Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201200009 Legacy Document 2012-12-19COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Site Plan and Subdivision Process Improvements SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Staff recommendations for improving the Site Plan and Subdivision processes in response to the Board's direction. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and Fritz; and Ms. Yaniglos LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: June 2, 2010 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The purpose of this work session is to consider changes to site plan and subdivision review processes for the purpose of reducing the time and cost of processing applications. This effort addresses a Board interest in reviewing the priority recommendations of the Development Review Task Force ( "DRTF ", Attachment A) and the 2010 Albemarle County Action Plan adopted by the Board on January 6, 2010 (Attachment B). That Action Plan called for staff to bring forward recommendations for "...reducing unnecessary and burdensome regulations and shortening approval times." Staff was also tasked with bringing forward "...outcomes from the Development Review Process that were designed to streamline the process... ". The status of the DRTF recommendations was reviewed by the Board on February 3, 2010 as part of Community Development's work program and focused on legislative review processes (e.g. rezoning and special use permits). An additional Board work session to further discuss the legislative review process is being planned for the Fall 2010. Today's work session focuses on site plans and subdivision processes. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal One: Enhance Quality of Life for All Citizens Goal Four: Effectively Manage Growth & Development DISCUSSION: Staff believes that site plan and subdivision plat processes ( "ministerial applications ") should be the highest priority in addressing the goal of reducing the time and cost of applications. While there has been considerable interest in rezoning applications, the County is currently receiving one -third of the number of rezoning applications as it has in prior years, and there has not been a major new rezoning application in the last three years. Market conditions and the large inventory of approved rezonings suggest the market will focus on drawing down this inventory through subdivision plats and site plans rather than rezoning additional property in the foreseeable future. Current site plan and subdivision processes include a preliminary plan or plat and a final plan or plat ( "plan "). For approval of the final plan, an applicant must also receive approval of a stormwater management plan, erosion and sediment control plan, road and drainage plan (VDOT for public roads), water and sewer plans (ACSA) or well and septic approvals (Health Department). Additionally, if the property is located on an Entrance Corridor, a Certificate of Appropriateness must be issued by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Recognizing this complexity, staff has developed the following strategies to achieve the goal of reducing the time and cost of applications: 1. Avoid Review Delays. Review delays are largely associated with waiting on others to act. (e.g. scheduling a Planning Commission review) . 2. Reduce Resubmissions. While reducing review delays is important, reducing the number of resubmissions is equally as critical to reducing time and costs. 3. Assure Predictable Outcomes. Uncertainty (risk) has been the largest complaint by the development community. Predictable outcomes should reduce the number of submittals required to reach approval. 4. Maintain County Development Quality. While lowering the development quality is the easiest way to reduce costs, the Board has never suggested that quality standards should be lowered. As such, staff has focused on assuring the standards are appropriately administered rather than altering the quality level. AGENDA TITLE: Site Plan and Subdivision Process Improvements June 2, 2010 Page 2 To achieve these objectives staff recommends that changes focus on simplifying the process and increasing staff's decision flexibility, rather than altering the County's development standards. The key points of staff's proposal are: A. Administrative review of plans and modifications. To decrease review and approval times, the County must minimize the number of people and steps involved in a decision. Staff reports and Planning Commission presentations increase both time and costs for the County and applicants, and a Planning Commission decision significantly increases the decision complexity. B. Clearly specify required changes. To assure predictable outcomes, the County must have clear ordinance standards and review to those standards. Waivers and modifications must also be reviewed against objective standards to reduce uncertainty. Staff can continue to offer recommendations on how the project may be improved, but applicants must know what is required versus recommended. C. More focus by the ARB's and Planning Commission's on assuring appropriate ordinance requirements and guidelines rather than case by case reviews. Administrative processes provide the Planning Commission and ARB the time and opportunity to focus their attention on assuring the ordinance standards and guidelines represent the community's values. D. Conditional approvals. Despite providing applicants with detailed checklists, staff continues to receive applications where simple requirements have been checked as complete, but are not actually included on the plans. In many cases, staff could conditionally approve these plans, noting the necessary changes needed to bring the plan into compliance with the requirements. This approach would avoid the need for an additional and expensive resubmission. Suggested process change: Attachment C provides a flow chart that outlines the new process that would be incorporated into the County Code. The applicant would submit a concept plan for review and within ten (10) days, County staff would administer a quick, "red flag" review of the plan. During the 10 day review period, staff would put together all the necessary information needed to allow the applicant to make a formal plan submittal. Staff would identify any significant issues that could slow the process down such as waivers, variations, VDOT review, ARB review, and other issues that would need to be resolved or applied for during the formal submittal process. Staff would then meet with the applicant to explain the issues and provide a folder containing all the information noted during this review, including all the applications, checklists, and forms needed for the formal plan submittal. If the applicant failed to apply for all of the required approvals, failed to submit all of the required information or if the plan lacked the required content, the plan would be rejected and the applicant would be required to resubmit an application with all of the required information. After the formal submittal, the site review committee (SRC) would review and provide comments as needed. After comments were given, there would be an SRC meeting where the plan would be given approval with conditions or would be denied. Allowing the plan to be approved or denied at this point would address the State Code requirements for timely review of preliminary plans and plats, as well as give the applicant a vested approval and a year to submit the associated plan approvals described above. This process would include a possible administrative extension when the applicant had demonstrated diligence in seeking approval but had been delayed by factors outside of its control. Finally, this process would allow the SRC to authorize issuance of a grading permit before final plan approval when no conditions would prevent this. An "early grading permit" has been one of the most frequent requests by applicants, as it allows them to avoid costly delays while working through conditions. Other suggestions: To make this process more effective, the Board may wish to consider further streamlining of processes. For example, the recent ordinance amendment to provide for countywide Certificates of Appropriateness (ARB) could be expanded to include site plans that meet specified conditions. This appears to be consistent with an objective of the draft Economic Development Action Plan that is currently being considered by the Board. That plan calls for increasing staff's assistance in helping small businesses through County processes, which fits the described circumstance. With respect to public participation, staff recommends continuing public notices as currently done. For those applications already administratively approved, there is no change in the process. For the applications no longer receiving Planning Commission review, the notice would refer the public to the meeting of the Site Review Committee. Staff believes this change may improve public satisfaction in many situations. Currently, a Planning Commission meeting provides time for a 3 minute comment, but no opportunity to ask follow up questions or provide clarifications. The Site Review Committee meeting provides an opportunity for an informal dialogue between all. AGENDA TITLE: Site Plan and Subdivision Process Improvements June 2, 2010 Page 3 BUDGET IMPACT: No additional staff resources or funding are anticipated with the proposed alternative. The recommendations can provide reductions in staff's workload and applicant's costs. As the selected process is finalized and brought to the Board for public hearing, staff will be able to better estimate any cost savings for the reviews. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff requests Board direction regarding the above proposals to achieve the goal of reducing the time and cost of processing site plan and subdivision applications. Based on that direction, staff will prepare appropriate resolutions of intent for Board consideration at an upcoming meeting. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: DRTF Priority Recommendations Attachment B: 2010 Albemarle County Action Plan Attachment C: Flow Chart Return to regular agenda