Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201200009 Legacy Document 2012-12-19 (15)ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES June 18, 2012 The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board met on Monday, June 18, 2012, 1:00 p.m., Room 241, Second Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Paul Wright, Bruce Wardell, Charles T. Lebo, Vice Chair and Fred Missel, Chairman. Absent was John Quale. Mr. Wright arrived at 1:05 p.m. Staff members present were Margaret Maliszewski, Brent Nelson, and Sharon Taylor. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Missel called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. and established a quorum. PUBLIC COMMENT Mr. Missel invited public comment. Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum, made the following comments with regard to the ARB and the ministerial process changes: • It would be helpful for the public to understand in looking at the Code changes the Site Review Committee is made up of the Department of Fire Rescue, Department of Community Development, Albemarle County Service Authority, Department of Health, Department of Transportation, US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the Architectural Review Board. The language does not indicate whether it is a representative of, or the entire, Architectural Review Board. It likely means a representative of. The concern is this Board over the years has not always voted unanimously. How can any one representative properly represent the ARB if they represent the views of the entire Board. Will everything have to come back for a review by the entire Board. It is really a process question. • The other item was the EC impacts of relegated parking. It would be good to take a look at some recent relegated parking, particularly Holly's Nails in Hollymead Town Center. He presented a picture of a sign, and noted that many businesses do not have the personnel to man both a front and back door. He hoped that could be a part of the ARB's conversation. There being no further public comment, the meeting proceeded. REGULAR REVIEW ITEMS ARB- 2012 -50: Blue Ridge Bank Signs Proposal: Review of a Certificate of Appropriateness for Signs and for revisions to approved Comprehensive Sign Criteria. Staff Presentation: Brent Nelson summarized the staff report noting the primary points of discussion as follows: 1. Proposed channel letter sign colors. 2. Proposed channel letter sign locations. He added that the proposed comprehensive sign criteria need to be revised to include white trim caps and bronze returns for the white channel letters and to limit channel letter locations to the EFIS band between the first and second story windows or the second story windows and roof level on all sides, and to limit their height to 36" maximum. He pointed out the sample board of blue acrylic for the proposed face, trim caps and returns. ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 1 FINAL 06 -18 -2012 MINUTES Staff recommends approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for the Blue Ridge Bank signs as proposed. Staff recommends approval of the revised Comprehensive Sign Criteria for 1807 Seminole Trail as outlined in the staff report. Board Discussion: The ARB discussed the proposal with staff and the applicant, noting the following concerns: • The raceway was more prominent than normal and the color does not match. Staff pointed out the graphic representation is not shown correctly and the raceway is meant to match the wall to which it attaches as previous signs have. • Asked if the applicant is in agreement with the location and size suggested, since it was different from what they are showing on the plan. Applicant Presentation: John Grady, Central Virginia Permitting, represented the bank and Mr. Ryder, with Ryder Enterprises. The representative from the bank and Eddie Edwards Sign Company were present. They agree with staff and are ready to accept the letter and certificate and move forward. Motion: Mr. Wright moved for approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB- 2012 -50: Blue Ridge Bank Signs as proposed. Mr. Lebo seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4:0. (Quale absent) Motion: Mr. Wright moved for approval of the revised comprehensive sign criteria for 1807 Seminole Trail as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Lebo seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4:0. (Quale absent) WORK SESSION The ARB and Ministerial Process Changes (ZTA- 2012 -09: Site Plan Process Improvements. Bill Fritz made a brief presentation on the ARB's role in the proposed ministerial process changes and asked for comments and recommendations. The ARB received the same executive summary /staff report sent to the Planning Commission for May 15th. There were a number of things the Board directed staff to do. Staff listed 11 items in the executive summary sent to the Planning Commission. (See Attachment at end of minutes.) The key features the ARB should keep in mind to decide how to handle are: • The ARB was made a member of the site review committee. The ARB may choose to do the same thing as VDOT and appoint one person or designate a staff member. That will need to be worked into our processes. • They are breaking away from the concept of a preliminary and a final plan and going to an initial and final plan. It really is a preliminary but they are using the word initial to really help signify that this is something different than what they have been doing since 1980. The key feature there is after the approval of the initial they are be able to get a grading permit even before the final site plan is approved. That was a key element and something the Board of Supervisors had expressed an interest in. ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 2 FINAL 06 -18 -2012 MINUTES • The other key feature is that the plan would be purely administrative. The only way that it could go before the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors would be if the site plan was denied or approved with conditions the applicant found objectionable. They could then appeal that. The concept is that an initial plan would be submitted and distributed to the members of the site review committee. The members of the site review committee would have the opportunity then to make requirements and recommendations, and it would go to the Site Review Committee Meeting. At that meeting the plan would then be approved or denied. They would not be asking for revisions. The approval could be a flat out approval or an approval with conditions. For example, the initial site plan is approved subject to final water and sewer plan being approved, or subject to erosion and sediment control, or ARB, or whatever it might be. That is done now with preliminary site plans. They are looking to incorporate the ARB and their own provisions in a portion of the ordinance (Section 30.6) so that the ARB can review these plans either as a body, direct staff or however they want to go about doing that and to be able to say yes, your initial plan is approved and you can get a grading permit subject to these conditions. The ARB will not know the building design, such as what color it is going to be and so forth, but they will know the building location, parking location, areas available for landscaping, (they might not know the species yet), what restrictions there might be in terms of where proposed and existing utilities are located (such as storm water), and so forth. Therefore, all of those things can be mixed together. They are looking for the ARB to have the ability to say early on: yes this plan is approved, you can get your grading permit subject to getting everything else done, provided that they submit landscaping and the rest of the ARB approval, or saying they need to make these changes and they can get a grading permit, or no your plan is denied because it fails section number X. The concept is they are going to be making recommendations and requirements. If they recommend that a feature be moved but the ordinance does not support staff requiring it to be moved, they will make that recommendation and if the applicant moves it — great. If they don't move it and it meets the requirements of the ordinance, then staff will approve the plan. That is the concept staff has laid out. Mr. Missel pointed out the notes from the September 7 meeting say that an ARB staff person should be a regular member of the SRC to provide guidance. He asked if he was basically saying that person is representing the board. Mr. Fritz replied the text actually says Architectural Review Board. They did that because it gives them the opportunity to say a staff person. Like the Service Authority, the whole authority is a member of the Site Review Committee, but obviously they deal with one person. He pointed out the ARB had the option to recommend to the Board that it be an Architectural Review Board designee. Mr. Missel questioned the administrative approval. The initial site plan goes to the Site Review Committee and at what point do neighbors have an opportunity to call up the plan. Mr. Fritz replied that they will not have an opportunity to call it up to the Planning Commission. There is no appeal process that will get any application to the Planning Commission other than if the application is denied or if it is approved with conditions objectionable to the applicant. The only person that will be able to appeal it to the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors would be the applicant. The concept here is for by -right site development and ultimately subdivisions. The concept is if it meets the requirements of the ordinance it will be approved. If it does not, then it will be denied. If it meets the ordinance and staff has recommendations, then they will provide those recommendations which may or may not be followed. Obviously, if there is a waiver involved that has to go to the Board of Supervisors. Clearly special use permits and rezonings are completely different and will go to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for a public hearing. Mr. Missel asked if neighbors will get notified. ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 3 FINAL 06 -18 -2012 MINUTES Mr. Fritz replied that neighbors will be notified of the Site Review Meeting and they will have an opportunity to appear at the Site Review Meeting and be informed of what the project is and make their own recommendations. Again, because they are dealing with a ministerial act, if it meets the requirements of the ordinance, it will be approved. Mr. Wardell clarified that the ARB would review only those site plans on the Entrance Corridor. He asked if there was a mechanism in place to determine that. Mr. Fritz noted that it was worded to specify there would be ARB representation only for those projects in the EC. Mr. Wardell asked how it deals with the pre - application meeting. Mr. Fritz replied they incorporated into this process a pre - application submittal, which was voluntary. It is not a mandatory concept. It would allow someone to submit some basic information; staff would then have 10 days to review and provide a response. They would be identifying the major issues at that point. Part of the real focus there is identifying what waivers or modifications might be required and then provide that to the applicant with the information needed in order to submit the waiver or modification. It is a courtesy review. Staff does not know how many people will take advantage it. One of the concepts is that there would be a fee associated with it. However, if they submit a pre - application application