HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA200800002 Legacy Document 2008-07-22 (2)STAFF PERSON: Elaine K. Echols, AICP
PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION: July 29, 2008
ZTA 08 -02: Request for Changes to Planned District Regulations
ORIGIN: On April 22, 2008, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution of
intent to begin work on changes to the Planned District regulations to require that
site plans and subdivision plats permitted under old planned development zoning
comply with current rather than "old" regulations that existed at the time of
rezoning approval. (See Attachments A and B.) The resolution also noted that
some "clean -up" of Sections 8 and 20A would be provided, as well. The
Commission asked for a roundtable discussion on the proposal to get input on
the proposed changes as well.
PROPOSAL: The draft of the ordinance to accomplish these changes has not
yet been completed, pending additional information on possible changes to the
requirement for parking studies with application for a Neighborhood Model
District (NMD). However, a listing of the proposed changes, except for parking
studies and title changes, is in Attachment C.
Besides addressing the Commission's intent regarding site plans and subdivision
plats permitted under old planned development zoning, the proposed ordinance
amendment would also change other sections of the ordinance. Staff is asking
that the Commission consider additional changes to 1) bring titles of staff in line
with the current titles used in Community Development, 2) remove redundancy
and clarify where the text has been confusing to applicants, and 3) modify
requirements for detailed architectural information.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: The proposal helps to clarify expectations
for planned districts for the public, applicants, and staff as well as allow for
current rather than "old" standards to be used for plats and site plans.
STAFF COMMENT: The proposed changes would require that site plans and
subdivision plats for planned districts be approved under current regulations
unless an applicant requests to develop under the old regulations and
establishes a vested right to do so. According to the Albemarle County Land
use Handbook, authored by Larry Davis and Greg Kamptner in the County
Attorney's office vesting occurs as follows:
Virginia Code § 15.2 -2307 identifies the three factors that must be established in order for
an owner's rights to be deemed vested: (1) the owner obtains or is the beneficiary of a
significant affirmative governmental act that remains in effect allowing development of a
specific project; (2) the owner relies in good faith on the significant affirmative
governmental act; and (3) the owner incurs extensive obligations or substantial expenses in
diligent pursuit of the specific project in reliance on the significant affirmative
governmental act.
Virginia Code § 15.2 -2307 also identifies those affirmative governmental acts that are
deemed to be significant: (1) the governing body has accepted proffers or proffered
conditions which specify the use related to a zoning amendment; (2) the governing body
has approved an application for a rezoning for a specific use or density; (3) the governing
body or the BZA has granted a special exception or use permit with conditions; (4) the
BZA has approved a variance; (5) the governing body or its designated agent has approved
a preliminary subdivision plat, site plan or plan of development for the landowner's
property and the applicant diligently pursued approval of the final plat or plan within a
reasonable period of time under the circumstances; or (6) the governing body or its
designated agent has approved a final subdivision plat, site plan or plan of development for
the landowner's property.
The Planning Commission asked staff to provide information on the number of
planned districts that exist which are fairly old and the developments have not
been built. Staff will bring that information to the Planning Commission meeting.
Staff believes that the rest of the proposed changes are self - explanatory with the
exception of the changes to the architectural standards. The requirement for
architectural standards was originally included with the NMD so that consistency
of design could be achieved. Consistency was to be measured in the
architectural style (Georgian, Arts and Crafts, Federal, etc.), fagade designs, roof
pitch and material, as well as colors and textures of buildings. At the time, staff
believed that there was sufficient expertise and staffing to review each building
permit for consistency with the standards provided by the applicant.
Unfortunately, this has not been the case.
Administering the architectural standards has become a very difficult task for
several reasons. First, the standards vary from NMD to NMD — some NMD's
provide a great deal of detail with their Code of Development and some do not.
Where detail has been provided, it has related more to the fine points of
aesthetics than to achieve consistency of design. Second, applicants for building
permits have not always provided the information the Codes say will be provided.
This means that staff has to spend extra time trying to get the detail from the
applicants before it can review or approve the permits. Third, the detail of the
standards is such that staff has to spend tremendous amounts of time on items
that are much more important to the property owners in the development than to
the County. Finally, in this time of budget challenges and reduced staff
resources, staff finds that this item is better managed by a property owner's
association than the County. For that reason, staff believes that only information
on form, massing, and proportions of structures is essential for the district and
recommends the other items be dropped.
Administration / Review Process/ Implications to Staffing /Staffing Costs:
Staff believes that these amendments will address the Commission's concerns
regarding new development being processed under older zoning regulations that
existed at the time of zoning approval. Approval of the zoning changes will
diminish the amount of time staff and applicants spend on developing, reviewing,
and administering Planned Districts. Provided the Commission is comfortable
with the amendments as outlined, staff will schedule a roundtable meeting with
the development community to get input on these proposed changes.
Housing Affordability: The proposed changes should not have an impact on
housing affordability.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission review
the content of the proposed changes. If the Commission believes that the
changes appropriately address the issues raised by the Commission and staff,
then the staff will schedule a roundtable meeting with the development
community. Staff will include any recommended changes to parking studies
with the ordinance amendment brought back to the Commission.
ATTACHMENT A:
Excerpt from Minutes of April 22, 2008 Meeting
ATTACHMENT B:
Resolution of Intent dated April 22, 2008
ATTACHMENT C:
Proposed Changes dated July 29, 2008