believes these changes will address the goals noted, particularly through clearer
expectations up front leading to complete applications that will allow for a more substantive initial review
by staff, thus reducing the number of re -submittals and deferrals due to lack of information.
Staff held a roundtable meeting with public interests on July 19th to provide an overview of the
proposed changes and receive feedback. While attendance was rather small, the following were
important comments and suggestions provided at the roundtable:
• There was support for a mandatory pre -application conference, but comments
provided by staff to the applicant on the pre -application comment form should be
SW valid until an application is made since the time that may be required to complete
the information necessary for application submittal (e.g., a traffic study) could take
several months.
There was concern that the community meeting could be "one more hurdle"
August 3, 2011 Board of Supervisors (Regular Day Meeting)
Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board Joint Meeting With Board
(Page 15) FINAL MINUTES
(another public hearing) for applicants. Those commenting requested more details
on how the community meeting will be conducted and how notice will be provided.
A suggested alternative was to allow flexibility for the applicant to hold the meeting
when and how it feels it is most beneficial and to not make it mandatory.
To the extent practical, standardize staff review time to determine whether an
application is complete for all types of applications (re -zonings, special use permits,
site plans, subdivision plats).
Staff is not yet proposing a resolution of intent to amend the zoning ordinance for two reasons: 1)
it wants to confirm the Board's concurrence with these proposed changes through this scheduled
worksession; and 2) Based on Board feedback, staff wants to tailor the resolution to only those changes
that must be codified while allowing administrative policies to establish more detailed application
expectations and review procedures where possible.
Staff's recommendation should reduce the County's overall cost for application reviews, though
the differences are not anticipated to result in more than a 10% cost reduction in rezoning and special use
permits. The majority of the cost remains in preparing materials for public hearings and changes resulting
from public hearings. While staff may spend more time on a project before the application is accepted for
review and without a fee being paid, time spent on review after the application/fee is accepted should be
reduced, especially if this process is effective in reducing the number of re -submittals. Since the fees
collected for applications and re -submittals only cover a portion of the actual County processing cost, the
reduced review time is a cost savings to the County.
Staff recommends that the Board concur with the changes recommended in items A through G
beginning at the bottom of page 1. Should the Board agree with these recommendations, staff will
prepare a resolution of intent to initiate the necessary zoning text amendment for the recommended
process changes for consideration by the Board on an upcoming consent agenda.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that he would be discussing the legislative process, which is very different
and depending on what staff has to work with — along with what an applicant knows is expected in the
beginning. He said that in September 2010 the Board concurred with staff recommendations: 1) codifying
expectations, 2) require pre -application conference, 3) provide a community meeting process, and 4)
maintain dates for public hearings — avoiding indefinite referrals and a cycle of review and respond.
He stated that since then staff has consulted with comparable counties, particularly Fauquier and
Hanover, and found that pre -application preparation with prospective applicants was highly emphasized —
to make sure applicants understood what needed to be submitted and a true quality control mechanism
for applications to be accepted, as well as community awareness regarding what the proposals are.
Mr. Cilimberg said staff had drafted recommendations that the Board reviewed, along with a
roundtable meeting held in mid -July that was minimally attended but staff did provide an opportunity for
that input. He stated that staff has established that the process should be value-added, as time is money
for both applicants and the County, so whatever can be done to shorten the timeframe in the review
process is encouraged. Mr. Cilimberg stated that they need to make sure there is a common
understanding between applicants and County staff regarding expectations with the projects being
submitted, which can vary from project to project. Staffs goal is to reduce iterations of re -submittal. Mr.
Cilimberg said that there can be three or four re -submittals with just about any legislative review, and
many times the first review after an application is made requires a resubmittal that is essentially a lot of
material that staff needs to review from the beginning.
Ms. Mallek asked why an application would be accepted if it was incomplete.
SWW Mr. Cilimberg responded that it was accepted under County provisions, which are rather minimal
and need to be addressed. He said that ultimately the goal is to make a decision and avoid further
deferrals with projects.
August 3, 2011 Board of Supervisors (Regular Day Meeting)
Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board Joint Meeting With Board
(Page 16) FINAL MINUTES
'"" In the proposed process changes, Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff is recommending the following
changes: 1) requiring a pre -application meeting; 2) pre -application form completed by applicant to
schedule pre -application meeting; 3) staff pre -application comment form to applicant within seven days; 4)
application addresses the items identified in the pre -application comment form; and 5) no fee submitted at
time of application — applications QC'ed for acceptance. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff would handle the
quality control process, with notification back to applicants that the information is all there before they
would have to pay a fee. He said if the application is accepted, the fee gets paid at that point; if it is not
then staff provides specifics to the applicant. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff has also built in the idea of
mandatory community meetings, applicant -sponsored, required after submittal but possibly occurring
beforehand. He said that staff would attend those meetings but would not be there to answer questions
about whether a project is good or bad — only to answer policy questions.
Mr. Cilimberg said that at the roundtable, attendees supported the pre -application conferences but
emphasized that the comments need to be valid until the applicant can make the application. He cited an
example of identifying the need for a transportation study, which requires scoping with staff and VDOT
and retaining a professional to do that work and having that then submitted — which can take a number of
months. Mr. Cilimberg said that applicants would not want staff comments to become invalid because of
the time necessary to get the information together for submittal. He stated that there was concern that the
community meeting might be one more hurdle, potentially another public hearing, and developers asked
about flexibility and when and how those meetings might be conducted. There was also the suggestion
that the meetings not be mandatory.
