Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201200009 Legacy Document 2012-12-19 (16)COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2012 -09 Site Plan Process Improvements S U BJ ECT /PROPOSAL /REQU EST: Public hearing on changes to the site plan process STAFF CONTACT(S): Bill Fritz, Greg Kamptner PRESENTER (S): Bill Fritz LEGAL REVIEW: No AGENDA DATE: July 17, 2012 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: In January 2010 the Board of Supervisors adopted an "Action Plan" which included "...reducing unnecessary and burdensome regulations and shortening approval times" related to the County's review and approval of site plans and subdivisions. The County has held five work sessions and two public roundtables to develop and discuss potential ordinance amendments. DISCUSSION: The key elements contained in the attached Zoning Text Amendment are: 1. Preapplication submittal with review in 10 days to determine main issues and required waivers 2. Allow the issuance of grading permits with the approval of the initial (preliminary) site plan 3. Establish clearer submittal requirements for the final site plan 4. Allows for significant reduction in level of detail required for minor site plan amendments. 5. Provides for a purely administrative review process. 6. Incorporates the Architectural Review Board review earlier in the process. 7. Establish that any comment not responded to within 6 months deems the proiect withdrawn 8. Improves organization which makes interpretation and administration easier for both applicants and staff. 9. Uses language similar to that contained in the Subdivision Ordinance. 10. Updates language to match current state code language and court decisions. 11. Minor changes to fees. Staff believes that the language of the proposed ordinance addresses the comments made by the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and the public. Staff would point out that one of the goals for the revisions to the ministerial review process was to reduce plan content to the minimum necessary for review. In preparing this text amendment staff attempted address that goal. However, 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 members of the public as the plans will now focus on the changes and additional information which sometimes has a cluttering effect can be removed. During the work sessions and roundtable discussions many comments were received. Many of the comments were directed at issues not impacted by the proposed ordinance amendment, specifically, the quality of the tracking system on the web, staff training, attendance of senior staff in preapplication meetings, digital submittal of applications, length of review for Water Protection Ordinance applications, fees for Erosion and Sediment Control plan review and the Architectural Review Board. Some of the comments regarding the Architectural Review Board were relevant to the proposed ordinance amendments and staff will discuss those comments below. However, many of the comments regarding the Architectural Review Board were directed at the design standards and decision making process of that body and are beyond the scope of this ordinance amendment. Three main comments directly relevant to the proposed ordinance amendments are: - Public Involvement - Grading Permits Prior to Final Plan Approval - Recommendations verses Requirements - Architectural Review Board Public Involvement Staff wants to clearly note that the changes to the ordinance maintain public notification of the Site Review Meeting and maintains the publics ability to provide comment on site plans. Notification to adjacent owners currently occurs and will continue. 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. As part of the implementation process staff will develop new notices for the public. Key elements of the notice will include what the project consists of, where plans may be viewed, who to contact within the County, when decisions will be made, how to provide comments and that the project will be reviewed to insure compliance with the ordinance and if the project meets the minimum regulations that the project will be approved. The notice will also state that recommendations for changes to the plan may be made and will be presented to the applicant. If those changes can be required they may be included as required revisions to the plan. If they cannot be required they will be presented as recommendations to the applicant who may or may not include the changes in the plan. Grading Permits Prior to Final Plan Approval After the approval of the initial plan a grading permit may be issued. The ordinance does not need to be amended to permit this to occur. The existing language of Chapter 17, Section 204E of the Code of Albemarle allows the issuance of a grading permit after a site plan has been approved and other conditions have been met including verifying that "approval of the erosion and sediment control plan will not affect approval of the site plan or plat ". This language gives enough flexibility that conditions may be put in place to insure that the approval doesn't affect approval of the site plan. During the most recent roundtable, concern was expressed about the types of conditions that may be imposed prior to the issuance of a grading permit especially conditions imposed by the Architectural Review Board. One concern was that a condition may be made that a grading permit may not be issued until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued. This type of condition could occur. Staff would point out that currently a grading permit may not be issued until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued and the final site plan is approved. At worst the limits on obtaining a grading permit under the new process would be that the permit cannot be issued until the final site plan is signed which is the current standard for issuance. The new processes would permit the issuance of grading permits earlier than may currently occur. If an initial plan is approved with conditions for a grading permit that the applicant finds objectionable, the applicant may appeal to the Planning Commission and request that the conditions be amended. Recommendations verses Requirements During the roundtable discussions and work sessions it has been emphasized that staff will continue to require changes and recommend changes. The difference between requirements and recommendations will be stated. All requirements will have to be supported by specific ordinance provisions. The applicant is not required to modify any plan to address recommendations. Architectural Review Board As previously stated many of the concerns about the Architectural Review Board are beyond the scope of this text amendment. Concern was expressed that the Architectural Review Board would impose conditions during the review of the initial plan that are burdensome and exceed the authority of the Architectural Review Board. It is important to point out that the proposed ordinance amendments do not alter in any way the authority of the Architectural Review Board. No changes in the regulations or design standards of the Entrance Corridor District or the Architectural Review Board are proposed. These ordinance amendments only incorporate the Architectural Review Board into the site review process earlier than currently occurs. The Architectural Review Board's authority to regulate a site is not being modified in any way. The new action by the Architectural Review Board will be to review the site plan earlier in the review process and to authorize the issuance of a grading permit earlier than currently occurs. The current requirement is that a project must receive a Certificate of Appropriateness and have the final site plan approved prior to the issuance of a grading permit. During the review of the initial site plan the Architectural Review Board may make recommendations they believe would improve the development. For example the Architectural Review Board may recommend that a buildings orientation be altered or additional landscaping be provided so that building design is less of an issue in meeting the standards of the Entrance Corridor. The applicant is not required to follow this recommendation but has the advantage of knowing earlier in the review process what will be of concern to the Architectural Review Board during the review of the building design and the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Another example of a condition may be that for a site with severely restricted area for landscaping due to utility easements that a landscape plan be approved prior to the issuance of a grading permit in order to verify that the minimum requirements of the ordinance will be met. During a work session with the Architectural Review Board it was determined that the entire Board will not be reviewing and acting on the initial plan. Staff will be reviewing and acting on the initial plan with some coordination with the Architectural Review Board. BUDGET IMPACT: The proposed changes to the review process will likely have limited budget impacts. No increased budget impacts will occur however, staff cannot quantify any reduced impact on the budget. The change in process should reduce the number of hours required to review a site plan and site plan amendments. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached zoning text amendment (Attachment A). A compare version showing the changes made to the ordinance since the Planning Commission's work session in May is also attached for reference (Attachment B). ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Proposed Zoning Text Amendment Lanquage Attachment B — Proposed Zoning Text Amendment Language — Compare Text