Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201200009 Legacy Document 2012-12-19 (6)The Planning Commission took a break at 7:38 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:48 p.m. Work Session: SUB /Site Plan Process Improvements. Staff's recommendations for improving the Site Plan and Subdivision processes in response to the Board's Direction. (Bill Fritz) Mr. Fritz presented a PowerPoint presentation regarding the proposed site plan and subdivision review process changes. - On June 2, staff took this to the Board of Supervisors. In January, the Board of Supervisors instructed staff to come back to them within six months with some potential changes to the development review process. In June, staff went back to the Board of Supervisors and made this presentation to them. The Board instructed staff to move forward. Staff held a public Round Table in July. This presentation was given to the Architectural Review Board last week. - This is more of a Round Table discussion than a work session. Staff is looking for as many ideas as they can possibly get because staff will be coming back to the Commission in the future. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW June 2, 2010 "...reducing unnecessary and burdensome "...streamline the process..." PRESENTATION OUTLINE • GOAL /WORK SESSION OBJECTIVES • BEST PRACTICES / CURRENT STATUS • COUNTY REGULATIONS • STAFF PROPOSAL Clarifying the Goal regulations and shortening approval times ". • Shorten Approval Times and Cost of Development Review • Avoid Unnecessary and Burdensome Regulations • Maintain Opportunities for Public Info / Input • Maintain Community Quality Work Session Objectives 1. Inform Board as to opportunities for achieving goal with site plans and subdivisions (rezonings and special use permits at later date) 2. Determine if the Board is interested in proceeding with staffs recommendation 3. Determine if the Board has any additional regulations or policies they would like staff to evaluate with respect to site plans and subdivisions ALREADYIMPLEMENTED • Specify time frame for inspection of constructed improvements and release of performance bonds or guarantees ✓ • Combine inspections ✓ ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 15 • Allow sufficient time frame between approvals with the possibility of extensions ✓ • Self certification of inspections ✓ ATTEMPTED, may revisit • Self- certification of plans CURRENT STATUS BEST PRACTICES for STREAMLINING ALREADY IMPLEMENTED • Initial Assessment ✓ • Central permit information / One -stop permitting ✓ • Cross - training of staff ✓ • Define key terms and use simple, direct language ✓ • Ordinance approval process checklists and flow charts ✓ • Concurrent, not sequential, reviews where possible ✓ • Pre - application conferences ✓ • Interdepartmental review coordinator ✓ • Permit expediting /tracking ✓ ALREADYIMPLEMENTED • Specify time frame for inspection of constructed improvements and release of performance bonds or guarantees ✓ • Combine inspections ✓ • Allow sufficient time frame between approvals with the possibility of extensions ✓ • Self certification of inspections ✓ ATTEMPTED, may revisit • Self- certification of plans ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES • Clearly state submittal requirements and require appropriate level of detail • Specify time frames /limits for reviews and approvals to ensure timely decisions • Allow more decisions to be handled administratively • Eliminate multiple public hearings • Presumption of Approval (approve to minimum standards) Staff compares ourselves with other organizations. One of the things they have done is set a goal that any project submitted to Current Development Division (90 percent) will be commented on within 21 days. In the chart it shows they are getting close and sometimes meet the target. However, other jurisdictions are trying to simply meet a 50 day deadline. While people are asking staff to do faster reviews they are still way ahead of some other counties that staff has compared ourselves with. Approval Time Delays • Multiple Resubmissions; failure to provide necessary corrections • Certificate of Appropriateness (ARB) • Planning Commission Approval of Waivers or Modifications • Planning Commission Review of Plans • Outside Agencies (e.g. VDOT, ACSA, Health) Shortening Approval Times / Streamlining Approvals • Allow more decisions to be handled administratively • Simplify process and provide more applicant guidance at start • Clearly state submittal requirements and review to appropriate level of detail COUNTY REGULATIONS ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 16 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL Policy and regulations consider both technical and political issues: • Addressing Constituent Concerns (e.g. drainage issues, traffic, neighborhood safety) • Assuring Adequate Future Infrastructure (e.g. Proffer Policy, sidewalks, water and sewer) • Protecting Community Assets (e.g. stream buffers, critical slopes, property values) • Improving Community Quality (e.g. Entrance Corridors, sign regulations) Roles of Staff, PC, ARB, and Board (See Graph) Staff has little subjectivity in that the submittal meets the ordinance or it does not meet the ordinance. Those decisions can be made very rapidly. The Planning Commission has more discretion and more subjectivity. It takes longer to do that. The Board even has more subjectivity in their analysis, which increases time. Staff breaks it down to establishing regulations and implementing those regulations. Development Quality Examples - Driveways - Streets and Sidewalks - Stream Buffers - Entrance Corridors / Signs Regulation Changes Currently Being Considered • Entrance Corridors — Process amendment approved in May, Guidelines to Follow • Home Occupations, Rural Churches — Reduce / eliminate need for Special Use Permits • Critical Slopes — Revise regulations to better protect important resources and exclude slopes that are not important resources • Industrial Uses — Broaden uses allowed in Light Industrial Zoning Category • Signs — Resolution of Intent in May, Engaging public on common ground for sign regulation. Site Plan and Subdivision Process Improvements — The Development of the Proposal Key Concepts of Process • Predictable for applicants and citizens • Maintains opportunity for public input • Maintains quality development • Reduces approval time Key Features of Process • Project treated as one plan instead of as a preliminary and a final. • Staff assists applicant by clarifying submittal requirements, review process and design criteria. • Establishes clear standards for submittal and design requirements. • Makes use of self - certification of compliance with certain well- defined design requirements. The Process • Pre - submittal (staff determines what waivers are required and what design issues need special attention) • Submittal and review of project • Meeting with applicant and public to discuss and explain project details and requirements. • Action (approval, denial or approval with conditions) • Early Grading (allows creation of "pad ready" sites) • Final approval and issuance of building permit Pre - submittal • An application meeting minimal standards is submitted. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 17 Within 10 days staff verifies use is permitted. Determines what waivers are required and what additional information must be submitted. Applicant receives packet outlining what must be included in formal submittal. Applicant is offered opportunity for informal meeting to discuss submittal requirements and any issues identified during pre - submittal review. Submittal and review of project • Staff reviews project to insure minimum submittal requirements have been met. Applications not meeting minimum requirements are rejected. • Abutting owners are notified of project submittal. • Staff reviews project to insure established design requirements have been met. • Staff reviews any waiver requests against criteria of ordinance. Meeting with applicant and public • The site review committee meets and presents the findings of the project review to the applicant and public. • The committee responds to all questions from the public and applicant. • The committee advises the applicant of changes that must be made to the project and changes that are requested to be made to the project. • The project is either approved, denied or approved with conditions. Early Grading • The Site Review Committee grants approval of the project. • A grading permit may be issued once one of the following happens. • The Site Review Committee grants conditional approval and the necessary conditions are met This would require a change in the ARB process. Changes could include administrative approvals, County wide permits and changes in scope of review The scope of conditions that must be met for early grading has not yet been established. The broader the scope of the conditions the longer the review period will be. Final approval and issuance of building permit • The applicant has up to 5 years to meet all conditions of approval. • The applicant is in control of when to address conditions of approval. • Once all conditions have been addressed, the project receives complete approval and building permits may be issued or in the case of a plat it may be recorded. Changes from Current Process • All administrative. No Planning Commission or Board review except if waiver or project is denied. • Involves pre - submittal review. • Allows for grading prior to approval of all aspects of project. • Contemplates changes in ARB processes and standards including administrative review, County wide permits and possible changes in scope of review. • Establishes clearer submittal standards. • Establishes clearer design criterion. • Establishes clearer waiver standards. Next steps • Ordinance amendments to create administrative process. • Ordinance amendments to insure design standards result in the style of development desired. • Ordinance amendments to improve criteria considered when waivers are requested. Process for Implementing 1. Public Roundtable of Concept 2. PC / ARB review of concepts and public input, guidance to staff ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 18 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 3. Draft recommended changes (Staff will take all recommendations into consideration.) 4. Public Roundtable of draft 5. ARB / PC review of draft 6. PC Public Hearing 7. Board Public Hearing 8. Implement 12 -18 months, with above 8 -12 months without roundtables (Staff's clock started in June, 2010 and predicts or expects steps 6, 7 and 8 being done next fall.) Questions: • Does the Board believe staff should proceed based on this recommendation? The answer to that question was yes. • Does the Board believe the outlined process and public participation are appropriate? (Balancing public input with expediting changes) The answer to that question was yes. • Does the Board have any additional regulation changes they wish staff to include in the considerations? (opportunities to include additional changes following roundtables and PC / ARB review) There were no additional regulations the Board wanted staff to look at other than go to the Round Tables, Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board for comments. Mr. Fritz noted has been following the Board's direction, which includes the work session tonight with the Planning Commission. Ms. Porterfield asked staff to explain exactly how the public is going to have input into this process. Will staff notify the public of the Site Review Committee meeting at which the project is to be discussed. Mr. Fritz replied that staff envisions providing notice to the