Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201200009 Legacy Document 2012-12-19 (24)Albemarle County Planning Commission July 17, 2012 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 17, 2012, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris and Russell (Mac) Lafferty. Commission members absent were Ed Smith and Bruce Dotson. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present. Staff present was Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; Christopher Perez, Senior Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. The Planning Commission took a ten minute break at 7:20 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m. ZTA- 2012 -00006 Ministerial Review Process Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 32, Site Plans, 35.1, Fees, and 35.2, Calculation of fees in special circumstances, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would add and delete definitions (3.1), repeal existing site plan regulations (32.1 through 32.7.10.2) and add new site plan regulations in Sec. 32 pertaining to general provisions (32.1 et seq.), applicability (32.2 et seq.), administration (32.3 et seq.), procedures for submittal, review and action on site plans (32.4 et seq.), the form and content of initial site plans (32.5 et seq.), the form and content of final site plans (32.6 et seq.), minimum standards for improvements (32.7 et seq.), and the completion of on -site improvements and surety (32.8 et seq.). This ordinance also would amend Sec. 35.1 to add a $500 fee for preapplication plans but which would also be applied toward the initial site plan fee, add a $240 fee for resubmitting a final site plan within 15 days after it has been disapproved for being incomplete, change references to fees for "preliminary" site plans to "initial" site plans, change cross - references to revised section numbers to which fees pertain. This ordinance also would amend Sec. 35.2 to change references to "preliminary" site plans to "initial" site plans. The proposed fees are authorized by Virginia Code §§ 15.2- 2241(9) and 15.2- 2286(A)(6). A copy of the full text of the ordinance, and documentation pertaining to the proposed fees, are on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Bill Fritz) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12 Mr. Fritz presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request for ZTA- 2012-06 Ministerial Review Process. Staff has done a lot of work on this. A lot of the slides the Commission have seen previously. It is a demonstration that this has been a process that has been ongoing and staff has been fine tuning the proposal. Clarifying the Goals • Shorten Approval Times and Cost of Development Review • Avoid Unnecessary and Burdensome Regulations • Maintain Opportunities for Public Info / Input • Maintain Community Quality Guiding Concepts (principles) • Predictable for applicants and citizens • Maintains opportunity for public input • Maintains quality development • Reduces approval time At the five work sessions and the two roundtables they kept coming back to the guiding concepts /principles. Key Elements in Proposed Ordinance • Preapplication submittal with review in 10 days to determine main issues and required waivers • Allow the issuance of grading permits with the approval of the initial (preliminary) site plan • Establish clearer submittal requirements for the final site plan • Allows for significant reduction in level of detail required for minor site plan amendments. • Provides for a purely administrative review process. • Incorporates the Architectural Review Board review earlier in the process. • Establish that any comment not responded to within 6 months deems the project withdrawn • Improves organization which makes interpretation and administration easier for both applicants and staff. • Uses language similar to that contained in the Subdivision Ordinance. • Updates language to match current state code language and court decisions. • Minor changes to fees. These items were taken directly from the staff report. There are some things that were not done significantly. One of the things was a reduction in plan content. It was one of the things they wanted to try to do. They did include a text amendment that will allow for rather significant reductions in the level of detail that needs to be included on minor site plan amendments so they can focus the review into the specific area where the change is occurring. Staff believes that will make it easier for the applicant, staff, and the public who is interested in the change. However, they felt if they were reducing the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 2 DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12 plan content for other plans, the initial plan and the final plan, that there could be a loss in the quality of the product. During the work sessions and roundtable discussions many comments were received. At the Roundtable 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. Staff took those comments and will work on those separate from the zoning text amendment. Some of the comments regarding the Architectural Review Board were relevant to the proposed ordinance amendments and staff will discuss those comments. 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. Roundtable Comments • Public Involvement • Grading Permits Prior to Final Plan Approval • Recommendations verses Requirements • Architectural Review Board Public Involvement Maintains public notification of the Site Review Committee Meeting and maintains the public's ability to provide comment on site plans One of the things they are going to do as part of the implementation of this zoning text amendment is that staff is going to develop new notices that go out to the public. Key elements of the notice will include what the project is, where plans may be viewed, who to contact at 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 also will 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 Approval After the approval of the initial plan a grading permit may be issued. The ordinance does not need to be amended because County Code § 17- 204(E). However, because the absence of express language in the site plan regulations was a concern raised by some at the most recent roundtable, staff has added Section 32.4.2.8 to expressly provide that, except within the entrance corridor overlay district, a grading permit may be issued upon approval of the initial site plan. During the most recent roundtable, concern was expressed about the types of conditions that may be imposed in conjunction with the approval of the initial site plan prior to the issuance of a ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 3 DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12 grading permit, especially conditions requested by the Architectural Review Board for those developments within the entrance corridor overlay district. 