staff would review it and then within a certain time period, if the applicant submits their initial application, they would deduct the application fee. This would avoid duplicate payment. They will try to encourage people to take advantage of that. Mr. Fritz noted the change is brining the ARB review in earlier in the process. A preliminary site plan could be reviewed, signed and ready to go without ARB having an opportunity to provide any comment whatsoever. It is important to note that these changes do not increase or decrease the ARB's authority. Any suggestion would have to be backed up with an ordinance section or it is a recommendation. Ms. Maliszewski pointed out if they felt a building was too close to the road that would be a recommendation. The ARB held a discussion with staff on the proposed process and made the following comments. The ARB agreed they are going to have their designee, Margaret, Brent or whatever staff may be trained or assigned to work on these kinds of processes, review that initial plan, make requirements and recommendations, and provide that as a member of the Site Review Committee to the agent to then act on the site plan. Mr. Missel asked if the ARB would get documentation of the Site Review Committee Meetings and the outcomes. Mr. Fritz replied that currently they get notified of the site review. They would continue to be notified of the site review agenda and the ARB would be able to tell which ones were on the EC. Mr. Missel noted it would be helpful if the ARB could see staff comments on the site plan. Mr. Wright moved for approval of the following resolution on the proposed ministerial process changes: 1. The ARB is in support of the findings presented in the Executive Summary dated May 15, 2012 for ZTA- 2012 -09: Site Plan Process Improvements. 2. The ARB should receive a copy of the staff comments on EC Site Review Committee items. Mr. Lebo seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4:0. (Quale absent) ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 4 FINAL 06 -18 -2012 MINUTES OTHER BUSINESS ARB- 2012 -04: Brown Toyota Sign: Revision Mr. Nelson asked the ARB to review the revised sign request. Motion: Mr. Lebo moved for approval of the Toyota sign with the internally illuminated graphic at the reduced size presented at the meeting. Mr. Wardell seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4:0. (Quale absent) Discussion: EC Impacts of Relegated Parking After a discussion, Mr. Wardell made a motion to issue a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors as follows: The ARB strongly recommends to the Board of Supervisors that certain provisions of the Neighborhood Model relating to building frontage, relegated parking, and the possibility of limited parking on the EC side of commercial buildings of particular sizes (smaller in general), be reconsidered. The ARB has found on numerous occasions that the quality of design and the responsiveness of the architectural environment to the EC is compromised by needing to address frontage on both the EC and the relegated parking facades. Mr. Wright seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4:0. (Quale absent) The ARB asked staff to schedule time on an upcoming BOS agenda for the ARB to speak with the Board on this issue. Approval of Minutes — Motion: Mr. Lebo moved for approval of the minutes of June 4, 2012 and May 21, 2012. Mr. Wright seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of 4:0. (Quale absent) Next ARB Meeting: July 2, 2012 (Mr. Wright will be absent.) ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 2:08 p.m. to the next ARB meeting on Monday, July 2, 2012 in Room 241, Second Floor, County Office Building at 1:00 p.m. Fred Missel, Chairman (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards) ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 5 FINAL 06 -18 -2012 MINUTES Attachment A - ZTA- 2012 -00009 Ministerial Review Process Improvements (site plans) Changes to the ministerial review process (Bill Fritz) Mr. Fritz summarized the executive summary for ZTA- 2012 -00009 Ministerial Review Process Improvements (site plans). Staff considered all of the comments received and how potential changes would advance the goals set out by the Board of Supervisors. Staff has prepared new ordinance language that is intended to address the comments of the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and the public. Staff has come up with some new concepts. The most significant changes are: 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. Needed waivers will be identified along with the information that needs to be submitted and what the process will be. Most of those waivers now go to the Board of Supervisors. However, staff still needs to identify the sections. 2. Allow the issuance of grading permits with the approval of the initial (preliminary) site plan Staff uses the term "initial" as opposed to "preliminary" because they are trying to emphasis that this is a different kind of plan. Allowing grading earlier is consistent with the current practice for subdivisions and planned developments. With the approval of the preliminary plat or with the approval of the application plan in a Planned Development by the Board of Supervisors the applicant can actually start grading. 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. This would allow some grading activity to occur before the final site plan was reviewed, but the initial plan would have to be approved. 3. 