abutting property owners that an application had been received for a project X, it was available for review, who the project coordinator /lead reviewer was, and notifying them of the technical review meeting that would occur on date X. At that meeting, staff would accurately try to listen to anything they had to say. What they are trying to do is turn the site plan /subdivision process into an administrative process whereas it meets the ordinance or it does not meet the ordinance. If the request does not meet the ordinance, it will be denied. If the request does meet the ordinance, it will be approved. Staff will have to communicate that with the abutting property owners. Staff has been successful in the past where abutting property owners have said they really wish the applicant would do X. The ordinance may not allow the County to require X, but staff has had pretty good success with the developers voluntarily doing X or attempting to do X. Staff would try to be facilitators in having that conversation occur. Ms. Porterfield asked if that complete conversation would happen at the Site Review Committee Meeting. Mr. Fritz replied yes, unless they communicated with the planner ahead of time and expressed what their concerns are. Staff would also express those concerns to the applicant. However, he was not sure that would be what the meeting would be called. Ms. Porterfield asked if there would be no actual public hearing on record of what comments were made. Mr. Fritz replied there would be no Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Porterfield asked if staff was going to try to involve the individual Planning Commissioner in that meeting also. Mr. Fritz replied that he did not know, but the comments would be provided. If that is something she would like, staff can certainly take that into consideration and try to figure out how to incorporate that. Ms. Porterfield said personally she would like to be involved. In some controversial cases, she feared they would lose the ability for the public to make comments that really needed to be heard. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 19 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL Mr. Fritz replied that the guidance. in working with the Board of Supervisors was they wanted staff to develop a purely administrative process. Staff will communicate that concern to the Board. Mr. Lafferty asked what would be the timeframe in the initial approach. Mr. Fritz replied that the current timeframe is 21 days and they know it is not enough. Staff is working on that issue. Mr. Lafferty asked how much notice time staff was going to give the public. Mr. Fritz replied that staff has not figured out that at this point, but knew that it had to be enough time. Mr. Lafferty asked if proffers would be administratively handled. Mr. Fritz replied that this does not deal with proffers, rezonings or special use permits at all. This is purely site plans and subdivisions since legislative actions are very different. They are talking about administrative projects here. Mr. Lafferty asked what amount of projects did staff see being approved administratively. Mr. Fritz replied if they simply made the process administrative right now with the ordinance they have in place with design standards and waivers, it would be a relatively small percentage of the applications. He did not know what the exact number would be. It would not be the majority. Many projects propose a waiver of some sort of another. The day they roll this out may result in a decrease in the Planning Commission work load items that they see of X percentage. Potentially that percentage would increase over the years as more waivers become administrative. Mr. Lafferty asked if staff currently has a flow chart to give the public showing the procedure and timeframe. Mr. Fritz replied yes, staff has a flow chart. However, it is a complicated process. Staff does not have a chart for the final process that is easy. There is not an integration of the engineering component, planning component and architectural review. These three paths are happening independently. There is also outside agencies such as the Service Authority and VDOT. Staff can go up through the preliminary approval with the flow chart. Ms. Monteith asked staff to comment on what they call benchmarking at the University. Other people call it peer review or industry standards. What are other counties in Virginia and the United States doing in regard to this. Mr. Fritz replied that most do their projects administratively or by benchmarking in Virginia with the State Code they have. Ms. Monteith asked is this kind of a band guard approach or is it something specific to Albemarle and our Board of Supervisors in terms of what is being asked for here. Mr. Fritz replied no, it is more in the main stream of what happens in Virginia. Ms. Monteith noted that she was just trying to get beyond Virginia. Mr. Fritz said that every state out of 50 has such unique enabling legislation. Therefore, he could not begin to answer for other states. Mr. Fritz pointed out staff felt it would be helpful for the Planning Commission not to review the administrative items. The Planning Commission held a discussion with staff, asked questions, and provided, comments and - ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 20 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL suggestions, as follows. - How is the public going to know about this? How will staff notify the public and what type of timeframe will be used. - There was concern that there would be no public hearing on record without a Planning Commission meeting being held. - There was concern that Planning Commissioners would not be involved. Request made that they be part of the notification process. Concern raised that controversial issues need to be heard by the representatives and there needs to