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 the current entrance corridor regulations in County Code � 18- 30.6.4 provides that a grading permit may not be issued until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued and the final site plan is approved. The new processes would permit the issuance of grading permits earlier than may currently occur. 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 proposed language of the ordinance opens the opportunity for grading permits to be issued earlier. There is no way they could be issued later than they currently are. Mr. Lafferty asked if he read that they need ARB approval to get a grading permit. Mr. Fritz replied that it is not that they need ARB approval to get a grading permit. What they need is approval of the initial plan. Staff is recommending that the Site Review Committee would approve the initial plan and state a grading permit may be issued once X, Y and Z are done. Mr. Lafferty asked if that was the whole committee. Mr. Fritz replied that was the whole committee. Staff is recommending that the Architectural Review Board be a member of that committee. If they have a condition they think needs to be met prior to the issuance of a grading permit they would say what their condition is and that would be placed on there. If they did not feel that a condition was necessary they would simply be silent on it and a grading permit could then be issued. Obviously, one routine condition will be approval of an erosion and sediment control plan. Mr. Lafferty said in the worse case it would revert back to the present requirement. Mr. Fritz agreed it would revert back to what they have right now. It would say the Architectural Review Board, Planning staff or Engineering staff needed more information before they thought a grading permit could be issued because utilities in the area were very shallow; gas lines; or they needed to get the site plan finalized. Therefore, they could not do it until they have the final plan and they would be right where they are right now. Mr. Kamptner asked Mr. Fritz to look at Section 32.4.2.8.b while they are on that point. He asked if they need to strike the opening clause and leave the discretion to the Architectural Review Board or to the Site Review Committee to impose a condition as to whether or not grading on a parcel within the Entrance Corridor can be allowed or prohibited only by a condition. Mr. Fritz asked that the question be restated. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 4 DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12 Mr. Kamptner asked should the first clause of Section 32.4.2.8.b that accepts the Entrance Corridor Overlay District from those situations where the initial site plan is the approved site plan for purposes of a grading permit. The way it was just described to the Commission was at the initial site plan review stage they could simply impose a condition that would require approval of the final site plan before the grading permit is issued. Mr. Fritz replied that was correct. However, he believed the language of Section 17.2.04.e has the language contained in it that the erosion sediment control plan will not be issued if found to be inconsistent with the approval of the plan or a feature of the plan. So by referencing that he thinks they are okay. He continued the PowerPoint presentation. Recommendations vs. Requirements There are instances where the ordinance does not allow the Site Review Committee to require changes to achieve improved site design or achieve a goal of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, recommendations will continue to be made. During the roundtable discussions and work sessions it has been emphasized that staff will continue to require 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. Staff will work on making a clear distinction. It is not envisioned that staff's level of review is going down at all or interest in the good quality product is going down. Architectural Review Board - 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. - The ordinance amendments only incorporate the Architectural Review Board into the site review process earlier than currently occurs. Significant discussion at the Roundtable occurred regarding the role of the Architectural Review Board. Many of the concerns stated at the Roundtable about the Architectural Review Board are beyond the scope of this text amendment. It really dealt with how the ARB does it own work, which staff believes is a separate and distinct conversation from this zoning text amendment. What this text amendment does and what it does not do is- - It does not alter in any way the authority of the Architectural Review Board. - It does not change the regulations or Design Standards of the Entrance Corridor District or the Architectural Review Board. - The ordinance amendments only incorporate the Architectural Review Board into the site review process earlier than currently occurs. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 5 DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12 The ARB will review all site plans that are within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District and they will make recommendations and requirements until they issue their Certificate of Appropriateness and a grading permit and plan cannot be approved until the ARB is satisfied and a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued. 