Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201200009 Legacy Document 2012-12-19 (19)COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing: ZTA 2012 -009 Site Plan Process Improvements SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Adoption of site plan process improvements zoning text amendment STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and Fritz PRESENTER (S): Bill Fritz LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: September 5, 2012 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Action Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors on January 6, 2010 directed staff to bring forward recommendations for "reducing unnecessary and burdensome regulations and shortening approval times." On August 4, 2010, the Board adopted an Economic Vitality Action Plan. Objective 2 of that plan stated: "Simplify and create certainty in the development review process, giving the applicant a reasonable expectation for the time and cost needed for development review when applicants are adhering to the regulations appropriately." One of the stated strategies to achieve Objective 2 was to "consider amendments to the development ordinances to reduce complexity of plan approval." At the conclusion of the August 3, 2011 joint work session among the Board, the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board (the "ARB "), the Board directed staff to develop proposed amendments to the County's site plan and subdivision regulations to address the following: 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 Establish that any comment not responded to within 6 months deems the project withdrawn. 6.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. In addition to the August 3, 2011 joint work session, the Planning Commission held two work sessions, the ARB held two work sessions, and staff conducted two public roundtables to develop and discuss potential ordinance amendments. On July 17, 2012, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the zoning text amendment for the Site Plan Process Improvements (the "ordinance "). The Commission unanimously recommended approval of the ordinance, with four recommended changes noted in the section immediately below. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 3: Encourage a Diverse and Vibrant Local Economy DISCUSSION: The proposed ordinance (Attachment A) would completely revise and reorganize the County's site plan regulations. A. The Ten Key Elements of the Zoning Text Amendment The ten key elements of the zoning text amendment are addressed below. The first seven elements address the directives from the Board at its August 3, 2011 joint work session with the Planning Commission and the ARB. AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing: ZTA 2012 -009 Site Plan Process Improvements September 5, 2012 Page 2 Establish a preapplication process with staff review within 10 days to identify the main issues and the need for any required variations, exceptions and special exceptions. The preapplication process established in the ordinance will allow staff and developers to quickly and easily identify major issues with a development proposal and the need for any required variations, exceptions and special exceptions. This is expected to streamline the review process because formal applications, when made, will be more complete. This should also eliminate delays in the review process caused by confusion over requests for more information or the lack of necessary information to review a proposal. 2. Allow grading permits to be issued upon approval of the initial (preliminary) site plan. The ordinance will allow grading permits to be issued upon approval of the initial site plan. This will shorten the total time required to build out a development and bring the site plan regulations in line with the County's current subdivision and planned development regulations on this issue. Grading permits to allow the construction of streets within a subdivision may occur after approval of the preliminary plat and the road plans. In planned developments, grading permits may be issued upon approval of an erosion and sediment control plan that is consistent with the application plan. 3. Establish clear submittal requirements and review procedures for final site plans. The current regulations do not provide clear guidance about the final site plan submittal requirements and the approval process. The ordinance will establish clear submittal requirements and a review procedure, which will reduce the burden on the developer and the time required for final site plan approval. 4. Significantly reduce the detail required for minor site plan amendments. Minor changes to a site plan occur frequently. 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 ordinance will allow the agent to reduce the amount of detail required for a minor site plan amendment by allowing the proposed amendment to focus only on the area of change and allowing the agent to require sufficient information to review only that change. This change addresses the directive of the Board at its August 3, 2011 joint work session to reduce plan content to the minimum necessary for review. It is staff's opinion that only a limited reduction in plan content is possible for initial or final site plans and that significant reductions in plan content could result in a reduction in the quality of the resulting developments. Provide for an administrative review process solely by the agent. Under the current regulations, most site plans are reviewed and acted upon by the site plan agent. However, abutting landowners and members of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors may "call up" any site plan for review and action by the Planning Commission. Because the review and approval of site plans is ministerial in nature, site plans that satisfy the minimum requirements of the County's site plan regulations and other applicable regulations must be approved. Given the ministerial nature of site plans, this process has extended the time for site plan review but has not brought corresponding value to the process. The ordinance will provide that all site plans will be reviewed and administered by the agent and site plans will no longer be able to be called up to the Planning Commission for review and action. However, the agent's decisions will continue to be appealable to the Planning Commission and thereafter to the Board of Supervisors. This change should reduce the time required to process an application and reduce the Planning Commission's workload and allow it more time to spend on other planning and zoning matters. The ordinance will continue the current requirement that staff provide notice to abutting landowners that an initial site plan for the abutting site has been submitted and allow them to attend the site review committee meeting and submit comments. 