Mr. Rooker asked if Fauquier and Hanover require those meetings.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that Hanover does require community meetings and has made a
commitment that their Board member and Planning Commissioner for the district of the proposed project
will attend. He said that they were flexible in whether the meeting took place before or after application
was made and have found that decision makers as well as the public have a better idea of what the
project is all about before they are sitting in a public hearing considering the project. Mr. Cilimberg stated
that they didn't elaborate on whether decisions were made more quickly, but found that their decision -
makers as well as the public were more aware of the projects proposal and the issues associated with it —
and how those were received by the community.
Mr. Rooker commented that it is always a problem when a Board or Commission member gets to
a public hearing and has heard very little about a project — then a bunch of people show up with several
different issues — so to be able to mold that early in the process makes sense.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there had been a comment about standardizing review time for all
applications, so if there is a seven-day turnaround for pre -applications for legislative and a ten-day
turnaround for ministerial the question of why there is a difference needs to be addressed. He said that
staff's recommendations are for the Board's concurrence with the proposed process changes, which are
really up -front types of changes that don't have to go through multiple iterations of resubmittal — including
the mandatory community meeting and a standardized review time for all applications. Mr. Cilimberg
stated that they would also want to build into this process change the length of time deemed reasonable to
give applicants reliance on the pre -application comments so they know they are still valid for six months.
He added that you cannot go out two years because things can change in plans or ordinances but there is
a reasonable period of time that an applicant should have an expectation that they can make their
application and rely on the comments they received in the pre -application process.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that a resolution of intent would be provided for the changes that must be
codified. Staff would like to use the administrative policies as much as possible for detailing applicant
expectations and review procedures as it would then not be necessary for them to go through subsequent
zoning text amendments if only minor changes would be required. Staff will also further develop process
details including how the community meetings will be conducted and how notice will be provided.
August 3, 2011 Board of Supervisors (Regular Day Meeting)
Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board Joint Meeting With Board
(Page 17) FINAL MINUTES
4,40, Ms. Mallek commented that with clear expectations and reducing re -submittals, that is based
upon the intent of the applicant to actually step up and meet expectations — but there are applicants who
really have no intent of meeting community goals.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff hopes in part that this would be addressed through establishing what
needs to be included in their application so at least the material is there to be reviewed, and by having the
quality control of no fees until the application is accepted, it is hoped there would at least be a better start.
Ms. Mallek asked if there would be increased fees for re -submittals if they were based upon
original questions, to deter applicants from doing a constant back and forth.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the fee changes the Board adopted this year will help in that regard.
After the first re -submittal, a fee is associated with the second and subsequent re -submittals.
Mr. Morris commented that he really likes the proposed process as it provides opportunities for
the Board and the Commission to be involved in the early stages.
Mr. Boyd said it is not really much different from what happens today, as he often attends many
developer meetings with the public.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that it is upping the ante on applicants and staff to get the front end in better
shape.
Mr. Loach said that public comment can start with advisory committees, which represent a cross-
section of the community already and have familiarity with these issues — as well as bringing their
knowledge of the master plan and what is allowed.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that applicants will want as much help as they can get with holding
community meetings and utilizing existing channels to bring those together.
Mr. Rooker, Mr. Boyd and Mr. Thomas said they see no reason for not going forward with these
recommendations at this time.
(Consensus of the Board to concur with the following recommendations; that staff will
prepare a resolution of intent to initiate the necessary zoning text amendment for the
recommended process changes for consideration by the Board:
Community Development — Legislative Review Process
A. A pre -application conference is to be required prior to application submittal;
B. A pre -application form is to be completed by the applicant and submitted before scheduling the
pre -application conference
C. Staff completes the pre -application comment form and provides it to the applicant within 7 days of
submittal
1. Includes checklist of information required for application submittal
2. Includes requirement(s) for a plan of development, a traffic study and other special
studies or documentation if determined to be applicable
D. The application form will address expectations, including those based on the staff pre -application
comment form
E. Fee is not paid with submittal — applications are to be reviewed for completeness before
acceptance
F. Applicant is to be notified within 7 days of acceptance/rejection
1. If the application is accepted:
a) The fee must be paid within 5 business days of the notice of acceptance to
activate the review during that application submittal review period
b) If the fee is not paid within 5 business days the review does not begin until the
next submittal date after the fee is paid
August 3, 2011 Board of Supervisors (Regular Day Meeting)
Planning Commission & Architectural Review Board Joint Meeting With Board
(Page 18) FINAL MINUTES
2. If the application is rejected:
a) A checklist of missing information is provided by staff to the applicant
b) The applicant is eligible to reapply with the required information as early as the
following month's submittal date
c) A new pre -application conference is not required, but a follow-up meeting with
staff can be scheduled before re -applying if the applicant so desires
G. Community meetings:
1. Would be applicant -sponsored and required after the application is submitted to provide
public information about the project; community meetings must be held within 46 days of
the application submittal date for which the fee is paid
2. Staff attends the community meeting to observe and answer process and policy questions
Mr. Daggett said that the ARB had asked him to articulate the issue of County projects coming to
them late in the process, creating a time crunch because of other approvals and a construction schedule.
The ARB has really been seen as just a hurdle to get over. He added that this has been the case with
some of the school projects, and they hope that the County's own agencies that are approving buildings
would be a real exemplary applicant and come through the process the same as everyone else does. He
thinks that this new process will help a great deal.
Mr. Boyd suggested that Mr. Foley convey to Pam Moran in the school system an interest in
following the rules for their capital projects.
(Note: At 5:55 p.m., Planning Commission and ARB members left the meeting, with Board of
Supervisors members staying.)
The joint meeting ended at 5:55 p.m.
Adjournment:
At the conclusion of the joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission and
Architectural Review Board meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
�.o
V. Wayne dilimberg, Secre ry
Albemarle County Plannin Commis on
M