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 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. Mr. Morris asked if that would be limited to the Entrance Corridor. Mr. Fritz replied that the Architectural Review Board would only be a Site Review Committee Member and only making comments for projects that are in the Entrance Corridor District. It is also important to note that during the work session that the Architectural Review Board had is that the Architectural Review Board as a body will not be reviewing these projects. They will be relying on staff. They are going to incorporate their own method of communicating back and forth, but it will be a staff person that is the committee member representing the Architectural Review Board. That is not unusual that they would say the Architectural Review Board. For example, they say VDOT is a member of the Site Review Committee, and obviously there is one representative of VDOT. There is one representative from the Albemarle County Service Authority. It is not the board that does it, but is one member. The Architectural Review Board is going to follow the same sort of process that those other organizations use. Mr. Lafferty asked how many of the committee members have to say yes before it goes through or the process goes forward because there are a lot of people on that committee. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 6 DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12 Mr. Fritz replied for the initial plan it was none. It would just be the staff person that is working with the Architectural Review Board. 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 /making comments on the initial plan with some coordination with the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Lafferty asked what happens if the project was outside of the Entrance Corridor. Mr. Fritz replied that the Architectural Review Board would not be involved. Mr. Lafferty asked how many members of the committee have to be present in the review process of the Site Review Committee. Mr. Fritz replied that process would not change from what they have now. Staff sends the plans to all the members of the Site Review Committee. Every member of the Site Review Committee needs to review the proposal to determine if it meets their minimum requirements for granting approval. If it does not they need to cite what it does not meet. That would continue. If one member, such as VDOT, says this does not meet the minimum site distance requirements and it can't be approved, then it cannot be approved. They have to look at how the ordinance relates and do they make it a condition or deny the initial. Typically what they do now is make it a condition instead of denying because typically it can be altered. Mr. Kamptner said Sections 32.4.2.2 and 32.4.2.8 on pages 42 and 45 both have subsections that deal with the role of the Architectural Review Board. As described this draft language does not refer to the representative of Architectural Review Board, it refers to the board itself. What they really want to be saying here is the representative of the Architectural Review Board. Mr. Fritz said they had this conversation before and he would welcome any comments. They don't say representative of the Albemarle County Service Authority. However, they are a member of the Site Review Committee. Obviously, it is a member of that Authority that they have routinely accepted. The United States Department of Agriculture has one person they talk to. They don't say their designee unless they think that because it is a County board they need to do something different. However, he did not see the need to do that since it is a day to day practice. Mr. Kamptner noted one thing they are trying to accomplish in these two sections is to define what is taking place at the initial site plan stage with respect to the architectural review. They are also trying to bring some closure to the issues that will be associated with the Certificate of Appropriateness. So Section 32.4.2.8 after discussing with some members of the public he realized that section requires further refinement. They are trying to narrow the issues that will be considered by the ARB as a Board once the final goes to the ARB so the issues are not completely reopened if they have done what was ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 7 DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12 either required or recommended by the ARB or the ARB's representative at the initial site plan stage. Mr. Fritz said they can certainly change it. He had no problem with writing into the ordinance to make it very clear that it is the representative of the Architectural Review Board. The ARB based on their work session would not be opposed to that either. Mr. Lafferty pointed out he would be more comfortable with that. Mr. Kamptner said staff will do that. They realize that those two sections just referred to need some further refinement and clarification and better linkage between the two. Mr. Fritz noted that was the end of the formal presentation. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission support this amendment and forward it to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public hearing and invited public comment. Valerie Long, attorney, thanked the Commission for suggesting that staff hold the roundtable discussion with the development community and others who are interested in it. As Mr. Morris can attest they had a lively discussion and she thought it was very productive. It was Mr. Randolph's suggestion initially to seek out opinions from Chamber of Commerce and others. Generally speaking she thinks the ordinance really goes in the right direction. She certainly applauds the initiative and effort on the staff's part to improve the process which is a goal they all share to make it more efficient for everyone and better serve the goals of the county. She had two comments. - It looks like the draft ordinance has been changed and updated since the Roundtable discussion, which has a date of July 10 on it. She was not able to figure out what changes were made from the prior draft because it looks like it just shows all the changes compared against the existing ordinance. It would be helpful to understand what those changes were at some point. It sounds like they incorporated comments from the Roundtable discussion, but yet she was not able with any ease to parse those out. - The other issue has to do with the grading permits. The way she understands the ordinance works now and she just reread it — there is a section in the current ordinance that if one has a planned zoning district one can actually get their grading permit before getting any site plan approval, including any ARB approvals, as long as the application plan that was approved with the rezoning showed enough detail with regard to grading and so forth that the county staff can review the erosion and sediment control grading plan for conformance with the application plan. That is a significant benefit, especially to large projects that require a lot of site work, to be able to get that grading permit on the front end while the site plan is being drawn by the engineers, reviewed by the county staff and ultimately approved. Especially for a long project the site plan process, even just the preliminary process, can take a year. It is an incredible benefit to a project to be able to go in and go ahead and get the grading permit. If she is ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 8 DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12 reading this properly it sounds like that process is going to be altered such that they may have to wait until they have at least preliminary site plan approval before getting the grading plan. If that was the case and she was reading that correctly, she would caution that is a major change for a Planned District Development projects that should take a little more work - It was said the process was not going to be any worse and actually they think it is going to get better. She thinks it all fits together very correctly. Morgan Butler, with the Southern Environmental Law Center, thanked staff primarily for separating tonight's ordinance amendments from the legislative ordinance amendments and allowing ministerial changes to be reviewed separately. Both issues are complex and it is helpful to separate them. Having followed this effort since its outset he did want to say there are several things in this large packet of proposed amendments that make sense. It includes filling out clear submittal requirements and reducing the level of detail required for minor site plan amendments. However, when he read the draft carefully and also looked at the staff report and read it carefully there are other suggested changes in here that jump out as being very problematic. Most of these were late to the effort to make it permissible to strip and grade the land as soon as a preliminary site plan is approved. He made the following comments. - His understanding based on the staff reports is that the current default rule is that a grading permit cannot be issued until a final site plan is approved. He thinks that was reiterated tonight although there is an exception for Planned Developments. Also, if the site is in an Entrance Corridor a grading permit cannot be issued until the ARB determines that the overall layout is consistent with Design Guidelines with natural features that would serve as good screens or buffers will be preserved. This makes sense as a default rule. It ensures that a site is not stripped and flattened based solely on a preliminary plan and it allows the ARB to make sure that those natural buffers and streams are not destroyed during grading. - There are circumstances where it makes sense to allow grading to occur sooner and before final site plan approval. The Water Protection Ordinance already recognizes this listing several instances in which a grading permit can be issued early. If that list in the Water Protection Ordinance is incomplete then let's focus on what additional exceptions need to be added to it rather than turning our current default rule on early grading inside out and making early grading the rule rather than the exception. Further, by trying to make early grading the default rule the draft runs into a number of problems. - First, the staff report suggests that whenever early grading would not be appropriate there can be protective conditions put on the issuance at the initial site plan to limit early grading. The staff report points to Section 2.04.e of the Water Protection Ordinance as staff's authority to impose those conditions. Having read that provision several times he thinks it is a very questionable interpretation of it. If they are being asked to rely on staff's authority to impose conditions to limit the damage from early grading it needs to be clear in the ordinance that authority actually exists. - A related problem and one he discussed with Mr. Kamptner earlier tonight is caused by the attempt to pull the ARB into the process earlier and have it review ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 9 DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12 initial site plans for issues related to site layout and landscaping. The staff report indicates that any ARB input on those items would merely be recommendations. The developer could ignore those and still get the initial site plan approved. Yet the first section 32.4.2.8 makes clear that once the initial site plan is approved the ARB cannot then revisit the issues related to site layout and landscaping as part of its review of a Certificate of Appropriateness. So in effect when the ARB does its earlier review apparently the only thing it can do is offer recommendations and yet it has been precluded by this later section from revisiting those items and making them requirements as part of the Certificate of Appropriateness. In effect the ARB's current authority to require items related to site layout and landscaping would be reduced to only the ability to recommend if he was reading the staff report correctly. They also heard tonight that the ARB won't actually be sitting on the Site Review Committee. It is only going to be minimally involved in this initial site plan review and will primarily be a staff person deciding what these important conditions relating to layout and landscaping are. - In short there are definitely some good ideas in this complex package of proposed amendments, but there are others that clearly require more thought and work. They don't think this is ready for a vote tonight. They urge staff to work with the public to address the problematic pieces before they decide whether to recommend it to the Board of Supervisors. Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, said Mr. Butler stated clearly some of the concerns that he had. In looking at the key elements contained in the attached zoning text amendment #6 incorporates the Architectural Review Board earlier in the process. When he was growing up his mother told him if they were going to be trying to catch that bee — catch it or be done with it because all you are going to have is an angry bee. He cannot imagine what an applicant when they receive comments, which will only be recommendations, because the ARB does not have statutory authority that it can point to say this is where a building goes. Then because of other concerns be it utilities, topography, or the Neighborhood Model they are forced to put the buildings somewhere the ARB did not recommend and then as someone who attends most of the ARB hearings they come before the ARB and the ARB says our staff person told you what we thought you needed to do — you did not do it. Now they are really in a mix here. He thinks the ARB does not belong in this process. - He firmly believes the ARB is in many respects can't balance the requirements that the other entities on the review committee have compared to the recommendations. The ARB inclusion in the site review process is a problem and needs to be addressed. - He also highlighted the same section as Mr. Butler with regard to a Certificate of Appropriateness. Really what the ARB would be doing is advocating the right for a Certificate of appropriateness to a staff member who is dealing with only the site plan issues. There is a lot more to the site plan issues. The balance needs to stay with the regulatory agencies that have codified powers rather than the recommendations. - In addition, there is a little bit of a tone throughout the ordinance that strikes a little bit of a balance that blames the applicant. There is a lot of good in here ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 10 DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12 about streamlining the application process and a pre - application process that actually is longer on the calendar, which makes it shorter than the current process. He was willing to give this a try, but did not believe that the ARB sections should be included. There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission for action. Mr. Fritz noted the one thing he wanted to be very clear on Ms. Long brought up is there is no change whatsoever in Section 8, which is the Planned Development sections. It would not affect in any way the ability to get a grading permit within a planned development prior to submitting either a site plan or a subdivision plat. Therefore, there is no change there. Mr. Lafferty said he would be remiss in saying they are requiring more of staff and they have less staff. It seems like every time they get a proposal it is indicating staff is taking on more and more responsibilities. They are understaffed now. It should be noted by the Board of Supervisors that there are things they have requested they have been told that is just not on the agenda because there is not enough staff to do. That is always of concern to him when he sees something like this. He had some specific questions. He asked the difference between streets, travel ways and bicycle ways, which are on pages 56 and 57 in section 32.7.2.3.c. Mr. Randolph said he takes exception to that since bicycling is not a pedestrian activity but a vehicular activity. Mr. Fritz said on section C they would want bicycle ways separated out from pathways and pedestrian ways. Mr. Lafferty said in 32.7.2.2 it refers to travel ways as vehicular access to site and later on talks about sidewalks, paths and bikeways. Since bicycles are defined as vehicles it looks like they are putting bike ways in separate category from streets and travel ways. He questioned why and asked staff to compare it to bike ways. Mr. Fritz replied travel ways are generally within the parking areas and streets are connecting parcels to each other. It is typical way they are using them. Mr. Lafferty said on 32.7.2.3.c when they talk about interconnectivity they specify connect to existing sidewalks, walkways and bicycle ways. Mr. Fritz pointed out he understood what he was saying about separating those. Mr. Lafferty said one concern was they have sidewalks and other pedestrian ways and travel ways and he would like to see the county get more proactive in getting multi - modal transportation and bicycles incorporated in our planning process ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 11 DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12 Mr. Fritz said that should be in the prior section and dealt with there in a more forceful way. He noted that streets are defined as a public or private thoroughfare which affords access to abutting property. Mr. Loach congratulated staff for the public notification since it important. In the end he thinks it will make their jobs easier because when staff gets calls those calls will be based on the contents of the letter. It will be more direct rather have staff explain all of that up front and then get to the questions. Grading was brought up by Mr. Butler and Ms. Long. His only question was by allowing early grading if they were setting themselves up to situations like Hollymead. He heard Ms. Long say it takes up to a year to get approval and he questioned if this change will make it more difficult. Mr. Fritz replied that they now can't leave sites open as long and have to stabilize the site. That was not the way the ordinance was when Hollymead was built. Mr. Loach noted that when listening to Mr. Butler's and Ms. Long's comments about the ARB it sounds like they are putting the ARB in a catch 22 position where they make a recommendation and can't be revisited. Staff said the ARB was a separate issue. However, he wonders if the issue Mr. Williamson brought up that the authority should be worked in the final language in this document as to what role the ARB is going to take in the process. He was not sure they have gotten to that point yet. Mr. Franco asked if in the example they were given is it a recommendation or requirement that the ARB says to rearrange the buildings despite the Neighborhood Model. That may never happen, but something they read in the newspaper recently. How is that resolved — is that a recommendation or requirement? Mr. Fritz replied the issue is the ARB or he in reviewing a project what he stressed to the Architectural Review Board is that if they are going to make it a requirement they need to be able to cite the provision or ordinance section that authorizes them to do that. If they can cite the provision that says under the authority of this section they can require this thing to occur, then it is a requirement. If there is no section number they can refer to, then it is a recommendation. That is the same as staff as to do right now. Mr. Kamptner noted in two of the three subsections that are referenced in those sections there are actual requirements that the ARB is authorized to impose related to two of those three issues under 30.6.4. Mr. Loach asked what stage that takes place. How can they make a recommendation on something they don't have the information and then can't do it afterward. It was the timing. He did not want to be in the position if he was the ARB to essentially make a recommendation based on something that he had not established the section and then not be able to be brought up later when he has the information to make his requirement based on his authority. It sounds like a Catch -22. It is a good idea the ARB to be brought in early, but it is nebulous on the authority and when they can cite their authority. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 12 DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12 Mr. Randolph said on page 57 in section 37.7.2.3 sidewalks and pedestrian ways shall be provided as follows — once again interconnectivity shows up in bicycle ways on abutting parcels. The more they get bicycles out of sidewalks and pedestrian ways and keep them in vehicular access the better on that. Flipping over on the other side to parking, there is no mention in here as they look at on -site parking about the impact of parking on traffic. Repeatedly now one of the issues they have been dealing with, even today, was about the impact of parking for a business on the traffic flow in the county. He was wondering if there was some way they can begin to formalize a process by which applicants really do begin to access in a meaningful way without getting in to detailed quantitative studies, but some meaningful way they can begin to access the impact of their project on traffic. Mr. Fritz replied that staff sees what is happening here as the first step in what he is talking about amongst other things. By making it administrative process for site plans the Planning Commission won't be involved in that and won't be hearing site plans any more. That means the Planning Commission will have more opportunity to spend time on those other ordinance amendments. All the parking issues are dealt with in another section, section 4, which are the design standards. What they are trying to do is set up a process where they would administer plans to ensure they met the minimum standards of ordinance and as a separate process go through and look at what the minimum design standards that the county wants. Then this process would simply implement those. That is a good comment and something they would want to bring forward to the Commission at a later date. Mr. Franco echoed Mr. Loach's concern about the ARB earlier in the process. He understands the statements made about requiring the ARB to cite a section of the ordinance. He was still unclear do they have the right to say rearrange the buildings when it may be contrary to the Neighborhood Model as a requirement. He asked if the ARB may require that under their current authority. Bringing them earlier in the process enables it to be thought longer. He thought that was Mr. Williamson's point that he was going to be wrestling that bee for a lot longer. Mr. Fritz replied that was part of his comment that much of the comments received deal really with how the ARB does its review and how it implements those things versus when and where it is doing those. They see that as a broader issue between the Architectural Review Board and potentially the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Kamptner said to also answer the question when in the process that part of the concerns that they have heard was they get the preliminary site plan approved and then go to the ARB and the ARB completely overturns the orientations of the buildings because they are now looking at the design guidelines. So where is the applicant at that point. They were trying perhaps unsuccessfully based on the language they have right now to have the big picture. They only chose the three issues that are the big picture issues that the ARB looks at to have those addressed up front at this stage. That is what they were trying to accomplish with these two sections. Staff will work on it some more to see if they can make it work. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 13 DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12 Mr. Franco said that he did not know if he loses standing if he did not have a preliminary plan that then goes to the ARB and they try to move things around. He asked if there are competing interests between the Neighborhood Model and the ARB then who decides. What is difficulty in here is that the ARB's ability to require something If they don't have that ability is very subjective. The concern is while it brings their comments sooner and he would know what their concerns are sooner he did not know that it was giving him any stronger ability to say yes but the Neighborhood Model requires me to do this. Mr. Cilimberg noted they have to remember that right now the Neighborhood Model is policy and it is not actually codified in a rezoning district. It is only codified for the Planned Development District that is called the Neighborhood Model District. So those rezonings and other development plan rezonings can stipulate locations of buildings in accordance with the Neighborhood Model which the ARB could not change. Beyond that any location of building is really up to the applicant in the site plan process not stipulated under the general provisions. Mr. Franco noted it was not any longer up to the applicant it is going to be up to the ARB. Mr. Cilimberg said he was saying where they locate buildings today and still can locate buildings under this proposed process for conventional zoning districts is what is allowed under the provisions of that conventional zoning district. They could choose to put a building up on a street, but actually they can't put the building as close as the parking can be to the street under our conventional zoning. Mr. Franco said he knew that was one of the things they have been working on. But can the ARB then come back through and even though he is in the envelope that is available to him per the zoning district and say no he wants that building in the back left corner instead. Mr. Cilimberg noted his question really was about what the ARB can require versus what they can recommend. Mr. Franco agreed. Mr. Fritz noted that is not changing at all. Mr. Graham said that was an excellent point. Right now they could have a preliminary plan approved with the buildings in a certain orientation and the ARB might not like that. But the ARB does not have the authority to require a different orientation. That does not change. That is still what is there. Maybe the ARB does not like that orientation. He thought what Mr. Cilimberg was saying and maybe what is needed here is a review of the distinctions between what the ARB may require versus what they may recommend. As far as what the ARB can require nothing has changed. The things the ARB can require today they will be able to require under this ordinance. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 14 DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12 Mr. Franco said he can understand that. However, it would be helpful to better understand what the ARB can require. Mr. Graham noted that was why he was saying perhaps a review with the Planning Commission of what specifically the ARB can require would help engage the comfort. Mr. Franco said he thought it was great if they involve the ARB earlier in the process and if they are able to provide recommendations that they think will enhance the plan. It would be left to the owner to make a decision whether they want to accept that or not. If he was going to wrestle that pig on recommendations only he would rather just do it once. Mr. Graham said they already see a lot of applicants who submit early specifically for that because they know they are going to have to deal with the recommendations of the ARB and they would just assume to find out early and determine what they can work with and what they can't work with and try to move forward with that information. This is simply formalizing getting that type of information early. Mr. Loach asked how many members of the ARB will be at these early meetings and if it will be the full ARB or just one person. Mr. Fritz replied that it would only be staff at the meeting and no ARB members. Mr. Franco pointed out staff was going to get the plan similar to the way VDOT gets it 30 days in advance or something and they will circulate it potentially to work out their own process by which the board as a whole might be able to see it. Mr. Fritz noted the format he believed the ARB is going to go with is the ARB is notified of all the projects that come in within the Entrance Corridor District. What they discussed at their work session is the staff person would develop their comments and forward them to the members of the ARB sometime prior to the Site Review Meeting. So if ARB members wanted to provide comment or feedback to the staff person they could. If they don't, then they don't. They would let the staff person do it. That was how the staff and the ARB members were going to work together and know what the comments were that was going out. However, it was not a meeting that they are holding. Mr. Morris said he did not want to beat a dead horse, but he completely agrees with Mr. Loach and Mr. Franco. He had a real hard time with the ARB representative being in so early. However, he also could surely see advantages to it as long as our recommendations were clear and then they don't come back and say well we recommended and you should have done it. It needs to be clarified. Mr. Franco said his experience from the past is with the creation of Mr. Fritz's position years ago that a lot of it has been separated. A lot of Mr. Fritz's efforts have been in separating recommendations from requirements. Therefore, he could see that as potentially the way this is going in helping to improve that process. He just wants to ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 15 DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12 voice his concern about it. One of the other points raised was the idea of the early grading permit so to speak being the standard now as opposed to the exception. He thought Mr. Butler raised the point about looking at the Water Protection Ordinance and seeing where it is allowed there. Mr. Fritz pointed out he believed Mr. Butler had some conversations with Mr. Kamptner. He talked with Mr. Kamptner about that just before the meeting and there are a few things that do need to be touched