6. Incorporate the Architectural Review Board review earlier in the process. The ordinance establishes the role of the ARB at the initial site plan stage. Staff believes that this change will reduce the number of site plan submissions the developer will have to make and reduce the developers' re- engineering and redesign costs. The role of the ARB is discussed in more depth in Section B, below. AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing: ZTA 2012 -009 Site Plan Process Improvements September 5, 2012 Page 3 Establish that any comment not responded to within 6 months deems the project withdrawn. Revisions to a site plan that are received long after staff comments have been made requires considerable time for staff to refamiliarize themselves with the project. In addition, the project may need to essentially be re- reviewed in order to ensure that no regulatory changes have occurred since the comments were provided. Only a minimal fee is required for re- activating a project. The ordinance provides the failure of a developer to submit a revised site plan in response to staff comments within 6 months after the comments are provided will cause the initial site plan to be deemed withdrawn. This change will allow staff to be more efficient in reviewing projects. Improve organization to make regulations easier for staff to administer and the development community and public to understand and follow. This is the first significant reorganization of the site plan regulations since they were adopted in 1980. Although the regulations' organization has never been ideal, piecemeal amendments over the years have resulted in a body of regulations that are awkward and disjointed. This ordinance reorganizes the regulations in a more logical manner and uses consistent terminology. This reorganization should make the site plan regulations easier for staff to administer and for the development community and the public to understand and follow. 9. Use language similar to that used in the Subdivision Ordinance. The state enabling authority for site plans is, for the most part, identical to the state enabling authority for subdivision plats. Thus, the ordinance incorporates the provisions required to be included in the County's site plan regulations under the State Subdivision Law using, where appropriate, the language already within the County's Subdivision Ordinance. As with improving the organization of the site plan regulations, enhancing the commonality between the site plan regulations and the Subdivision Ordinance will make the site plan regulations easier for staff to administer and for the development community and the public to understand and follow. 10. Update the terminology and standards to be consistent with state enabling authority. The ordinance will update the terminology and standards to ensure that the site plan regulations are consistent with state enabling authority. For example, the current site plan regulations allow the Planning Commission to grant modifications, waivers and substitutions of certain provisions of the site plan regulations and establishes the applicable standards. The ordinance will replace "modifications, waivers and substitutions" with "variations" and "exceptions," the terms used in the state enabling authority, and incorporate the standards for variations and exceptions in the state enabling authority. These changes are technical in nature and have no effect on how applications have or will be processed, but they will facilitate administration of the site plan regulations. B. The Role of the ARB at the Initial Site Plan Stage At the August 3, 2011 joint work session, the Board directed staff to proceed with a zoning text amendment that would have the ARB review site plans within any entrance corridor overlay district before preliminary (initial) site plan approval. As staff explained at the work session, this approach would allow the ARB to have input early in the process on issues related to site layout. Addressing these major site design issues early in the process would eliminate or significantly reduce the developer's costs to re- engineer and redesign a site at the final site plan stage. The ARB is authorized to review site plans "to assure consistency with applicable design guidelines." (County Code § 18- 30.6.4(c)). In order to make the finding of consistency, section 18- 30.6.4(c) authorizes the ARB to specify its requirements in order to satisfy these seven areas of review: architectural features, the size and arrangement of structures, the location and configuration of parking areas and landscaping, landscaping measures, the preservation of existing vegetation and natural features, the appearance of signs, and fencing. The ARB is also authorized "to impose conditions to assure development is consistent with the applicable design guidelines." (County Code § 18- 30.6.4(d)) A site plan cannot be approved by the agent until the ARB has issued a certificate of appropriateness. (County Code § 18- 30.6.4(a)(2)) The proposed ordinance establishes the role of the ARB at the initial site plan stage, but does not expand the ARB's authority. 