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 reduce the burden on the applicant and shorten the time required for final site plan approval. The ordinance changes provide this new process in a very clear concise way. 4. Allows for significant reduction in level of detail required for minor site plan amendments. This statement should not be taken to mean that they are lessening the standards. Minor changes to a site plan occur frequently. The proposed language allows the agent to reduce the level of detail required for a site plan amendment. Currently, a small change to a site plan affecting only a portion of the site still requires all the information for a full site plan showing the entire project. The proposed change will allow the revised site plan to focus only on the area of change and allow the agent to require sufficient information to review the change without requiring the submittal of information that is irrelevant to the proposal. 5. Provides for a purely administrative review process. Items would no longer come to the Planning Commission. Site plan approvals would be done purely administratively. This was discussed with the Board of Supervisors and the Architectural Review Board on a couple of different occasions. The concept of administrative approval is incorporated into this text amendment. The only way a project would go beyond the administrative process is if it was denied or if it were approved with conditions objectionable to the applicant. The applicant could then appeal those decisions and the appeal process is spelled out in the ordinance. ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 6 FINAL 06 -18 -2012 MINUTES With the exception of projects where waivers are requested the process will be administrative. This should allow for a reduction in the overall time required to process an application and reduces the Planning Commission workload. This will allow the Planning Commission to focus more on other issues such as additional text amendments, Comprehensive Plan, rezoning and special use permits. In particular staff believes that the additional time available to work on text amendments can be a great asset to the community as it will allow ordinances to be developed that reflect the level and quality of planning that the County desires. By providing for a purely administrative process it will reduce the total number of submittals that need to be made by an applicant by one. The process staff envisions would be that the application is submitted and it goes to the site review meeting. At the site review committee it would be approved or denied. 6. Incorporates the Architectural Review Board review earlier in the process. The Architectural Review Board is made a member of the site review committee. Comments from the Architectural Review Board is received early in the review process. By engaging the Architectural Review Board early in the process it is anticipated that this will reduce the number of site plan submissions that will have to be made and reduce re- engineering and redesign costs for applicants. 7. Establish that any comment not responded to within 6 months deems the project withdrawn When revisions are received long after comments have been made considerable staff time is spent on refamiliarizing 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 is established. Implementing this change will allow staff to be more efficient in reviewing projects. 8. Improves organization which makes interpretation and administration easier for both applicants and staff. No significant effort has been made to reorganize the site plan ordinance since its original adoption in 1980. With changes in state law and piecemeal text amendments the organizational structure has become awkward and disjointed. The proposed changes to the ordinance provide for a more logical and easier to understand flow. 9. Uses language similar to that contained in the Subdivision Ordinance. The language for: definitions, rules of construction, notice provisions, final submittal criteria, reservation and dedication of land, access for multiple units and access in event of storm, coordination of access, easements for storm water facilities, dedication of water and sewer facilities and other utilities, completion and bonding of improvements is made similar to that contained in the Subdivision Ordinance. Commonality in the two ordinances makes understanding the ordinances easier for applicants, public and staff and reduces inconsistencies in processes and administration and design. 10. Updates language to match current state code language and court decisions. Variations and exceptions, period of validity, reservation of land are just some of the changes made. These changes are technical in nature and have no effect on how applications have or will be processed. 11. Minor changes to fees. The fee provisions are modified only to reflect the new process. Two new terms are added to the fee schedule, preapplication plan and initial plan. References to preliminary plans are removed from the fee schedule. No change in the total fees for applicants. Only the titles change. In preparing this text amendment staff attempted to reduce plan content to the minimum necessary for review. Limited reduction in plan content is possible for initial or final site plans. Significant reduction in plan content could, in staff opinion, result in a reduction in the quality of the resulting developments. However, staff has included for minor site plan amendments the ability to significantly reduce the plan content. This will make the preparation and review of minor site plans much easier for applicants, staff and interested public as the plans will now focus on the changes and additional information which sometimes has a cluttering effect can be removed. Staff wants to clearly note that the changes maintain ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 7 FINAL 06 -18 -2012 MINUTES public notification of the Site Review Meeting and maintains the public's ability to provide comment on site plans. 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. ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 8 FINAL 06 -18 -2012 MINUTES