on there to ensure that through the site plan in Section 32 that there is sufficient language within the ordinance that would allow for conditions to be put in place or limitations to be put in place to ensure that whatever needed to be protected could be protected above and beyond what the Water Protection Ordinance has. He thought that was a valid comment and needs to be incorporated into ordinance. Mr. Franco noted his question to end things would be are they close enough with the comments they have for a recommendation. He asked what action staff is looking for. Mr. Lafferty said in summary if they are trying to stream line this process it might be helpful to provide the applicant if they are going to be in the Entrance Corridor with a sheet or whatever it takes saying that the ARB has these requirements and recommendations if they are going to be building in the Entrance Corridor. This would enable them to have some guidelines to go by. They heard the term subjectivity and he thought what Mr. Franco is trying to do and what he heard is to sort of codify this so there are fewer obstacles to overcome that may be subjective. Mr. Fritz said he hears a very clear statement by the Planning Commission that the ARB's role in applying the provisions of the Entrance Corridor District via it initially or as it is now at the end needs to be better clarified. That needs and should be done as part of this zoning text amendment. He asked if that was what he was hearing. The Planning Commission agreed. Mr. Randolph asked to add a point. As he went through this he was looking for a flow chart or a heuristic model that he could look at to try to understand the stages of the approval process. He is a visual person and it was very hard to find that in here. He thought that would enhance Ms. Long's point. Having such a chart for the applicant would make things much easier for them. Under the current process it goes to the ARB for a Certificate of Appropriate to be issued. Then it goes to the Planning Department, the site plan approval and then they get the Planning Department for the grading permit. Having the proposed process that is in here clarified visually he thought would be immensely helpful for the applicants and the Commissioners. Mr. Fritz pointed out that he was working on that today, but did not like the way it looked. He should have included it. Mr. Randolph said that a synopsis of just those powers versus recommendation capabilities in bullets would be helpful so they are generally known. There may be ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 16 DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12 really detailed situations where the ARB can recommend something. That probably is not so important. However, just knowing generally speaking what the power to require is and what is the power to recommend for the ARB on one page would be really useful if that is possible. Mr. Morris asked getting back to what Mr. Franco came up with he asked if staff has enough information and feedback. Mr. Franco asked if this was a work session. Mr. Fritz pointed out this was a public hearing. His opinion based on what he heard the Commission saying is they may be comfortable in forwarding this on to the Board of Supervisors knowing that staff was going to take a look at this and present that to the Board of Supervisors. The Board would more information about how the ARB will be doing its work and involved with the review of the initial plan. The Commission's desire is that it be clear what the recommendations and the requirements are and if the Board is comfortable that they have given them the information that outlined that based on a report or a presentation focusing on the ARB. Mr. Morris asked if the Commission feels comfortable with forwarding this on knowing that they are going to make the changes. Mr. Franco replied yes, but wanted to make sure since it was going to be in a motion that the issues that are going to be looked at by staff and resolved before it goes to the Board so to speak will be dealing with: 1. Dealing with the Architectural Review Board's process in how they do that. 2. The arrangement in the Code itself in the discussion on what a bike path /bike way is. 3. The early grading permit, so to speak, in trying to bring in the Water Protection Ordinance into that process a little bit better. Mr. Fritz noted in addition it was also clarifying that it is the ARB staff and not the full ARB. Mr. Franco agreed and that he was comfortable recommending approval and moving it on to the Board. Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to recommend approval of ZTA- 2012 -00009 Ministerial Review Process (site plan process improvement) as outlined in Attachment A of the staff report with the four conditions as mentioned previously. 1. Address the Architectural Review Board's authority to require changes to the layout of the site. 2. Address bike paths separately from sidewalks and other pedestrian ways. Incorporate bike paths as transportation. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 17 DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12 3. Insure that the ordinance allows for the placement of conditions on the issuance of a grading permit as part of initial approval. 4. The ARB staff and not the full ARB is on Site Review Committee Mr. Cilimberg clarified that this is the Planning Commission's recommendation with the things that need to be addressed. Mr. Morris agreed. The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Dotson, Smith absent) Mr. Lafferty thanked staff for their efforts. Mr. Fritz noted that Mr. Kamptner deserved much of the credit since he is the one who has really spent the time making sure they have not duplicated sections and they all refer back and forth to each other in the proper order. ZTA- 2012 -00009 Ministerial Review Process Improvements (site plans) would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for adoption with conditions as outlined. Return to exec summ ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 18 DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12