be a way to get it there. - The SRC meeting was held in the morning, which could eliminate the public's ability to attend the meeting. Public interaction could be lost. - Need to resolve the matter of defining what conditions are for early grading. - Obtaining community input as early as possible in the process is helpful. - The design criteria needs to be reviewed to ensure appropriate so that bike lanes, etc. are provided in the SRC review. - Concern expressed in the staff time needed to implement and run the SRC process due to the current staff shortage. This should not become a rubber stamp process. - Staff needs to make sure they have the ability in this process to make changes if they see the need for improvements. - Regarding notification, too often they view the impact of development only on the abutting neighbors. The web should be better utilized as the medium of information sharing with the community. It would be better if the sign numbers were broken down by magisterial district so that someone could look and see what is going on in their neighborhood. The user interface on the web should be made more user friendly so the general public, not only abutting landowners, can see what these things are through hyperlinks and magisterial district. Public might have an interest in these matters even if not abutting landowners. The public needs more information provided on the web. - Suggestion made that the applicant should be required to attend the SRC meeting. Question asked if request controversial if it could just fly through the SRC meeting without the community being specific about the plan. - Supported better guidance and getting input from the public sooner. It would be helpful to get the community input sooner possibly after the pre -app. A suggestion was made to find a way to educate the community as to what the proposal is after the first step. The community input would be requests versus requirements. Therefore, as an owner, one Commissioner would rather hear the community input sooner than at the end of the process. There needs to be a comment period so as a designer he could have a timeframe such as two weeks to hear what the community may come back and say. - Define what the conditions are for early grading. With respect to the early grading, which the E & S would be a part of, it was suggested that a preliminary landscape plan be a part of that. There has been a lot of debate in the past about some of the mass grading taking place. As a benefit of pre - grading someone might be willing to put some of the buffer or landscaping up at the edge to keep it from looking barren. There may be a component with the landscape plan. What is the appropriate time in the review process. - One concern heard in the past has been the accessibility to staff. Having specific days that engineering is available would be helpful. Especially on site review after receipt of comment there is only 11 days to respond back. Sometimes it can take two weeks to get an appointment, which makes it problematic. That issue needs to be considered on how they are going to resolve that in the future as part of this. - The effort was applauded since the Planning Commission needs to get back to some of the discussions on policies specific to development standards and not specific to a site. - Having a mechanism where there is some debate between the applicant and staff on what the ordinance says with a quicker mechanism to get to the Planning Commission and resolve that would be helpful. Being able to separate the issue would be helpful so that the whole site plan does not have to come forward in order that a specific question could be answered so not to waste time and money. There was no public comment. The Planning Commission took no formal action. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 21 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL Old Business Mr. Loach asked if there was any old business. • As a follow up to the considerations for the development review process, staff will be bringing back to the Commission information on possible changes to the SP /ZMA process. • Staff asked Commissioners to contact staff by the Monday morning before its meeting if they want to pull a consent agenda item so that the applicant can be contacted and staff prepared to answer questions. There being no further old business, the meeting moved to the next item. New Business: Mr. Loach asked if there was any new business. • Request made for staff to continue trying to consolidate meetings when there are a few items on the agenda. • Next Meeting — September 21, 2010 There being no further new business, the meeting moved to the next item. Adjournment: With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m. to the Tuesday, September 21, 2010 meeting at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Auditorium, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards) Attachment 1— Consent Agenda Information — Conditions of Approval for SDP - 2010 -00054 Norman Ourada Critical Slopes Waiver The Planning Commission removed SDP - 2010 -00054 from the consent agenda and approved, by a vote of 5:2 (Porterfield and Lafferty nay), subject to the conditions recommended in the staff report and based on the unusual circumstances of this lot with the understanding that staff will get a sketch plan with the building permit subject to the following conditions recommended in the staff report. 1. Limits of disturbance shall be in general conformance with the exhibit provided by the applicant (exhibit dated August 16, 2010 attached). 2. If, in the future, additional clearing for the reserve drainfield is required (location as shown on exhibit mentioned above) an amendment to this waiver is not needed. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION —SEPTEMBER 14, 2010 22 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL