HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201200009 Legacy Document 2012-12-19 (5)COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development - Site Plan and Subdivision
Review Process
SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Work session to consider possible changes to the site
plan and subdivision review process (shortening review
times and reducing the review costs)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
Fritz; and Ms. Yaniglos
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 3, 2011
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
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.
DISCUSSION:
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:
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 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
AGENDA TITLE: Community Development - Site Plan and Subdivision Review Process
August 3, 2011
Page 2
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 are
workload due to switching of
approval. ARB
processed administratively.
codified or made administrative.
public input from PC to ARB,
reviews projects
Maintains public hearing
Potentially reduces public input for
even though the issues are
in Entrance
process for some items.
non -EC projects. No reduction in
different. Reduction in PC
Corridor Districts
Maintains ability for design
review time for EC projects.
workload. Time /budget savings
prior to
review. Allows for some
of PC limited to the time spent
preliminary
reduction of review time for
preparing staff reports,
approval.
projects in EC.
attending public meetings and
aeneratina minutes.
Agent approval
Allows for reduced review
May result in reduction in quality of
ARB staff impacts - Some
instead of PC
times.
the built environment. Reduces the
reduction in ARB staff workload
approval. No
potential for public input. Standard-
due to elimination of
ARB review of
ized Entrance Corridor design
requirement for review for site
site design. ARB
criteria may result in "cookie cutter"
design.
review limited to
style development. ARB review
building, lighting
may be required if waivers to
PC staff impacts - Time /budget
and landscaping
design standards are sought. If
savings limited to the time
design.
waiver requests become common-
spent preparing staff reports,
place no reduction, and possibly an
attending public meetings and
increase in review times may occur.
generating minutes.
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.
BUDGET IMPACT:
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.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
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.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Architectural Review Board minutes of September 14, 2010
Attachment B - Planning Commission minutes of September 14, 2010
Attachment C — Roundtable summary from July 28, 2010
Return to agenda