1. Review the initial site plan to identify requirements and recommendations. Initial site plans for sites within an entrance corridor overlay district would be referred to the ARB for review. The ARB would review the plan to consider issues related to site layout such as the location, configuration, area and orientation of structures and the location and configuration of parking areas. Because all of the information for this review would be provided on the initial site plan, the developer would not need to submit any other information. The ARB would not consider AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing: ZTA 2012 -009 Site Plan Process Improvements September 5, 2012 Page 4 structure - specific issues at this stage of the process. Upon completion of its review, the ARB would transmit its requirements and recommendations in order to assure consistency with the applicable guidelines. A developer dissatisfied with the requirements of the ARB could appeal the decision to the Board of Supervisors. (County Code § 18- 34.2.2(b)) 2. Effect of satisfying the ARB's requirements. An approved initial site plan incorporating the ARB's identified requirements would be deemed to be consistent with the design guidelines on the issues the ARB considered. (County Code § 18- 32.4.2.8(a)). When the developer seeks a certificate of appropriateness at the final site plan stage, the site layout issues considered by the ARB at the initial site plan stage would not be subject to further consideration by the ARB, provided that the final site plan is consistent with the approved initial site plan. (County Code § 18- 32.4.3.3(b)) 3. Flexibility at the final site plan stage at the developer's option. There may be reasons why, at the final site plan stage, the developer needs or desires to have the final site plan vary from the approved initial site plan. The variation may cause the final site plan to no longer incorporate the ARB's site layout requirements. In that situation, the ARB would consider the site layout issues, as well as the other issues it reviews under section 30.6.4, during its review of the application for a certificate of appropriateness. (County Code § 18- 32.4.3.3(b)) 4. Effect of the ARB's recommendations. Recognizing the distinction between requirements and recommendations, the failure of a final site plan to incorporate a recommendation of the ARB made at the initial site plan stage could not be the basis to deny a certificate of appropriateness. (County Code § 18- 32.4.3.3(c)) The ARB held a work session with staff on June 18, 2012 to review the proposed ordinance and the ARB's role during the initial site plan stage as described in the first two bullets above. The ARB supported the Ordinance's proposed approach. The specificity of the ARB's role, combined with the resolution of the site layout issues by the ARB at the initial site plan stage, should streamline the process, reduce developer costs, and increase predictability in the outcomes. C. Changes Recommended by the Planninq Commission The Planning Commission recommended four changes to the ordinance as follows: 1. Address bicycle paths separately from sidewalks and other pedestrian ways. The ordinance was revised to move improvements pertaining to bicycle paths from section 32.7.2.3, Sidewalks and pedestrian paths, to section 32.7.2.2, Streets and travelways composing the internal road network 2. Ensure that the Ordinance allows for conditions being placed on grading permits issued after approval of the initial site plan. The ordinance was revised to clarify that, in conjunction with their review of the initial site plan, members of the Site Review Committee and the ARB may recommend to the program authority conditions to be imposed on the issuance of grading permits. 3. Clarify that a member of the Architectural Review Board's (the "ARB ") staff will serve on the Site Review Committee, not the ARB itself. The ordinance was revised to add a planner to the Site Review Committee whose sole role will be to evaluate the issues relevant to certificates of appropriateness that will be considered by the ARB. This role is limited only to those site plans for sites within an entrance corridor overlay district. 4. Address the ARB's authority to require changes to the layout of the site. The ordinance was revised to clarify the role of the ARB in its review of initial site plans. This issue is addressed more thoroughly in the Section B, above. D. Delayed Effective Date Staff recommends that this ordinance have an effective date of January 1, 2013. The delayed effective date will allow site plans currently under review to continue to be processed under the current regulations, allow time for staff training on the new regulations, allow new checklists, forms and letters, and online information to be developed, and allow time for staff to communicate with the professionals in the development community to ensure that the new procedures are AGENDA TITLE: Public Hearing: ZTA 2012 -009 Site Plan Process Improvements September 5, 2012 Page 5 understood. Preliminary and final site plans submitted before January 1, 2013 will be reviewed under the current regulations and must be approved by April 1, 2013 or be subject to the new regulations. A final site plan submitted after January 1, 2013 will be reviewed under the new regulations, even if its related preliminary site plan was approved prior to January 1, 2013. BUDGET IMPACT: Staff does not anticipate that this ordinance will result in the need for additional staff or funding. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A) after the public hearing with an effective date of January 1, 2013. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A — Proposed Zoning Text Amendment Attachment B — Planning Commission minutes of July 17 and May 15, 2012 Attachment C — Executive summary from July 17, 2012 Planning Commission public hearing Attachment D — Summary comparison of the existing and proposed processes Attachment E — County Code & 18- 30.6.4(c) and (d) Return to agenda